49314 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 

low numbers will have on the overall 

distribution of the $30 million in 

Compact funds. 

II. Method of Collection 

In Guam, approximately 45 sample 

blocks totaling about 3,300 sample 

addresses will be listed and 

enumerated. In CNMI, approximately 30 

sample blocks totaling about 2,000 

sample addresses will be listed and 

enumerated. The data will be collected 

via in-person interviews. A content reinterview will be conducted to assess 

the accuracy and reliability of the data 

collected. For the re-interview, a sample 

of approximately 400 respondents will 

be selected and contacted for a followup interview via a telephone number 

they provided during the original 

interview. 

III. Data 

OMB Control Number: 0607–XXXX. 

Form Number(s): XXXX. 

Type of Review: Regular submission. 

Affected Public: Residents of Guam 

and CNMI. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

Approximately 4,770 respondents. 

Estimated Time per Response: 32 

minutes. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 2,544. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost to 

Public: There is no cost to the 

respondents other than their time. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. 

Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C. 

Section 8(b) and Public Law 108–188, 

The Compact of Free Association 

Amendments Act of 2003. 

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. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection; 

they also will become a matter of public 

record. 

Sheleen Dumas, 

Departmental PRA Lead, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2017–23147 Filed 10–24–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–07–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

Information Systems Technical 

Advisory Committee: Notice of 

Partially Closed Meeting—Revised 

The Information Systems Technical 

Advisory Committee (ISTAC) will meet 

on November 1 and 2, 2017, 9:00 a.m., 

in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 

Room 3884, 14th Street between 

Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues 

NW., Washington, DC. The Committee 

advises the Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Export Administration on 

technical questions that affect the level 

of export controls applicable to 

information systems equipment and 

technology. 

Wednesday, November 1 

Open Session 

1. Welcome and Introductions 

2. Working Group Reports 

3. Old Business 

4. Industry Presentations: Basic Buffer 

Overflows 

5. NIST IoT Cybersecurity Program 

6. New business 

Thursday, November 2 

Closed Session 

6. Discussion of matters determined to 

be exempt from the provisions 

relating to public meetings found in 

5 U.S.C. app. 2 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). 

The open session will be accessible 

via teleconference to 20 participants on 

a first come, first serve basis. To join the 

conference, submit inquiries to Ms. 

Yvette Springer at Yvette.Springer@

bis.doc.gov, no later than October 25, 

2017. 

A limited number of seats will be 

available for the public session. 

Reservations are not accepted. To the 

extent time permits, members of the 

public may present oral statements to 

the Committee. The public may submit 

written statements at any time before or 

after the meeting. However, to facilitate 

distribution of public presentation 

materials to Committee members, the 

Committee suggests that public 

presentation materials or comments be 

forwarded before the meeting to Ms. 

Springer. 

The Assistant Secretary for 

Administration, with the concurrence of 

the delegate of the General Counsel, 

formally determined on February 27, 

2017, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 

amended (5 U.S.C. app. 2 (l0)(d))), that 

the portion of the meeting concerning 

trade secrets and commercial or 

financial information deemed privileged 

or confidential as described in 5 U.S.C. 

552b(c)(4) and the portion of the 

meeting concerning matters the 

disclosure of which would be likely to 

frustrate significantly implementation of 

an agency action as described in 5 

U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) shall be exempt 

from the provisions relating to public 

meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 

10(a)(1) and l0(a)(3). The remaining 

portions of the meeting will be open to 

the public. 

For more information, call Yvette 

Springer at (202) 482–2813. 

Yvette Springer, 

Committee Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2017–23220 Filed 10–24–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–JT––P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XF329 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to a Low-Energy 

Geophysical Survey in the 

Northeastern 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 

Scripps Institution of Oceanography 

(SIO) to incidentally harass, by Level A 

and Level B harassment, marine 

mammals during a low-energy marine 

geophysical survey in the northeastern 

Pacific Ocean. 

DATES: This Authorization is valid from 

September 22, 2017, through September 

19, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jordan Carduner, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

Electronic copies of the application and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 49315 

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: 

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 SIO. We 

reviewed all comments submitted in 

response to the Federal Register notice 

for the proposed IHA (82 FR 39276