Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Notices 44565 

than 5:00 p.m. EST on October 10, 2017. 

Comments received after October 10, 

2017, will be distributed to the 

Committee, but may not be considered 

at the meetings. The minutes of the 

meetings will be posted on the 

Committee Web site within 60 days of 

the meeting. 

Dated: September 19, 2017. 

Maureen Smith, 

Director, Office of Supply Chain. 

[FR Doc. 2017–20386 Filed 9–22–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

Visiting Committee on Advanced 

Technology 

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of partially closed 

meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Visiting Committee on 

Advanced Technology (VCAT or 

Committee), National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST), will 

meet Monday, October 23, 2017 from 

8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time and 

Tuesday, October 24, 2017 from 8:30 

a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Eastern Time. The 

VCAT is composed of not fewer than 9 

members appointed by the NIST 

Director, a majority of whom are 

eminent in such fields as business, 

research, new product development, 

engineering, labor, education, 

management consulting, environment, 

and international relations. 

DATES: The VCAT will meet on Monday, 

October 23, 2017 from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 

p.m. Eastern Time and Tuesday, 

October 24, 2017 from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 

p.m. Eastern Time. The portion of the 

meeting that is closed to the public will 

take place on Tuesday, October 24, 2017 

from 8:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in 

the Portrait Room, Administration 

Building, at NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, 

Gaithersburg, Maryland, 20899. Please 

note admittance instructions under the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Serena Martinez, VCAT, NIST, 100 

Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1060, 

Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899–1060, 

telephone number 301–975–2661. Mrs. 

Martinez’s email address is 

serena.martinez@nist.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 278, as amended, 

and the Federal Advisory Committee 

Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. 

The purpose of this meeting is for the 

VCAT to review and make 

recommendations regarding general 

policy for NIST, its organization, its 

budget, and its programs within the 

framework of applicable national 

policies as set forth by the President and 

the Congress. The agenda will include 

an update on major programs at NIST. 

In addition, the meeting will include 

presentations and discussions on 

priorities for the NIST Laboratory 

Programs over the next decade. The 

Committee will also be briefed on plans 

to improve research services and 

support. During a closed session on 

October 24, 2017 from 8:30 a.m. until 

10:30 a.m., the VCAT will discuss 

NIST’s security posture, including 

recent incidents and planned 

improvements. The agenda may change 

to accommodate Committee business. 

The final agenda will be posted on the 

NIST Web site at http://www.nist.gov/ 

director/vcat/agenda.cfm. 

Individuals and representatives of 

organizations who would like to offer 

comments and suggestions related to the 

Committee’s affairs are invited to 

request a place on the agenda. On 

Monday, October 23, approximately 

one-half hour in the afternoon will be 

reserved for public comments and 

speaking times will be assigned on a 

first-come, first-serve basis. The amount 

of time per speaker will be determined 

by the number of requests received, but 

is likely to be about 3 minutes each. The 

exact time for public comments will be 

included in the final agenda that will be 

posted on the NIST Web site at http:// 

www.nist.gov/director/vcat/agenda.cfm. 

Questions from the public will not be 

considered during this period. Speakers 

who wish to expand upon their oral 

statements, those who had wished to 

speak but could not be accommodated 

on the agenda, and those who were 

unable to attend in person are invited to 

submit written statements to VCAT, 

NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, MS 1060, 

Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899, via fax at 

301–216–0529 or electronically by email 

to stephanie.shaw@nist.gov. 

All visitors to the NIST site are 

required to pre-register to be admitted. 

Please submit your name, time of 

arrival, email address and phone 

number to Serena Martinez by 5:00 p.m. 

Eastern Time, Friday, October 13, 2017. 

Non-U.S. citizens must submit 

additional information; please contact 

Mrs. Martinez. Mrs. Martinez’s email 

address is serena.martinez@nist.gov and 

her phone number is 301–975–2661. For 

participants attending in person, please 

note that federal agencies, including 

NIST, can only accept a state-issued 

driver’s license or identification card for 

access to federal facilities if such license 

or identification card is issued by a state 

that is compliant with the REAL ID Act 

of 2005 (Pub. L. 109–13), or by a state 

that has an extension for REAL ID 

compliance. NIST currently accepts 

other forms of federal-issued 

identification in lieu of a state-issued 

driver’s license. For detailed 

information please contact Mrs. 

Martinez at 301–975–2661 or visit: 

http://nist.gov/public_affairs/visitor/. 

Kevin Kimball, 

NIST Chief of Staff. 

[FR Doc. 2017–20374 Filed 9–22–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XF330 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to a Geophysical 

Survey in the Central Pacific Ocean 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; Issuance of an Incidental 

Harassment Authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

regulations implementing the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as 

amended, notification is hereby given 

that NMFS has issued an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) to the 

University of Hawaii (UH) to 

incidentally take, by Level A and Level 

B harassment only, marine mammals 

during a marine geophysical survey in 

the Central Pacific Ocean. 

DATES: This Authorization is valid from 

September 14, 2017 through September 

13, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jordan Carduner, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

Electronic copies of the application and 

supporting documents, as well as a list 

of the references cited in this document, 

may be obtained online at: 

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

incidental/research.htm. In case of 

problems accessing these documents, 

please call the contact listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
44566 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Notices 

Background 

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

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

the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated 

to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the 

incidental, but not intentional, taking of 

small numbers of marine mammals by 

U.S. citizens who engage in a specified 

activity (other than commercial fishing) 

within a specified geographical region if 

certain findings are made and either 

regulations are issued or, if the taking is 

limited to harassment, a notice of a 

proposed 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. 

The MMPA states that the term ‘‘take’’ 

means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or 

attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill 

any marine mammal. 

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). 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

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

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

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

incidental harassment authorization) 

with respect to potential impacts on the 

human environment. Accordingly, 

NMFS prepared an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) to consider the 

environmental impacts associated with 

the issuance of the IHA to UH. We 

reviewed all comments submitted in 

response to the Federal Register notice 

for the proposed IHA (82 FR 34352; July 

24, 2017) prior to concluding our NEPA 

process and deciding whether or not to 

issue a Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI). NMFS concluded that issuance 

of an IHA to UH would not significantly 

affect the quality of the human 

environment and prepared and issued a 

FONSI in accordance with NEPA and 

NAO 216–6A. NMFS’ EA and FONSI for 

this activity are available on our Web 

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

permits/incidental. 

Summary of Request 

On March 15, 2016, NMFS received a 

request from the UH for an IHA to take 

marine mammals incidental to 

conducting a marine geophysical survey 

in the central Pacific Ocean. On May 16, 

2017, we deemed UH’s application for 

authorization to be adequate and 

complete. UH’s request is for take of a 

small number of 24 species of marine 

mammals by Level B harassment and 

Level A harassment. Neither UH nor 

NMFS expects mortality to result from 

this activity, and, therefore, an IHA is 

appropriate. The planned activity is not 

expected to exceed one year, hence, we 

do not expect subsequent MMPA 

incidental harassment authorizations 

would be issued for this particular 

activity. 

Description of Activity 

Overview 

UH, in collaboration with the Japan 

Agency for Marine-Earth Science and 

Technology (JAMSTEC), proposes to 

conduct a marine seismic survey north 

of Hawaii in the central Pacific Ocean 

over the course of five and a half days 

in September 2017. The survey would 

occur north of the Hawaiian Islands, in 

the approximate area 22.6–25.0° N and 

153.5–157.4° W (See Figure 1 in IHA 

application). The project area is partly 

within the exclusive economic zone 

(EEZ) of the United States and partly in 

adjacent international waters. Water 

depths in the area range from 4,000 to 

5,000 meters (m). The survey would 

involve one source vessel, the Japanflagged R/V (research vessel) Kairei. The 

Kairei would deploy a 32-airgun array 

with a total volume of ∼7800 cubic 

inches (in3) as an energy source. A 

detailed description of UH’s planned 

activity is provided in the Federal 

Register notice for the proposed IHA (82 

FR 34352; July 24, 2017). Since that 

time, no changes have been made to the 

planned activities. Therefore, a detailed 

description is not provided here. Please 

refer to that Federal Register notice for 

the description of the specific activity. 

Comments and Responses 

NMFS published a notice of proposed 

IHA in the Federal Register on July 24, 

2017 (82 FR 34352; July 24, 2017). 

During the 30-day public comment 

period, NMFS received a comment letter 

from the Marine Mammal Commission 

(Commission) as well as one comment 

from a member of the general public. 

NMFS has posted the comments online 

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

permits/incidental. NMFS addresses 

any comments specific to UH’s 

application related to the statutory and 

regulatory requirements or findings that 

NMFS must make under the MMPA in 

order to issue an Authorization. The 

following is a summary of the public 

comments and NMFS’ responses. 

Comment 1: The Commission 

expressed concerns regarding UH’s 

method to estimate the extent of the 

Level A and B harassment zones and the 

numbers of marine mammal takes. The 

Commission stated that the model is not 

the best available science because it 

assumes spherical spreading, a constant 

sound speed, and no bottom 

interactions for surveys in deep water. 

In light of their concerns, the 

Commission recommended that NMFS 

require UH, in collaboration with 

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of 

Columbia University (LDEO) (which 

performed the modeling of Level A and 

Level B harassment zones and estimated 

takes) to re-estimate the Level A and 

Level B harassment zones and 

associated takes of marine mammals 

using both operational (including 

number/type/spacing of airguns, tow 

depth, source level/operating pressure, 

operational volume) and site-specific 

environmental (including sound speed 

profiles, bathymetry, and sediment 

characteristics at a minimum) 

parameters. The Commission also 

expressed concern that LDEO used a 

high-pass filter for modeling the 

unweighted peak sound pressure level 

(SPLpeak) thresholds, and stated that use 

of the full bandwidth is appropriate 

given that the thresholds themselves 

were based on responses of the animals 

to the full frequency spectrum of the 

airgun pulses, not a filtered bandwidth. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

Commission’s concerns about LDEO’s 

current modeling approach for 

estimating Level A and Level B 

harassment zones and takes. UH’s 

application (LGL, 2017) and the Federal 

Register notice for the proposed IHA (82 

FR 34352; July 24, 2017) describe the 

applicant’s approach to modeling Level 

A and Level B harassment zones. The 

model LDEO currently uses does not 

allow for the consideration of 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Notices 44567 

environmental and site-specific 

parameters as requested by the 

Commission. NMFS continues to work 

with LDEO to address the issue of 

incorporating site-specific information 

to further inform the analysis and 

development of mitigation measures in 

oceanic and coastal areas for future 

seismic surveys. The use of models for 

estimating the size of ensonified areas 

and for developing take estimates is not 

a requirement of the MMPA incidental 

take authorization process, and NMFS 

does not provide specific guidance on 

model parameters nor prescribe a 

specific model for applicants at this 

time. We recognize that there is no 

model or approach that is always the 

most appropriate and that there may be 

multiple approaches that may be 

considered acceptable and, in this case, 

LDEO’s current modeling approach 

represents the best available information 

to inform authorized take levels and 

also NMFS’ determinations under the 

MMPA. NMFS finds that the Level A 

and Level B harassment zone 

calculations conducted by LDEO are 

reasonable for use in this particular 

IHA. Further, the results of modeling 

(e.g., take estimates) is just one 

component of the analysis during the 

MMPA authorization process as NMFS 

also takes into consideration other 

factors associated with the activity (e.g., 

geographic location, duration of 

activities, context, sound source 

intensity, etc.). 

With regard to the Commission’s 

concern regarding LDEO’s use of a highpass filter for modeling the unweighted 

SPLpeak thresholds, NMFS has reviewed 

the best available information and we 

agree that the Commission’s concern is 

valid. Since the thresholds were based 

on responses of the animals to the full 

frequency spectrum of the airgun 

pulses, not a filtered bandwidth, we 

agree that use of the full bandwidth is 

appropriate. Therefore, we have revised 

the modeled distances to the Level A 

harassment threshold (SPLpeak) that we 

rely on for estimating Level A takes, 

from those described in the Federal 

Register notice for the proposed IHA (82 

FR 34352; July 24, 2017) to those shown 

in Table 6 in this document, which have 

no band pass filtering applied. 

Comment 2: The Commission 

expressed concern that the method used 

to estimate the numbers of takes, which 

summed fractions of takes for each 

species across project days, does not 

account for and negates the intent of 

NMFS’ 24-hour reset policy. 

NMFS Response: We appreciate the 

Commission’s ongoing concern in this 

matter. Calculating predicted takes is 

not an exact science and there are 

arguments for taking different 

mathematical approaches in different 

situations, and for making qualitative 

adjustments in other situations. We 

believe, however, that the methodology 

used for take calculation in this IHA 

remains appropriate and is not at odds 

with the 24-hour reset policy the 

Commission references. 

Comment 3: The Commission 

questioned why NMFS did not propose 

to prohibit the use of power downs and 

recommended that NMFS use a 

consistent approach for requiring all 

geophysical survey operators to abide by 

the same general mitigation measures, 

including prohibiting UH from using 

power downs during its survey. 

NMFS Response: NMFS agrees with 

the Commission that consistency in 

mitigation measures across ITAs for 

similar activities is a worthwhile goal, 

to the extent practicable. NMFS also 

agrees with the Commission that 

limiting the use of power downs can be 

beneficial in reducing the overall sound 

input in the marine environment from 

geophysical surveys; as such, NMFS is 

requiring that power downs in this IHA 

occur for no more than a maximum of 

30 minutes at any time. The 

requirement for a 30 minute maximum 

for power downs represents a change to 

the mitigation measures from those 

proposed in the Federal Register notice 

of the proposed IHA (82 FR 34352, July 

24, 2017) and is reflected in the 

mitigation measures in the issued IHA. 

NMFS is still in the process of 

determining best practice, via 

solicitation of public comment, for the 

use of power downs as a mitigation 

measure in ITAs for geophysical 

surveys. We will take into consideration 

the Commission’s recommendation that 

power downs be eliminated as a 

mitigation measure as we work toward 

a determination on best practices for the 

use of power downs in IHAs for marine 

geophysical surveys. We will also 

review the comments received in 

response to the Federal Register notice 

for proposed IHAs for marine 

geophysical surveys in the Atlantic 

Ocean (82 FR 26244, June 6, 2017) to 

help inform that determination; we are 

still reviewing those comments at this 

time. Ultimately our determination will 

be based on the best available science 

and will be communicated clearly to 

ITA applicants. 

Comment 4: The Commission 

expressed concern that reporting of the 

manner of taking and the numbers of 

animals incidentally taken should 

account for all animals in the various 

survey areas, including those animals 

directly on the trackline that are not 

detected and how well animals are 

detected based on the distance from the 

observer (accounted for by g(0) and f(0) 

values). The Commission has 

recommended a method for estimating 

the number of cetaceans in the vicinity 

of geophysical surveys based on the 

number of groups detected and 

recommended that NMFS require UH to 

use this method for estimating g(0) and 

f(0) values to better estimate the 

numbers of marine mammals taken by 

Level A and Level B harassment. 

NMFS response: NMFS agrees that 

reporting of the manner of taking and 

the numbers of animals incidentally 

taken should account for all animals 

taken, including those animals directly 

on the trackline that are not detected 

and how well animals are detected 

based on the distance from the observer, 

to the extent practicable. NMFS has 

provided the Commission’s 

recommended method for estimating 

g(0) and f(0) values to previous 

applicants for similar activities (i.e., 

research-based geophysical surveys). We 

have received feedback in response that 

those applicants are concerned with 

some aspects of the Commission’s 

method, including that the probability 

values recommended by the 

Commission’s recommended method 

involve assumptions that are not met by 

the surveys conducted aboard research 

geophysical vessels and that, as such, 

derived f(0) values for research 

geophysical surveys would not be 

suitable for refining the number of 

cetaceans potentially taken incidentally 

during these surveys. NMFS requires in 

this IHA that takes reported in UH’s 

monitoring report include an estimate 

that accounts for all animals 

incidentally taken, including those on 

the trackline but not detected, but at this 

time we do not prescribe a particular 

method for accomplishing this task. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Section 4 of the application 

summarizes available information 

regarding status and trends, distribution 

and habitat preferences, and behavior 

and life history, of the potentially 

affected species. Additional information 

regarding population trends and threats 

may be found in NMFS’ Stock 

Assessment Reports (SAR; 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/), and more 

general information about these species 

(e.g., physical and behavioral 

descriptions) may be found on NMFS’ 

Web site (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ 

species/mammals/). 

Table 1 lists all species with expected 

potential for occurrence in the central 

Pacific Ocean and summarizes 

information related to the population or 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
44568 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Notices 

stock, including regulatory status under 

the MMPA and ESA and potential 

biological removal (PBR), where known. 

For taxonomy, we follow Committee on 

Taxonomy (2016). PBR is defined by the 

MMPA as the maximum number of 

animals, not including natural 

mortalities, that may be removed from a 

marine mammal stock while allowing 

that stock to reach or maintain its 

optimum sustainable population (as 

described in NMFS’ SARs). While no 

mortality is anticipated or authorized 

here, PBR and annual serious injury and 

mortality from anthropogenic sources 

are included here as gross indicators of 

the status of the species and other 

threats. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals that 

make up a given stock or the total 

number estimated within a particular 

study or survey area. NMFS’ stock 

abundance estimates for most species 

represent the total estimate of 

individuals within the geographic area, 

if known, that comprises that stock. For 

some species, this geographic area may 

extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed 

stocks in this region are assessed in 

NMFS’ U.S. Pacific SARs (e.g., Carretta 

et al., 2017). All values presented in 

Table 1 are the most recent available at 

the time of publication and are available 

in the 2016 SARs (Carretta et al., 2017), 

available online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ 

pr/sars, except where noted otherwise. 

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

Species Stock 

ESA/MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 2

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 3

PBR 4 Relative occurrence 

in project area 

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family: Balaenopteridae 

Humpback whale 

(Megaptera 

novaeangliae) 5.

Central North Pacific .......... -/-; N 10,103 (0.300; 7,890; 

2006).

83 Seasonal; throughout 

known breeding grounds 

during winter and spring 

(most common November through April). 

Blue Whale (Balaenoptera 

musculus).

Central North Pacific .......... E/D; Y 81 (1.14; 38; 2010) ............ 0.1 Seasonal; infrequent winter 

migrant; few sightings, 

mainly fall and winter; 

considered rare. 

Fin whale (Balaenoptera 

physalus.

Hawaii ................................ E/D; Y 58 (1.12; 27; 2010) ............ 0.1 Seasonal, mainly fall and 

winter; considered rare. 

Sei whale (Balaenoptera 

borealis).

Hawaii ................................ E/D; Y 178 (0.90; 93; 2010) .......... 0.2 Rare; limited sightings of 

seasonal migrants that 

feed at higher latitudes. 

Bryde’s whale 

(Balaenoptera brydei/ 

edeni).

Hawaii ................................ -/-; N 798 (0.28; 633; 2010) ........ 6.3 Uncommon; distributed 

throughout the Hawaiian 

Exclusive Economic 

Zone. 

Minke whale (Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata).

Hawaii ................................ -/-; N n/a (n/a; n/a; 2010) ............ Undet. Seasonal, mainly fall and 

winter; considered rare. 

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

Family: Physeteridae 

Sperm whale (Physeter 

macrocephalus).

Hawaii ................................ E/D; Y 3,354 (0.34; 2,539; 2010) .. 10.2 Widely distributed year 

round. 

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

Family: Kogiidae 

Pygmy sperm whale 6

(Kogia breviceps).

Hawaii ................................ -/-; N 7,139 (2.91; n/a; 2006) ...... Undet. Widely distributed year 

round. 

Dwarf sperm whale 6 (Kogia 

sima).

Hawaii ................................ -/-; N 17,519 (7.14; n/a; 2006) .... Undet. Widely distributed year 

round. 

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

Family delphinidae 

Killer whale (Orcinus orca) Hawaii ................................ -/-; N 101 (1.00; 50; 2010) .......... 1 Uncommon; infrequent 

sightings. 

False killer whale 

(Pseudorca crassidens).

Hawaii Pelagic ................... -/-; N 1,540 (0.66; 928; 2010) ..... 9.3 Regular. 

Pygmy killer whale (Feresa 

attenuata).

Hawaii ................................ -/-; N 3,433 (0.52; 2,274; 2010) .. 23 Year-round resident. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Notices 44569 

TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMALS THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE PROJECT AREA—Continued 

Species Stock 

ESA/MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 2

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 3

PBR 4 Relative occurrence 

in project area 

Short-finned pilot whale 

(Globicephala 

macrorhynchus).

Hawaii ................................ -/-; N 12,422 (0.43; 8,872; 2010) 70 Commonly observed 

around Main Hawaiian 

Islands and Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. 

Melon headed whale 

(Peponocephala electra).

Hawaiian Islands ................ -/-; N 5,794 (0.20; 4,904; 2010) .. 4 Regular. 

Bottlenose dolphin 

(Tursiops truncatus).

Hawaii pelagic .................... -/-; N 5,950 (0.59; 3,755; 2010) .. 38 Common in deep offshore 

waters. 

Pantropical spotted dolphin 

(Stenella attenuata).

Hawaii pelagic .................... -/-; N 15,917 (0.40; 11,508; 

2010).

115 Common; primary occurrence between 100 and 

4,000 m depth. 

Striped dolphin (Stenella 

coeruleoala).

Hawaii ................................ -/-; N 20,650 (0.36; 15,391; 

2010).

154 Occurs regularly year 

round but infrequent 

sighting during survey. 

Spinner dolphin 6 (Stenella 

longirostris).

Hawaii pelagic .................... -/-; N 3,351 (0.74; n/a; 2006) ...... Undet. Common year-round in offshore waters. 

Rough-toothed dolphin 

(Steno bredanensis).

Hawaii ................................ -/-; N 6,288 (0.39; 4,581; 2010) .. 46 Common throughout the 

Main Hawaiian Islands 

and Hawaiian Islands 

EEZ. 

Fraser’s dolphin 

(Lagenodelphis hosei).

Hawaii ................................ -/-; N 16,992 (0.66; 10,241; 

2010).

102 Tropical species only recently documented within 

Hawaiian Islands EEZ 

(2002 survey). 

Risso’s dolphin (Grampus 

griseus).

Hawaii ................................ -/-; N 7,256 (0.41; 5,207; 2010) .. 42 Previously considered rare 

but multiple sightings in 

Hawaiian Islands EEZ 

during various surveys 

conducted from 2002– 

2012. 

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

Family: Ziphiidae 

Cuvier’s beaked whale 

(Ziphius cavirostris).

Hawaii ................................ -/-; N 1,941 (n/a; 1,142; 2010) .... 11.4 Year-round occurrence but 

difficult to detect due to 

diving behavior. 

Blainville’s beaked whale 

(Mesoplodon densirostris).

Hawaii ................................ -/-; N 2,338 (1.13; 1,088; 2010) .. 11 Year-round occurrence but 

difficult to detect due to 

diving behavior. 

Longman’s beaked whale 

(Indopacetus pacificus).

Hawaii ................................ -/-; N 4,571 (0.65; 2,773; 2010) .. 28 Considered rare; however, 

multiple sightings during 

2010 survey. 

1Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is 

not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct 

human-caused mortality exceeds PBR (see footnote 3) or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the 

foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2Abundance estimates from Carretta et al. (2017) unless otherwise noted. 3 CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. For certain stocks, 

abundance estimates are actual counts of animals and there is no associated CV. The most recent abundance survey that is reflected in the 

abundance estimate is presented; there may be more recent surveys that have not yet been incorporated into the estimate. 4Potential biological removal (PBR), defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be 

removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population size (OSP). 5Values for humpback whale are from the 2015 Alaska SAR (Muto et al., 2015). 6Values for spinner dolphin, dwarf and pygmy sperm whale are from Barlow et al. (2006). 

All species that could potentially 

occur in the survey area are included in 

Table 1. We have reviewed UH’s species 

descriptions, including life history 

information, distribution, regional 

distribution, diving behavior, and 

acoustics and hearing, for accuracy and 

completeness. We refer the reader to 

Section 4 of UH’s IHA application, 

rather than reprinting the information 

here. A detailed description of the 

species likely to be affected by UH’s 

survey, including brief introductions to 

the species and relevant stocks as well 

as available information regarding 

population trends and threats, and 

information regarding local occurrence, 

were provided in the Federal Register 

notice for the proposed IHA (82 FR 

34352; July 24, 2017). Since that time, 

we are not aware of any changes in the 

status of these species and stocks; 

therefore, detailed descriptions are not 

provided here. Please refer to that 

Federal Register notice for these 

descriptions. Please also refer to NMFS’ 

Web site (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
44570 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Notices 

species/mammals/) for generalized 

species accounts 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

The effects of underwater noise from 

marine geophysical survey activities 

have the potential to result in behavioral 

harassment and, in a limited number of 

instances, auditory injury (PTS) of 

marine mammals in the vicinity of the 

action area. The Federal Register notice 

for the proposed IHA (82 FR 34352; July 

24, 2017) included a discussion of the 

effects of anthropogenic noise on marine 

mammals and their habitat, therefore 

that information is not repeated here; 

please refer to the Federal Register 

notice (82 FR 34352; July 24, 2017) for 

that information. No instances of serious 

injury or mortality are expected as a 

result of UH’s survey activities. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes 

authorized through the IHA, which 

informs both NMFS’ consideration of 

whether the number of takes is ‘‘small’’ 

and the negligible impact 

determination. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: any act 

of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which 

(i) has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

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

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering (Level B 

harassment). 

Authorized takes would primarily be 

by Level B harassment, as use of the 

seismic airguns have the potential to 

result in disruption of behavioral 

patterns for individual marine 

mammals. There is also some potential 

for auditory injury (Level A harassment) 

to result, primarily for mysticetes and 

high frequency cetaceans (i.e., kogiidae 

spp.), due to larger predicted auditory 

injury zones for those functional hearing 

groups. Auditory injury is unlikely to 

occur for mid-frequency species given 

very small modeled zones of injury for 

those species. The mitigation and 

monitoring measures are expected to 

minimize the severity of such taking to 

the extent practicable. 

As described previously, no mortality 

is anticipated or authorized for this 

activity. Below we describe how the 

take is estimated. 

Described in the most basic way, we 

estimate take by considering: (1) 

Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS 

believes the best available science 

indicates marine mammals will be 

behaviorally harassed or incur some 

degree of permanent hearing 

impairment; (2) the area or volume of 

water that will be ensonified above 

these levels in a day; (3) the density or 

occurrence of marine mammals within 

these ensonified areas; and (4) and the 

number of days of activities. Below, we 

describe these components in more 

detail and present the exposure estimate 

and associated numbers of take 

authorized. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

Using the best available science, 

NMFS has developed acoustic 

thresholds that identify the received 

level of underwater sound above which 

exposed marine mammals would be 

reasonably expected to be behaviorally 

harassed (equated to Level B 

harassment) or to incur permanent 

threshold shift (PTS) of some degree 

(equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment for non-explosive 

sources—Though significantly driven by 

received level, the onset of behavioral 

disturbance from anthropogenic noise 

exposure is also informed to varying 

degrees by other factors related to the 

source (e.g., frequency, predictability, 

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

bathymetry), and the receiving animals 

(hearing, motivation, experience, 

demography, behavioral context) and 

can be difficult to predict (Southall et 

al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2011). Based on 

the best available science and the 

practical need to use a threshold based 

on a factor that is both predictable and 

measurable for most activities, NMFS 

uses a generalized acoustic threshold 

based on received level to estimate the 

onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS 

predicts that marine mammals are likely 

to be behaviorally harassed in a manner 

we consider to fall under Level B 

harassment when exposed to 

underwater anthropogenic noise above 

received levels of 120 decibels (dB) re 

1 micropascal (mPa) root mean square 

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

mPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive 

(e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent 

(e.g., scientific sonar) sources. UH’s 

activity includes the use of impulsive 

seismic sources. Therefore, the 160 dB 

re 1 mPa (rms) criteria is applicable for 

analysis of level B harassment. 

Level A harassment for non-explosive 

sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance 

for Assessing the Effects of 

Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing (NMFS, 2016) 

identifies dual criteria to assess auditory 

injury (Level A harassment) to five 

different marine mammal groups (based 

on hearing sensitivity) (Table 2) as a 

result of exposure to noise from two 

different types of sources (impulsive or 

non-impulsive). The Technical 

Guidance identifies the received levels, 

or thresholds, above which individual 

marine mammals are predicted to 

experience changes in their hearing 

sensitivity for all underwater 

anthropogenic sound sources, reflects 

the best available science, and better 

predicts the potential for auditory injury 

than does NMFS’ historical criteria. 

TABLE 2—MARINE FUNCTIONAL MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS AND THEIR GENERALIZED HEARING RANGES

Hearing group Generalized hearing 

range * 

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

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

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

L. australis).

275 Hz to 160 kHz. 

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

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

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

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

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


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Notices 44571 

These thresholds were developed by 

compiling and synthesizing the best 

available science and soliciting input 

multiple times from both the public and 

peer reviewers to inform the final 

product, and are provided in Table 3 

below. The references, analysis, and 

methodology used in the development 

of the thresholds are described in NMFS 

2016 Technical Guidance, which may 

be accessed at: http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/ 

guidelines.htm. As described above, 

UH’s activity includes the use of 

intermittent and impulsive seismic 

sources. 

TABLE 3—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT IN MARINE MAMMALS

Hearing Group 

PTS onset thresholds 

Impulsive * Non-impulsive 

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

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

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

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

should also be considered. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

that will feed into estimating the area 

ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds. 

The survey would entail use of a 32- 

airgun array with a total discharge of 

7,800 in3 at a tow depth of 10 m. The 

distance to the predicted isopleth 

corresponding to the threshold for Level 

B harassment (160 dB re 1 mPa) was 

calculated based on results of modeling 

performed by LDEO. Received sound 

levels were predicted by LDEO’s model 

(Diebold et al. 2010) as a function of 

distance from the full 32-airgun array as 

well as for a single 100 in3 airgun, 

which would be used during powerdowns. The LDEO modeling approach 

uses ray tracing for the direct wave 

traveling from the array to the receiver 

and its associated source ghost 

(reflection at the air-water interface in 

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

homogeneous ocean layer unbounded 

by a seafloor). LDEO’s modeling 

methodology is described in greater 

detail in the IHA application (LGL 2017) 

and we refer to the reader to that 

document rather than repeating it here. 

The estimated distances to the Level B 

harassment isopleth for the Kairei’s full 

airgun array and for the single 100-in3

airgun are shown in Table 4. The total 

area estimated to be ensonified to the 

Level B harassment threshold for the 

entire survey is 24,408 square 

kilometers (km2). 

TABLE 4—PREDICTED RADIAL DISTANCES FROM R/V KAIREI SEISMIC

SOURCE TO ISOPLETH CORRESPONDING TO LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLD

Source and volume 

Predicted 

distance to 

threshold 

(160 dB re 1 

μPa) 

1 airgun, 100 in 3 ................... 722 m. 

4 strings, 32 airguns, 7800 

in 3.

9,289 m. 

Predicted distances to Level A 

harassment isopleths, which vary based 

on marine mammal hearing groups 

(Table 2), were calculated based on 

modeling performed by LDEO using the 

Nucleus software program and the 

NMFS User Spreadsheet, described 

below. The updated acoustic thresholds 

for impulsive sounds (such as airguns) 

contained in the Technical Guidance 

(NMFS 2016) were presented as dual 

metric acoustic thresholds using both 

cumulative sound exposure level 

(SELcum) and peak sound pressure 

metrics. As dual metrics, NMFS 

considers onset of PTS (Level A 

harassment) to have occurred when 

either one of the two metrics is 

exceeded (i.e., metric resulting in the 

largest isopleth). The SELcum metric 

considers both level and duration of 

exposure, as well as auditory weighting 

functions by marine mammal hearing 

group. In recognition of the fact that the 

requirement to calculate Level A 

harassment ensonified areas could be 

more technically challenging to predict 

due to the duration component and the 

use of weighting functions in the new 

SELcum thresholds, NMFS developed an 

optional User Spreadsheet that includes 

tools to help predict a simple isopleth 

that can be used in conjunction with 

marine mammal density or occurrence 

to facilitate the estimation of take 

numbers. 

The values for SELcum and peak SPL 

for the Kairei airgun array were derived 

from calculating the modified farfield 

signature (Table 5). The farfield 

signature is often used as a theoretical 

representation of the source level. To 

compute the farfield signature, the 

source level is estimated at a large 

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

and this level is back projected 

mathematically to a notional distance of 

1 m from the array’s geometrical center. 

However, when the source is an array of 

multiple airguns separated in space, the 

source level from the theoretical farfield 

signature is not necessarily the best 

measurement of the source level that is 

physically achieved at the source 

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

short ranges, distances <1 km), the 

pulses of sound pressure from each 

individual airgun in the source array do 

not stack constructively, as they do for 

the theoretical farfield signature. The 

pulses from the different airguns spread 

out in time such that the source levels 

observed or modeled are the result of 

the summation of pulses from a few 

airguns, not the full array (Tolstoy et al. 

2009). At larger distances, away from 

the source array center, sound pressure 

of all the airguns in the array stack 

coherently, but not within one time 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
44572 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Notices 

sample, resulting in smaller source 

levels (a few dB) than the source level 

derived from the farfield signature. 

Because the farfield signature does not 

take into account the large array effect 

near the source and is calculated as a 

point source, the modified farfield 

signature is a more appropriate measure 

of the sound source level for distributed 

sound sources, such as airgun arrays. 

UH used the acoustic modeling 

developed by LDEO (same as used for 

Level B takes) with a small grid step of 

1 m in both the inline and depth 

directions (for example, see Figure 5 in 

the IHA application). The propagation 

modeling takes into account all airgun 

interactions at short distances from the 

source, including interactions between 

subarrays which are modeled using the 

NUCLEUS software to estimate the 

notional signature and MATLAB 

software to calculate the pressure signal 

at each mesh point of a grid. 

TABLE 5—MODELED SOURCE LEVELS FOR R/V KAIREI 7,800 IN3 AIRGUN ARRAY AND 100 IN3 AIRGUN BASED ON

MODIFIED FARFIELD SIGNATURE

Functional hearing group 

7,800 in3

airgun array 

(peak SPLflat) 

7,800 in3

airgun array 

(SELcum) 

100 in3 airgun 

(peak SPLflat) 

100 in3 airgun 

(SELcum) 

Low frequency cetaceans (Lpk,flat: 219 dB; LE,LF,24h: 183 dB) ........................ 256.36 dB 235.01 dB 229.46 dB 208.41 dB. 

Mid frequency cetaceans (Lpk,flat: 230 dB; LE,MF,24h: 185 dB) ........................ 245.59 dB 235.12 dB 229.47 dB 208.44 dB. 

High frequency cetaceans (Lpk,flat: 202 dB; LE,HF,24h: 155 dB) ...................... 256.26 dB 235.16 dB 229.59 dB 209.01 dB. 

In order to more realistically 

incorporate the Technical Guidance’s 

weighting functions over the seismic 

array’s full acoustic band, unweighted 

spectrum data for the Kairei’s airgun 

array (modeled in 1 hertz (Hz) bands) 

was used to make adjustments (dB) to 

the unweighted spectrum levels, by 

frequency, according to the weighting 

functions for each relevant marine 

mammal hearing group. These adjusted/ 

weighted spectrum levels were then 

converted to pressures (micropascals) in 

order to integrate them over the entire 

broadband spectrum, resulting in 

broadband weighted source levels by 

hearing group that could be directly 

incorporated within the User 

Spreadsheet (i.e., to override the 

Spreadsheet’s more simple weighting 

factor adjustment). Using the User 

Spreadsheet’s ‘‘safe distance’’ 

methodology for mobile sources 

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

hearing group-specific weighted source 

levels, and inputs assuming spherical 

spreading propagation, a source velocity 

of 2.315 meters/second, and shot 

interval of 21.59 seconds (LGL 2017), 

potential radial distances to auditory 

injury zones were then calculated for 

SELcum thresholds. 

To estimate Peak SPL thresholds, 

LDEO performed modeling for a single 

shot and then a high pass filter was 

applied for each hearing group. A high 

pass filter is a type of band band-pass 

filter, which pass frequencies within a 

defined range without reducing 

amplitude and attenuate frequencies 

outside that defined range (Yost 2007). 

In their IHA application (LGL 2017) UH 

presented modeled distances to level A 

isopleths (Peak SPL) both with and 

without the high pass filter applied. In 

the Federal Register notice for the 

proposed IHA (82 FR 34352; July 24, 

2017) NMFS presented distances to the 

Level A harassment thresholds for Peak 

SPL based on LDEO’s modeling, 

including the application of the high 

pass filter. At the time that Federal 

Register notice was published, we 

agreed that application of the high pass 

filter was appropriate, and we accepted 

LDEO’s modeling methodology and its 

application for take estimation. 

However, in response to feedback we 

received in the form of public comments 

submitted in response to that Federal 

Register notice (see Comments and 

Responses section) we have 

subsequently determined that the 

application of the high pass filter is, in 

fact, not appropriate (see Comments and 

Responses section for further discussion 

of this issue). As such, the estimated 

distances to Level A harassment 

isopleths (for Peak SPL) shown in Table 

6 have revised from those shown in the 

Federal Register notice for the proposed 

IHA (82 FR 34352; July 24, 2017) to 

reflect no band pass filtering. 

Inputs to the User Spreadsheet are 

shown in Table 5; outputs from the User 

Spreadsheet in the form of estimated 

distances to Level A harassment 

isopleths are shown in Table 6. The 

User Spreadsheet used by UH is shown 

in Table 3 of the IHA application. 

TABLE 6—MODELED RADIAL DISTANCES FROM R/V KAIREI 7800 IN3 AIRGUN ARRAY AND 100 IN3 AIRGUN TO ISOPLETHS

CORRESPONDING TO LEVEL A HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS

Functional hearing group 

7,800 in3

airgun array 

(peak SPLflat) 

7,800 in3

airgun array 

(SELcum) 

100 in3

airgun 

(peak SPLflat) 

100 in3

airgun 

(SELcum) 

Low frequency cetaceans (Lpk,flat: 219 dB; LE,LF,24h: 183 dB) ........................ 73.8 m 752.8 m 3.3 m 4.48 m 

Mid frequency cetaceans (Lpk,flat: 230 dB; LE,MF,24h: 185 dB) ........................ 6.0 0.0 m 0.9 n/a 

High frequency cetaceans (Lpk,flat: 202 dB; LE,HF,24h: 155 dB) ...................... 516.5 m 1.7 m 24 m n/a 

Note that because of some of the 

assumptions included in the methods 

used, isopleths produced may be 

overestimates to some degree, which 

will ultimately result in some degree of 

overestimate of Level A take. However, 

these tools offer the best way to predict 

appropriate isopleths when more 

sophisticated 3D modeling methods are 

not available, and NMFS continues to 

develop ways to quantitatively refine 

these tools and will qualitatively 

address the output where appropriate. 

For mobile sources, such as UH’s 

survey, the User Spreadsheet predicts 

the closest distance at which a 

stationary animal would not incur PTS 

if the sound source traveled by the 

animal in a straight line at a constant 

speed. 

Marine Mammal Occurrence 

In this section we provide the 

information about the presence, density, 

or group dynamics of marine mammals 

that will inform the take calculations. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Notices 44573 

The best available scientific 

information was considered in 

conducting marine mammal exposure 

estimates (the basis for estimating take). 

For most cetacean species, densities 

calculated by Bradford et al. (2017) from 

summer–fall vessel-based surveys that 

are part of the Hawaiian Island Cetacean 

Ecosystem Assessment Survey 

(HICEAS) were used. The surveys were 

conducted by NMFS’ Southwest 

Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) and 

Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center 

(PIFSC) in 2010 using two NOAA 

research vessels, one during August 

13—December 1 and the other during 

September 2—October 29. The densities 

were estimated using a multiplecovariate line-transect approach 

(Buckland et al. 2001; Marques and 

Buckland 2004). Density estimates for 

pygmy and dwarf sperm whales and 

spinner dolphins, which were not 

calculated from the 2010 surveys, were 

derived from the ‘‘Outer EEZ stratum’’ 

of the vessel-based HICEAS survey 

conducted in summer–fall 2002 by 

SWFSC (Barlow 2006) using linetransect methodology (Buckland et al. 

2001). The density estimate for the false 

killer whale was based on the pelagic 

stock density calculated by Bradford et 

al. (2015) using line-transect 

methodology (Buckland et al. 2001). 

All densities were corrected for 

trackline detection probability bias (f(0)) 

and availability (g(0)) bias by the 

authors. Bradford et al. (2017) used g(0) 

values estimated by Barlow (2015), 

whose analysis indicated that g(0) had 

previously been overestimated, 

particularly for high sea states. Barlow 

(2006) used earlier estimates of g(0), so 

densities used here for pygmy and 

dwarf sperm whales and spinner 

dolphins likely are underestimates. The 

density for the ‘‘Sei or Bryde’s whale’’ 

category identified by Bradford et al. 

(2017) was allocated between sei and 

Bryde’s whales according to their 

proportionate densities. Density 

estimates for humpback and minke 

whales were not available. 

There is some uncertainty related to 

the estimated density data and the 

assumptions used in their calculations, 

as with all density data estimates. 

However, the approach used is based on 

the best available data. 

Take Calculation and Estimation 

Here we describe how the information 

provided above is brought together to 

produce a quantitative take estimate. In 

order to estimate the number of marine 

mammals predicted to be exposed to 

sound levels that would result in Level 

B harassment or Level A harassment, 

radial distances to predicted isopleths 

corresponding to the Level A 

harassment and Level B harassment 

thresholds are calculated, as described 

above. We then use those distances to 

calculate the area(s) around the airgun 

array predicted to be ensonified to 

sound levels that exceed the Level A 

and Level B harassment thresholds. The 

total ensonified area for the survey is 

then calculated, based on the areas 

predicted to be ensonified around the 

array and the trackline distance. The 

marine mammals predicted to occur 

within these respective areas, based on 

estimated densities, are expected to be 

incidentally taken by UH’s survey. 

To summarize, the estimated density 

of each marine mammal species within 

an area (animals/km2) is multiplied by 

the daily ensonified areas (km2) that 

correspond to the Level A and Level B 

harassment thresholds for the species. 

The product (rounded) is the number of 

instances of take for each species within 

one day. The number of instances of 

take for each species within one day is 

then multiplied by the number of survey 

days (plus 25 percent contingency, as 

described below). The result is an 

estimate of the number of instances that 

marine mammals are predicted to be 

exposed to airgun sounds above the 

Level B harassment threshold and the 

Level A harassment threshold over the 

duration of the survey. Estimated takes 

for all marine mammal species are 

shown in Table 7. 

The planned survey would occur both 

within the U.S. EEZ and outside the 

U.S. EEZ. We authorize incidental take 

that is expected to occur as a result of 

the survey both within and outside the 

U.S. EEZ. 

TABLE 7—NUMBERS OF INCIDENTAL TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS AUTHORIZED

Species 

Estimated 

density 

(#/1,000 km2) 

Estimated 

and authorized 

Level A 

takes 

Estimated 

Level B 

takes 

Authorized 

Level B 

takes 

Total 

authorized 

Level A and 

Level B takes 

Total 

authorized 

Level A and 

Level B 

takes as a 

percentage 

of population 

Humpback whale 1 ................................... 0 0 0 2 2 <0.1 

Minke whale 1 ........................................... 0 0 0 1 1 n/a 

Bryde’s whale ........................................... 0.97 2 25 25 27 3.4 

Sei whale ................................................. 0.22 0 6 6 6 3.4 

Fin whale .................................................. 0.06 0 2 2 2 3.4 

Blue whale 1 ............................................. 0.05 0 1 3 3 3.7 

Sperm whale ............................................ 1.86 0 51 51 51 1.5 

Cuvier’s beaked whale ............................. 0.30 0 8 8 8 <0.1 

Longman’s beaked whale ........................ 3.11 0 85 85 85 1.9 

Blainville’s beaked whale ......................... 1.89 0 76 76 76 3.3 

Rough-toothed dolphin ............................. 29.6 0 812 812 812 12.9 

Bottlenose dolphin ................................... 8.99 0 246 246 246 4.1 

Pantropical spotted dolphin ..................... 23.3 0 639 639 639 4.0 

Spinner dolphin 1 ...................................... 0.83 0 23 32 32 0.9 

Striped dolphin ......................................... 25.0 0 685 685 685 3.3 

Fraser’s dolphin ....................................... 21.0 0 577 577 577 3.4 

Risso’s dolphin ......................................... 4.74 0 130 130 130 1.8 

Melon-headed whale ................................ 3.54 0 97 97 97 1.7 

Pygmy killer whale ................................... 4.35 0 119 119 119 3.5 

False killer whale ..................................... 0.60 0 16 16 16 1.0 

Killer whale 1 ............................................ 0.06 0 2 5 5 4.9 

Short-finned pilot whale ........................... 7.97 0 218 218 218 1.8 

Pygmy sperm whale ................................ 3.19 7 87 87 94 7.4 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
44574 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Notices 

TABLE 7—NUMBERS OF INCIDENTAL TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS AUTHORIZED—Continued 

Species 

Estimated 

density 

(#/1,000 km2) 

Estimated 

and authorized 

Level A 

takes 

Estimated 

Level B 

takes 

Authorized 

Level B 

takes 

Total 

authorized 

Level A and 

Level B takes 

Total 

authorized 

Level A and 

Level B 

takes as a 

percentage 

of population 

Dwarf sperm whale .................................. 7.82 18 214 214 232 7.8 

1The number of authorized takes (Level B harassment only) for these species has been increased from the calculated take to mean group 

size. Sources for mean group sizes are as follows: blue whale (Bradford et al. 2017); minke whale (Jackson et al. 2008); humpback whale 

(Mobley et al. 2001); spinner dolphin (Barlow 2006); killer whale (Bradford et al. 2017). 

Species with Take Estimates Less than 

Mean Group Size: Using the approach 

described above to estimate take, the 

take estimates for the blue whale, killer 

whale, and spinner dolphin (Table 7) 

were less than the average group sizes 

estimated for these species. However, 

information on the social structures and 

life histories of these species indicates 

it is common for them to be encountered 

in groups. As the results of take 

calculations support the likelihood that 

UH’s survey would be expected to 

encounter and to incidentally take these 

species, and we believe it is likely that 

these species may be encountered in 

groups, it is reasonable to conservatively 

assume that one group of each of these 

species will be taken during the survey. 

We therefore propose to authorize the 

take of the average (mean) group size for 

the blue whale, killer whale, and 

spinner dolphin to account for the 

possibility that UH’s survey encounters 

a group of any of these species (Table 

7). 

Species with No Available Density 

Data: No density data were available for 

humpback and minke whales. Both 

species would typically be found further 

north than the survey area during the 

time of year that the survey is planned 

to occur, based on sightings data around 

the Hawaiian Islands (Carretta et al. 

2017). However, based on input from 

subject matter experts, we believe it is 

reasonable to assume that both species 

may be encountered by UH during the 

survey. Humpback whales have 

typically not been observed in the 

project area in the fall (Carretta et al. 

2017). However, there are increasing 

anecdotal reports of confirmed sightings 

of humpback whales from early 

September through October in areas 

near the planned project area (pers. 

comm. E. Lyman, NOAA Office of 

National Marine Sanctuaries, to J. 

Carduner, NMFS, June 20, 2017). Like 

humpback whales, sightings data does 

not indicate that minke whales would 

typically be expected to be present in 

the project area in the fall (Carretta et al. 

2017). However, detections of minke 

whales are common in passive acoustic 

recordings from various locations 

around the main Hawaiian Islands, 

including during the fall (pers. comm. E. 

Oleson, NOAA PIFSC, to J. Carduner, 

NMFS, June 20, 2017). Additionally, as 

minke whales in the North Pacific do 

not have a visible blow, they can be 

easily missed by visual observers, 

suggesting a lack of sightings is likely 

related to misidentification or low 

detection capability in poor sighting 

conditions (Rankin et al. 2007). Though 

no density data are available, we believe 

it is reasonable to conservatively assume 

that UH’s survey may encounter and 

incidentally take minke and humpback 

whales. We therefore propose to 

authorize the take of the average (mean) 

group size (weighted by effort and 

rounded up) for the humpback and 

minke whale (Table 7). 

It should be noted that the take 

numbers shown in Table 7 are believed 

to be conservative for several reasons. 

First, in the calculations of estimated 

take, 25 percent has been added in the 

form of operational survey days 

(equivalent to adding 25 percent to the 

line km to be surveyed) to account for 

the possibility of additional seismic 

operations associated with airgun 

testing, and repeat coverage of any areas 

where initial data quality is substandard. Additionally, marine 

mammals would be expected to move 

away from a sound source that 

represents an aversive stimulus. 

However, the extent to which marine 

mammals would move away from the 

sound source is difficult to quantify and 

is therefore not accounted for in take 

estimates shown in Table 7. 

Level A take estimates (Table 7) have 

been revised from the take estimates 

provided in the Federal Register notice 

for the proposed IHA (82 FR 34352; July 

24, 2017) based on our decision to rely 

on modeled distances to Level A 

harassment isopleths for Peak SPL 

(Table 6) without band pass filtering 

applied, as described above. The only 

species for which Level A take numbers 

were affected by this revision were the 

pygmy sperm whale and dwarf sperm 

whale (Level A takes changed from 0 to 

7 and from 0 to 18, respectively). 

Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under 

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

NMFS must set forth the permissible 

methods of taking pursuant to 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 on the availability of 

such species or stock for taking for 

certain subsistence uses (latter not 

applicable for this action). NMFS 

regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting such activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, we carefully consider two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat. This considers 

the nature of the potential adverse 

impact being mitigated (likelihood, 

scope, range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned) the likelihood 

of effective implementation (probability 

implemented as planned); and 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, 

impact on operations, and, in the case 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Notices 44575 

of a military readiness activity, 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity. 

UH has reviewed mitigation measures 

employed during seismic research 

surveys authorized by NMFS under 

previous incidental harassment 

authorizations, as well as recommended 

best practices in Richardson et al. 

(1995), Pierson et al. (1998), Weir and 

Dolman (2007), Nowacek et al. (2013), 

Wright (2014), and Wright and 

Cosentino (2015), and has incorporated 

a suite of mitigation measures into their 

project description based on the above 

sources. 

To reduce the potential for 

disturbance from acoustic stimuli 

associated with the activities, UH will 

implement the following mitigation 

measures for marine mammals: 

(1) Vessel-based visual mitigation 

monitoring; 

(2) Vessel-based passive acoustic 

monitoring; 

(3) Establishment of an exclusion 

zone; 

(4) Power down procedures; 

(5) Shutdown procedures; 

(6) Ramp-up procedures; and 

(7) Ship strike avoidance measures. 

Vessel-Based Visual Mitigation 

Monitoring 

Protected Species Observer (PSO) 

observations will take place during all 

daytime airgun operations and 

nighttime start ups (if applicable) of the 

airguns. Airgun operations will be 

suspended when marine mammals are 

observed within, or about to enter, 

designated Exclusion Zones (as 

described below). PSOs will also watch 

for marine mammals near the vessel for 

at least 30 minutes prior to the planned 

start of airgun operations. PSOs will 

monitor the entire extent of the modeled 

Level B harassment zone (Table 4) (or, 

as far as they are able to see, if they 

cannot see to the extent of the estimated 

Level B harassment zone). Observations 

will also be made during daytime 

periods when the Kairei is underway 

without seismic operations, such as 

during transits, to allow for comparison 

of sighting rates and behavior with and 

without airgun operations and between 

acquisition periods. 

During seismic operations, a 

minimum of four visual PSOs will be 

based aboard the Kairei. PSOs will be 

appointed by JAMSTEC with NMFS 

approval. During the majority of seismic 

operations, two PSOs will monitor for 

marine mammals around the seismic 

vessel. Use of two simultaneous 

observers will increase the effectiveness 

of detecting marine mammals around 

the source vessel. However, during meal 

times, only one PSO may be on duty. 

PSO(s) would be on duty in shifts of 

duration no longer than 4 hours. Other 

crew will also be instructed to assist in 

detecting marine mammals and in 

implementing mitigation requirements 

(if practical). Before the start of the 

seismic survey, the crew will be given 

additional instruction in detecting 

marine mammals and implementing 

mitigation requirements. The Kairei is a 

suitable platform for marine mammal 

observations. When stationed on the 

observation platform, PSOs will have a 

good view around the entire vessel. 

During daytime, the PSO(s) will scan 

the area around the vessel 

systematically with reticle binoculars 

(e.g., 7×50 Fujinon), Big-eye binoculars 

(25×150), and with the naked eye. 

The PSOs must have no tasks other 

than to conduct observational effort, 

record observational data, and 

communicate with and instruct relevant 

vessel crew with regard to the presence 

of marine mammals and mitigation 

requirements. PSO resumes will be 

provided to NMFS for approval. At least 

two PSOs must have a minimum of 90 

days at-sea experience working as PSOs 

during a high energy seismic survey, 

with no more than eighteen months 

elapsed since the conclusion of the atsea experience. One ‘‘experienced’’ 

visual PSO will be designated as the 

lead for the entire protected species 

observation team. The lead will 

coordinate duty schedules and roles for 

the PSO team and serve as primary 

point of contact for the vessel operator. 

The lead PSO will devise the duty 

schedule such that ‘‘experienced’’ PSOs 

are on duty with those PSOs with 

appropriate training but who have not 

yet gained relevant experience, to the 

maximum extent practicable. 

The PSOs must have successfully 

completed relevant training, including 

completion of all required coursework 

and passing a written and/or oral 

examination developed for the training 

program, and must have successfully 

attained a bachelor’s degree from an 

accredited college or university with a 

major in one of the natural sciences and 

a minimum of 30 semester hours or 

equivalent in the biological sciences and 

at least one undergraduate course in 

math or statistics. The educational 

requirements may be waived if the PSO 

has acquired the relevant skills through 

alternate training, including (1) 

secondary education and/or experience 

comparable to PSO duties; (2) previous 

work experience conducting academic, 

commercial, or government-sponsored 

marine mammal surveys; or (3) previous 

work experience as a PSO; the PSO 

should demonstrate good standing and 

consistently good performance of PSO 

duties. 

In summary, a typical daytime cruise 

will have scheduled two observers 

(visual) on duty from the observation 

platform, and an acoustic observer on 

the passive acoustic monitoring system. 

Vessel-Based Passive Acoustic 

Mitigation Monitoring 

Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) 

will take place to complement the visual 

monitoring program. Visual monitoring 

typically is not effective during periods 

of poor visibility or at night, and even 

with good visibility, is unable to detect 

marine mammals when they are below 

the surface or beyond visual range. 

Acoustic monitoring can be used in 

addition to visual observations to 

improve detection, identification, and 

localization of cetaceans. The acoustic 

monitoring will serve to alert visual 

observers (if on duty) when vocalizing 

cetaceans are detected. It is only useful 

when marine mammals vocalize, but it 

can be effective either by day or by night 

and does not depend on good visibility. 

It will be monitored in real time so that 

visual observers can be alerted when 

marine mammals are detected 

acoustically. 

The PAM system consists of hardware 

(i.e., hydrophones) and software. The 

‘‘wet end’’ of the system consists of a 

towed hydrophone array that is 

connected to the vessel by a tow cable. 

A deck cable will connect the tow cable 

to the electronics unit on board where 

the acoustic station, signal conditioning, 

and processing system would be 

located. The acoustic signals received 

by the hydrophones are amplified, 

digitized, and then processed by the 

software. 

At least one acoustic PSO (in addition 

to the four visual PSOs) will be on 

board. The towed hydrophones would 

be monitored 24 hours per day (either 

by the acoustic PSO or by a visual PSO 

trained in the PAM system if the 

acoustic PSO is on break) while at the 

seismic survey area during airgun 

operations, and during most periods 

when the Kairei is underway while the 

airguns are not operating. However, 

PAM may not be possible if damage 

occurs to the array or back-up systems 

during operations. One PSO will 

monitor the acoustic detection system at 

any one time, in shifts no longer than 

six hours, by listening to the signals via 

headphones and/or speakers and 

watching the real-time spectrographic 

display for frequency ranges produced 

by cetaceans. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
44576 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Notices 

When a vocalization is detected, 

while visual observations are in 

progress, the acoustic PSO will contact 

the visual PSOs immediately, to alert 

them to the presence of marine 

mammals (if they have not already been 

detected visually), in order to facilitate 

a power down or shut down, if required. 

The information regarding the marine 

mammal acoustic detection will be 

entered into a database. 

Exclusion Zone and Buffer Zone 

An exclusion zone (EZ) is a defined 

area within which occurrence of a 

marine mammal triggers mitigation 

action intended to reduce the potential 

for certain outcomes, e.g., auditory 

injury, disruption of critical behaviors. 

The PSOs will establish a minimum EZ 

with a 500 m radius for the full array. 

The 500 m EZ will be based on radial 

distance from any element of the airgun 

array (rather than being based on the 

center of the array or around the vessel 

itself). With certain exceptions 

(described below), if a marine mammal 

appears within, enters, or appears on a 

course to enter this zone, the acoustic 

source will be powered down (see 

Power Down Procedures below). In 

addition to the 500 m EZ for the full 

array, a 100 m exclusion zone will be 

established for the single 100 in3 airgun. 

With certain exceptions (described 

below), if a marine mammal appears 

within, enters, or appears on a course to 

enter this zone the acoustic source will 

be shut down entirely (see Shutdown 

Procedures below). Additionally, power 

down of the full array will last no more 

than 30 minutes maximum at any given 

time; thus the array will be shut down 

entirely if, after 30 minutes of power 

down, a marine mammal remains inside 

the 500 m EZ. 

Potential radial distances to auditory 

injury zones were calculated on the 

basis of maximum peak pressure using 

values provided by the applicant (Table 

6). The 500 m radial distance of the 

standard EZ is intended to be 

precautionary in the sense that it would 

be expected to contain sound exceeding 

peak pressure injury criteria for all 

cetacean hearing groups, while also 

providing a consistent, reasonably 

observable zone within which PSOs 

would typically be able to conduct 

effective observational effort. Although 

significantly greater distances may be 

observed from an elevated platform 

under good conditions, we believe that 

500 m is likely regularly attainable for 

PSOs using the naked eye during typical 

conditions. 

An appropriate EZ based on 

cumulative sound exposure level 

(SELcum) criteria would be dependent on 

the animal’s applied hearing range and 

how that overlaps with the frequencies 

produced by the sound source of 

interest (i.e., via marine mammal 

auditory weighting functions) (NMFS, 

2016), and may be larger in some cases 

than the zones calculated on the basis 

of the peak pressure thresholds (and 

larger than 500 m) depending on the 

species in question and the 

characteristics of the specific airgun 

array. In particular, the EZ radii would 

be larger for low-frequency cetaceans, 

because their most susceptible hearing 

range overlaps the low frequencies 

produced by airguns, but the zones 

would remain very small for midfrequency cetaceans (i.e., including the 

‘‘small delphinoids’’ described below), 

whose range of best hearing largely does 

not overlap with frequencies produced 

by airguns. 

Consideration of exclusion zone 

distances is inherently an essentially 

instantaneous proposition—a rule or set 

of rules that requires mitigation action 

upon detection of an animal. This 

indicates that consideration of peak 

pressure thresholds is most relevant, as 

compared with cumulative sound 

exposure level thresholds, as the latter 

requires that an animal accumulate 

some level of sound energy exposure 

over some period of time (e.g., 24 

hours). A PSO aboard a mobile source 

will typically have no ability to monitor 

an animal’s position relative to the 

acoustic source over relevant time 

periods for purposes of understanding 

whether auditory injury is likely to 

occur on the basis of cumulative sound 

exposure and, therefore, whether action 

should be taken to avoid such potential. 

Therefore, definition of an exclusion 

zone based on SELcum thresholds is of 

questionable relevance given relative 

motion of the source and receiver (i.e., 

the animal). Cumulative SEL thresholds 

are likely more relevant for purposes of 

modeling the potential for auditory 

injury than they are for informing realtime mitigation. We recognize the 

importance of the accumulation of 

sound energy to an understanding of the 

potential for auditory injury and that it 

is likely that, at least for low-frequency 

cetaceans, some potential auditory 

injury is likely impossible to mitigate 

and should be considered for 

authorization. 

In summary, our intent in prescribing 

a standard exclusion zone distance is to 

(1) encompass zones for most species 

within which auditory injury could 

occur on the basis of instantaneous 

exposure; (2) provide additional 

protection from the potential for more 

severe behavioral reactions (e.g., panic, 

antipredator response) for marine 

mammals at relatively close range to the 

acoustic source; (3) provide consistency 

for PSOs, who need to monitor and 

implement the exclusion zone; and (4) 

to define a distance within which 

detection probabilities are reasonably 

high for most species under typical 

conditions. 

Our use of 500 m as the EZ is a 

reasonable combination of factors. This 

zone is expected to contain all potential 

auditory injury for all cetaceans (highfrequency, mid-frequency and lowfrequency functional hearing groups) as 

assessed against peak pressure 

thresholds (NMFS, 2016) (Table 6), and 

to contain all potential auditory injury 

for high-frequency and mid-frequency 

cetaceans as assessed against SELcum

thresholds (NMFS, 2016) (Table 6), It 

has also proven to be practicable 

through past implementation in seismic 

surveys conducted for the oil and gas 

industry in the Gulf of Mexico (as 

regulated by BOEM pursuant to the 

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 

(OCSLA) (43 U.S.C. 1331–1356)). In 

summary, a practicable criterion such as 

this has the advantage of simplicity 

while still providing in most cases a 

zone larger than relevant auditory injury 

zones, given realistic movement of 

source and receiver. 

The PSOs will also establish and 

monitor a 1,000 m buffer zone. During 

use of the acoustic source, occurrence of 

marine mammals within the buffer zone 

(but outside the exclusion zone) will be 

communicated to the vessel operator to 

prepare for potential power down or 

shutdown of the acoustic source. The 

buffer zone is discussed further under 

Ramp Up Procedures below. PSOs will 

monitor the entire extent of the modeled 

Level B harassment zone (Table 4) (or, 

as far as they are able to see, if they 

cannot see to the extent of the estimated 

Level B harassment zone). 

Power Down Procedures 

A power down involves decreasing 

the number of airguns in use such that 

the radius of the mitigation zone is 

decreased to the extent that marine 

mammals are no longer in, or about to 

enter, the 500 m EZ. During a power 

down, one 100-in3 airgun would be 

operated. The continued operation of 

one 100-in3 airgun is intended to alert 

marine mammals to the presence of the 

seismic vessel in the area, and to allow 

them to leave the area of the seismic 

vessel if they choose. In contrast, a 

shutdown occurs when all airgun 

activity is suspended (shutdown 

procedures are discussed below). If a 

marine mammal is detected outside the 

500 m EZ but appears likely to enter the 

500 m EZ, the airguns will be powered 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Notices 44577 

down before the animal is within the 

500 m EZ. Likewise, if a mammal is 

already within the 500 m EZ when first 

detected, the airguns will be powered 

down immediately. During a power 

down of the airgun array, the 100-in3

airgun will be operated. 

Following a power down, airgun 

activity will not resume until the marine 

mammal has cleared the 500 m EZ. The 

animal will be considered to have 

cleared the 500 m EZ if the following 

conditions have been met: 

• It is visually observed to have 

departed the 500 m EZ, or 

• it has not been seen within the 500 m 

EZ for 15 min in the case of small 

odontocetes, or 

• it has not been seen within the 500 m 

EZ for 30 min in the case of 

mysticetes and large odontocetes, 

including sperm, pygmy sperm, dwarf 

sperm, and beaked whales. 

This power down requirement will be 

in place for all marine mammals, with 

the exception of small delphinoids 

under certain circumstances. As defined 

here, the small delphinoid group is 

intended to encompass those members 

of the Family Delphinidae most likely to 

voluntarily approach the source vessel 

for purposes of interacting with the 

vessel and/or airgun array (e.g., bow 

riding). This exception to the power 

down requirement will apply solely to 

specific genera of small dolphins— 

Steno, Tursiops, Stenella and 

Lagenodelphis—and will only apply if 

the animals were traveling, including 

approaching the vessel. If, for example, 

an animal or group of animals is 

stationary for some reason (e.g., feeding) 

and the source vessel approaches the 

animals, the power down requirement 

applies. An animal with sufficient 

incentive to remain in an area rather 

than avoid an otherwise aversive 

stimulus could either incur auditory 

injury or disruption of important 

behavior. If there is uncertainty 

regarding identification (i.e., whether 

the observed animal(s) belongs to the 

group described above) or whether the 

animals are traveling, the power down 

will be implemented. 

We include this small delphinoid 

exception because power-down/ 

shutdown requirements for small 

delphinoids under all circumstances 

represent practicability concerns 

without likely commensurate benefits 

for the animals in question. Small 

delphinoids are generally the most 

commonly observed marine mammals 

in the specific geographic region and 

would typically be the only marine 

mammals likely to intentionally 

approach the vessel. As described 

below, auditory injury is extremely 

unlikely to occur for mid-frequency 

cetaceans (e.g., delphinids), as this 

group is relatively insensitive to sound 

produced at the predominant 

frequencies in an airgun pulse while 

also having a relatively high threshold 

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

permanent threshold shift). Please see 

Potential Effects of the Specified 

Activity on Marine Mammals above for 

further discussion of sound metrics and 

thresholds and marine mammal hearing. 

A large body of anecdotal evidence 

indicates that small delphinoids 

commonly approach vessels and/or 

towed arrays during active sound 

production for purposes of bow riding, 

with no apparent effect observed in 

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

2012). The potential for increased 

shutdowns resulting from such a 

measure would require the Kairei to 

revisit the missed track line to reacquire 

data, resulting in an overall increase in 

the total sound energy input to the 

marine environment and an increase in 

the total duration over which the survey 

is active in a given area. Although other 

mid-frequency hearing specialists (e.g., 

large delphinoids) are no more likely to 

incur auditory injury than are small 

delphinoids, they are much less likely 

to approach vessels. Therefore, retaining 

a power-down/shutdown requirement 

for large delphinoids would not have 

similar impacts in terms of either 

practicability for the applicant or 

corollary increase in sound energy 

output and time on the water. We do 

anticipate some benefit for a powerdown/shutdown requirement for large 

delphinoids in that it simplifies 

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

potential for physiological effects other 

than to the auditory system as well as 

some more severe behavioral reactions 

for any such animals in close proximity 

to the source vessel. 

At any distance, power down of the 

acoustic source will also be required 

upon observation of a large whale (i.e., 

sperm whale or any baleen whale) with 

a calf, or upon observation of an 

aggregation of large whales of any 

species (i.e., sperm whale or any baleen 

whale) that does not appear to be 

traveling (e.g., feeding, socializing, etc.). 

These are the only two potential 

situations that would require power 

down of the array for marine mammals 

observed beyond the 500 m EZ. 

A power down could occur for no 

more than 30 minutes maximum at any 

given time. If, after 30 minutes of the 

array being powered down, marine 

mammals had not cleared the 500 m EZ 

(as described above), a shutdown of the 

array will be implemented (see Shut 

Down Procedures, below). Power down 

is only allowed in response to the 

presence of marine mammals within the 

designated EZ. Thus, the single 100 in3

airgun, which will be operated during 

power downs, may not be operated 

continuously throughout the night or 

during transits from one line to another. 

Shut Down Procedures 

The single 100-in3 operating airgun 

will be shut down if a marine mammal 

is seen within or approaching the 100 m 

EZ for the single 100-in3 airgun. 

Shutdown will be implemented if (1) an 

animal enters the 100 m EZ of the single 

100-in3 airgun after a power down has 

been initiated, or (2) an animal is 

initially seen within the 100 m EZ of the 

single 100-in3 airgun when more than 

one airgun (typically the full array) is 

operating. Airgun activity will not 

resume until the marine mammal has 

cleared the 500 m EZ. Criteria for 

judging that the animal has cleared the 

EZ will be as described above. A 

shutdown of the array will be 

implemented if, after 30 minutes of the 

array being powered down, marine 

mammals have not cleared the 500 m EZ 

(as described above). 

The shutdown requirement, like the 

power down requirement, will be 

waived for dolphins of the following 

genera: Steno, Tursiops, Stenella and 

Lagenodelphis. The shutdown waiver 

only applies if the animals are traveling, 

including approaching the vessel. If 

animals are stationary and the source 

vessel approaches the animals, the 

shutdown requirement would apply. If 

there is uncertainty regarding 

identification (i.e., whether the observed 

animal(s) belongs to the group described 

above) or whether the animals are 

traveling, the shutdown would be 

implemented. A shutdown will be 

implemented if a North Pacific right 

whale is sighted, regardless of the 

distance from the Kairei. Ramp-up 

procedures would not be initiated until 

the right whale has not been seen at any 

distance for 30 minutes. 

Ramp-Up Procedures 

Ramp-up of an acoustic source is 

intended to provide a gradual increase 

in sound levels following a power down 

or shutdown, enabling animals to move 

away from the source if the signal is 

sufficiently aversive prior to its reaching 

full intensity. The ramp-up procedure 

involves a step-wise increase in the 

number of airguns firing and total array 

volume until all operational airguns are 

activated and the full volume is 

achieved. Ramp-up will be required 

after the array is powered down or 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
44578 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Notices 

shutdown due to mitigation. If the 

airgun array has been shut down for 

reasons other than mitigation (e.g., 

mechanical difficulty) for a period of 

less than 30 minutes, it may be activated 

again without ramp-up if PSOs have 

maintained constant visual and acoustic 

observation and no visual detections of 

any marine mammal have occurred 

within the buffer zone and no acoustic 

detections have occurred. 

Ramp-up will begin by activating a 

single airgun of the smallest volume in 

the array and would continue in stages 

by doubling the number of active 

elements at the commencement of each 

stage, with each stage of approximately 

the same duration. 

If airguns have been powered down or 

shut down due to PSO detection of a 

marine mammal within or approaching 

the 500 m EZ, ramp-up will not be 

initiated until all marine mammals have 

cleared the EZ, during the day or night. 

Visual and acoustic PSOs are required 

to monitor during ramp-up. If a marine 

mammal were detected by visual PSOs 

within or approaching the 500 m EZ 

during ramp-up, a power down (or shut 

down if appropriate) would be 

implemented as though the full array 

were operational. Criteria for clearing 

the EZ would be as described above. 

Thirty minutes of pre-clearance 

observation are required prior to rampup for any power down or shutdown of 

longer than 30 minutes (i.e., if the array 

were shut down during transit from one 

line to another). This 30 minute preclearance period may occur during any 

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

mammal is observed within or 

approaching the 500 m EZ during this 

pre-clearance period, ramp-up will not 

be initiated until all marine mammals 

have cleared the EZ. Criteria for clearing 

the EZ will be as described above. 

Ramp-up will be planned to occur 

during periods of good visibility when 

possible. However, ramp-up will be 

allowed at night and during poor 

visibility if the 500 m EZ and 1,000 m 

buffer zone have been monitored by 

visual PSOs for 30 minutes prior to 

ramp-up and if acoustic monitoring has 

occurred for 30 minutes prior to rampup with no acoustic detections during 

that period. 

The operator will be required to notify 

a designated PSO of the planned start of 

ramp-up as agreed-upon with the lead 

PSO. A designated PSO must be notified 

again immediately prior to initiating 

ramp-up procedures and the operator 

must receive confirmation from the PSO 

to proceed. The operator must provide 

information to PSOs documenting that 

appropriate procedures were followed. 

Following deactivation of the array for 

reasons other than mitigation, the 

operator will be required to 

communicate the near-term operational 

plan to the lead PSO with justification 

for any planned nighttime ramp-up. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, NMFS 

has determined that the mitigation 

measures provide the means effecting 

the least practicable impact on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance. 

Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present in the action area. Effective 

reporting is critical both to compliance 

as well as ensuring that the most value 

is obtained from the required 

monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density). 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

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

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

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

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

feeding areas). 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors. 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) Long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks. 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat). 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

UH submitted a marine mammal 

monitoring and reporting plan in 

section XIII of their IHA application. 

Monitoring that is designed specifically 

to facilitate mitigation measures, such as 

monitoring of the EZ to inform potential 

power downs or shutdowns of the 

airgun array, are described above and 

are not repeated here. 

UH’s monitoring and reporting plan 

includes the following measures: 

Vessel-Based Visual Monitoring 

As described above, PSO observations 

will take place during daytime airgun 

operations and nighttime start ups (if 

applicable) of the airguns. During 

seismic operations, at least four visual 

PSOs would be based aboard the Kairei. 

PSOs will be appointed by JAMSTEC 

with NMFS approval. During the 

majority of seismic operations, two 

PSOs will monitor for marine mammals 

around the seismic vessel. Use of two 

simultaneous observers would increase 

the effectiveness of detecting animals 

around the source vessel. However, 

during meal times, only one PSO may 

be on duty. PSOs will be on duty in 

shifts of duration no longer than 4 

hours. Other crew will also be 

instructed to assist in detecting marine 

mammals and in implementing 

mitigation requirements (if practical). 

During daytime, PSOs will scan the area 

around the vessel systematically with 

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

Big-eye binoculars (25×150), and with 

the naked eye. 

PSOs will record data to estimate the 

numbers of marine mammals exposed to 

various received sound levels and to 

document apparent disturbance 

reactions or lack thereof. Data will be 

used to estimate numbers of animals 

potentially ‘taken’ by harassment (as 

defined in the MMPA). They will also 

provide information needed to order a 

power down or shutdown of airguns 

when a marine mammal is within or 

near the EZ. 

When a sighting is made, the 

following information about the sighting 

will be recorded: 

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

categories (if determinable), behavior 

when first sighted and after initial 

sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing 

and distance from seismic vessel, 

sighting cue, apparent reaction to the 

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


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Notices 44579 

approach, paralleling, etc.), and 

behavioral pace. 

2. Time, location, heading, speed, 

activity of the vessel, sea state, 

visibility, and sun glare. 

All observations and power downs or 

shutdowns will be recorded in a 

standardized format. Data will be 

entered into an electronic database. The 

accuracy of the data entry will be 

verified by computerized data validity 

checks as the data are entered and by 

subsequent manual checking of the 

database. These procedures will allow 

initial summaries of data to be prepared 

during and shortly after the field 

program and will facilitate transfer of 

the data to statistical, graphical, and 

other programs for further processing 

and archiving. The time, location, 

heading, speed, activity of the vessel, 

sea state, visibility, and sun glare will 

also be recorded at the start and end of 

each observation watch, and during a 

watch whenever there is a change in one 

or more of the variables. 

Results from the vessel-based 

observations will provide: 

1. The basis for real-time mitigation 

(airgun power down or 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 and turtles in the area where 

the seismic study is conducted. 

4. Information to compare the 

distance and distribution of marine 

mammals and turtles relative to the 

source vessel at times with and without 

seismic activity. 

5. Data on the behavior and 

movement patterns of marine mammals 

and turtles seen at times with and 

without seismic activity. 

Vessel-Based Passive Acoustic 

Monitoring 

PAM will take place to complement 

the visual monitoring program as 

described above. Please see the 

Mitigation section above for a 

description of the PAM system and the 

acoustic PSO’s duties. The acoustic PSO 

will record data collected via the PAM 

system, including the following: An 

acoustic encounter identification 

number, whether it was linked with a 

visual sighting, date, time when first 

and last heard and whenever any 

additional information was recorded, 

position and water depth when first 

detected, bearing if determinable, 

species or species group (e.g., 

unidentified dolphin, sperm whale), 

types and nature of sounds heard (e.g., 

clicks, continuous, sporadic, whistles, 

creaks, burst pulses, strength of signal, 

etc.), and any other notable information. 

Acoustic detections will also be 

recorded for further analysis. 

Reporting 

A report will be submitted to NMFS 

within 90 days after the end of the 

cruise. The report will describe the 

operations that were conducted and 

sightings of marine mammals near the 

operations. The report will provide full 

documentation of methods, results, and 

interpretation pertaining to all 

monitoring. The 90-day report will 

summarize the dates and locations of 

seismic operations, and all marine 

mammal sightings (dates, times, 

locations, activities, associated seismic 

survey activities). The report will also 

include estimates of the number and 

nature of exposures that occurred above 

the harassment threshold based on PSO 

observations. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

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

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any responses (e.g., intensity, 

duration), the context of any responses 

(e.g., critical reproductive time or 

location, migration), as well as effects 

on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 

of the mitigation. We also assess the 

number, intensity, and context of 

estimated takes by evaluating this 

information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’ implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the environmental baseline 

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

of the species, population size and 

growth rate where known, ongoing 

sources of human-caused mortality, or 

ambient noise levels). 

To avoid repetition, our analysis 

applies to all the species listed in Table 

1, given that NMFS expects the 

anticipated effects of the planned 

seismic survey to be similar in nature. 

Where there are meaningful differences 

between species or stocks, or groups of 

species, in anticipated individual 

responses to activities, impact of 

expected take on the population due to 

differences in population status, or 

impacts on habitat, NMFS has identified 

species-specific factors to inform the 

analysis. 

NMFS does not anticipate that serious 

injury or mortality would occur as a 

result of UH’s survey, even in the 

absence of mitigation. Thus the 

authorization does not authorize any 

mortality. Non-auditory physical effects, 

stranding, and vessel strike are not 

expected to occur. 

We authorize a limited number of 

instances of Level A harassment of three 

marine mammal species (Table 7). 

However, we believe that any PTS 

incurred in marine mammals as a result 

of the activity would be in the form of 

only a small degree of PTS and not total 

deafness that would not be likely to 

affect the fitness of any individuals, 

because of the constant movement of 

both the Kairei and of the marine 

mammals in the project area, as well as 

the fact that the vessel is not expected 

to remain in any one area in which 

individual marine mammals would be 

expected to concentrate for an extended 

period of time (i.e., since the duration of 

exposure to loud sounds will be 

relatively short). Also, as described 

above, we expect that marine mammals 

would be likely to move away from a 

sound source that represents an aversive 

stimulus, especially at levels that would 

be expected to result in PTS, given 

sufficient notice of the Kairei’s approach 

due to the vessel’s relatively low speed 

when conducting the survey. We expect 

that the majority of takes would be in 

the form of short-term Level B 

behavioral harassment in the form of 

temporary avoidance of the area or 

decreased foraging (if such activity were 

occurring), reactions that are considered 

to be of low severity and with no lasting 

biological consequences (e.g., Southall 

et al., 2007). 

Potential impacts to marine mammal 

habitat were discussed in the Federal 

Register noticed for the proposed IHA 

(82 FR 34352; July 24, 2017) (see 

Potential Effects of the Specified 

Activity on Marine Mammals and their 

Habitat). Marine mammal habitat may 

be impacted by elevated sound levels, 

but these impacts would be temporary. 

Feeding behavior is not likely to be 

significantly impacted, as marine 

mammals appear to be less likely to 

exhibit behavioral reactions or 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
44580 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Notices 

avoidance responses while engaged in 

feeding activities (Richardson et al., 

1995). Prey species are mobile and are 

broadly distributed throughout the 

project area; therefore, marine mammals 

that may be temporarily displaced 

during survey activities are expected to 

be able to resume foraging once they 

have moved away from areas with 

disturbing levels of underwater noise. 

Because of the temporary nature of the 

disturbance, the availability of similar 

habitat and resources in the surrounding 

area, and the lack of important or 

unique marine mammal habitat, the 

impacts to marine mammals and the 

food sources that they utilize are not 

expected to cause significant or longterm consequences for individual 

marine mammals or their populations. 

In addition, there are no mating or 

calving areas known to be biologically 

important to marine mammals within 

the project area. 

The activity is expected to impact a 

very small percentage of all marine 

mammal stocks that would be affected 

by UH’s survey (less than two percent 

for all marine mammal stocks). 

Additionally, the acoustic ‘‘footprint’’ of 

the survey would be very small relative 

to the ranges of all marine mammals 

that would potentially be affected. 

Sound levels would increase in the 

marine environment in a relatively 

small area surrounding the vessel 

compared to the range of the marine 

mammals within the survey area. The 

seismic array would be active 24 hours 

per day throughout the duration of the 

survey. However, the very brief overall 

duration of the survey (5.5 days) would 

further limit potential impacts that may 

occur as a result of the activity. 

The mitigation measures are expected 

to reduce the number and/or severity of 

takes by allowing for detection of 

marine mammals in the vicinity of the 

vessel by visual and acoustic observers, 

and by minimizing the severity of any 

potential exposures via power downs 

and/or shutdowns of the airgun array. 

Based on previous monitoring reports 

for substantially similar activities that 

have been previously authorized by 

NMFS, we expect that the mitigation 

will be effective in preventing at least 

some extent of potential PTS in marine 

mammals that may otherwise occur in 

the absence of mitigation. 

Of the marine mammal species under 

our jurisdiction that are likely to occur 

in the project area, the following species 

are listed as endangered under the ESA: 

blue, fin, sei, and sperm whales. There 

are currently insufficient data to 

determine population trends for blue, 

fin, sei, and sperm whales (Carretta et 

al., 2016); however, we are authorizing 

very small numbers of takes for these 

species (Table 7), relative to their 

population sizes, therefore we do not 

expect population-level impacts to any 

of these species. The other marine 

mammal species that may be taken by 

harassment during UH’s seismic survey 

are not listed as threatened or 

endangered under the ESA. There is no 

designated critical habitat for any ESAlisted marine mammals within the 

project area; and of the non-listed 

marine mammals for which we propose 

to authorize take, none are considered 

‘‘depleted’’ or ‘‘strategic’’ by NMFS 

under the MMPA. 

NMFS concludes that exposures to 

marine mammal species and stocks due 

to UH’s seismic survey would result in 

only short-term (temporary and short in 

duration) effects to individuals exposed. 

Animals may temporarily avoid the 

immediate area, but are not expected to 

permanently abandon the area. Major 

shifts in habitat use, distribution, or 

foraging success are not expected. 

NMFS does not anticipate the take 

estimates to impact annual rates of 

recruitment or survival. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our determination that the impacts 

resulting from this activity are not 

expected to adversely affect the marine 

mammal species or stocks through 

effects on annual rates of recruitment or 

survival: 

• No mortality is anticipated or 

authorized; 

• The anticipated impacts of the 

activity on marine mammals would 

primarily be temporary behavioral 

changes due to avoidance of the area 

around the survey vessel. The relatively 

short duration of the survey (5.5 days) 

would further limit the potential 

impacts of any temporary behavioral 

changes that would occur; 

• PTS is only anticipated to occur for 

one species and the number of instances 

of PTS that may occur are expected to 

be very small in number (Table 7). 

Instances of PTS that are incurred in 

marine mammals would be of a low 

level, due to constant movement of the 

vessel and of the marine mammals in 

the area, and the nature of the survey 

design (not concentrated in areas of high 

marine mammal concentration); 

• The availability of alternate areas of 

similar habitat value for marine 

mammals to temporarily vacate the 

survey area during the survey to avoid 

exposure to sounds from the activity; 

• The project area does not contain 

areas of significance for mating or 

calving; 

• The potential adverse effects on fish 

or invertebrate species that serve as prey 

species for marine mammals from the 

survey would be temporary and 

spatially limited; 

• The mitigation measures, including 

visual and acoustic monitoring, powerdowns, and shutdowns, are expected to 

minimize potential 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 

monitoring and mitigation measures, 

NMFS finds that the total marine 

mammal take from the planned activity 

will have a negligible impact on all 

affected marine mammal species or 

stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of incidental take may be authorized 

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

for specified activities other than 

military readiness activities. The MMPA 

does not define small numbers; so, in 

practice, where estimated numbers are 

available, NMFS compares the number 

of individuals taken to the most 

appropriate estimation of abundance of 

the relevant species or stock in our 

determination of whether an 

authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. Table 7 provides numbers of 

take by Level A harassment and Level 

B harassment authorized. These are the 

numbers we use for purposes of the 

small numbers analysis. 

The numbers of marine mammals that 

we authorize to be taken, for all species 

and stocks, would be considered small 

relative to the relevant stocks or 

populations (approximately 13 percent 

for rough-toothed dolphin, and less than 

8 percent for all other species and 

stocks). For the blue whale, killer whale, 

humpback whale, minke whale and 

spinner dolphin we propose to 

authorize take resulting from a single 

exposure of one group of each species 

or stock, as appropriate (using best 

available information on mean group 

size for these species or stocks). We 

believe that a single incident of take of 

one group of any of these species 

represents take of small numbers for 

that species 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the activity (including the 

mitigation and monitoring measures) 

and the anticipated take of marine 

mammals, NMFS finds that small 

numbers of marine mammals will be 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Notices 44581 

taken relative to the population size of 

the affected species or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of the affected marine mammal stocks or 

species implicated by this action. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

the total taking of affected species or 

stocks would not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

such species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

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

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally, in this 

case with the ESA Interagency 

Cooperation Division, whenever we 

propose to authorize take for 

endangered or threatened species. 

We (the NMFS OPR Permits and 

Conservation Division) are authorizing 

the incidental take of four species of 

marine mammals which are listed under 

the ESA: The sei, fin, blue and sperm 

whale. Under Section 7 of the ESA, we 

initiated consultation with the NMFS 

OPR Interagency Cooperation Division 

for the issuance of this IHA. In 

September, 2017, the NMFS OPR 

Interagency Cooperation Division issued 

a Biological Opinion with an incidental 

take statement, which concluded that 

the issuance of the IHA was not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of 

sei, fin, blue and sperm whales. The 

Biological Opinion also concluded that 

the issuance of the IHA would not 

destroy or adversely modify designated 

critical habitat for these species. 

Authorization 

NMFS has issued an IHA to the 

University of Hawaii for the potential 

harassment of small numbers of 24 

marine mammal species incidental to a 

marine geophysical survey in the central 

Pacific Ocean, provided the previously 

mentioned mitigation, monitoring and 

reporting requirements are incorporated. 

Dated: September 19, 2017. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–20362 Filed 9–22–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Proposed Information Collection; 

Comment Request; Alaska Pacific 

Halibut Fisheries: Charter Permits 

AGENCY: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Commerce, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork and 

respondent burden, invites the general 

public and other Federal agencies to 

take this opportunity to comment on 

proposed and/or continuing information 

collections, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before November 24, 

2017. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments 

to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental 

Paperwork Clearance Officer, 

Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 

14th and Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230 (or via the 

Internet at pracomments@doc.gov). 

An electronic copy of the most recent 

supporting statement for this 

information collection is available from 

http://www.cio.noaa.gov/itmanagement/ 

pdfs/0592ext14.pdf. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the information collection 

instrument and instructions should be 

directed to Kurt Iverson (907) 586–7228 

or kurt.iverson@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abstract 

This request is for an extension of a 

currently approved information 

collection. 

The Alaska Pacific Halibut Charter 

Program established Federal Charter 

Halibut Permits (CHPs) for operators in 

the charter halibut fishery in IPHC 

regulatory Areas 2C (Southeast Alaska) 

and 3A (Central Gulf of Alaska). Since 

February 1, 2011, all vessel operators in 

Areas 2C and 3A with charter anglers 

onboard catching and retaining Pacific 

halibut must have a valid CHP onboard 

during every charter vessel fishing trip. 

CHPs must be endorsed with the 

appropriate regulatory area and number 

of anglers. 

The National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) implemented this program 

based on recommendations by the North 

Pacific Fishery Management Council to 

meet allocation objectives in the charter 

halibut fishery. This program provides 

stability in the fishery by limiting the 

number of charter vessels that may 

participate in Areas 2C and 3A and 

decreasing the overall number of 

available CHPs over time. The program 

goals are to increase the value of the 

resource, limit boats to qualified active 

participants in the guided sport halibut 

sector, and enhance economic stability 

in rural coastal communities. 

II. Method of Collection 

Methods of submittal include mail 

and facsimile transmission of paper 

forms. Fillable pdfs are available on the 

NMFS Alaska Region Web page and 

may be downloaded, completed, and 

printed out prior to submission. 

III. Data 

OMB Control Number: 0648–0592. 

Form Number: None. 

Type of Review: Regular submission 

(extension of a currently approved 

collection). 

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit organizations. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

68. 

Estimated Time per Response: 2 hours 

for Application for Transfer of Charter 

Halibut Permit; 0.5 hours for 

Application for Military Charter Permit; 

2 hours for Application for Transfer 

between IFQ and Guided Angler Fish 

(GAF); and 4 hours for Appeals if an 

Application for Transfer between IFQ 

and GAF is denied by NMFS. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours and Equivalent Labor Costs to the 

Public: 98 hours and $3,626 per year 

($37 per hour for preparing and 

submitting applications and $125/hr for 

preparing an appeal). 

Estimated Total Annual Cost to 

Public: $196 in recordkeeping/reporting 

costs for photocopying, obtaining a 

notarized signature, faxing, or mailing 

applications. 

IV. Request for Comments 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden 

(including hours and cost) of the 

proposed collection of information; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES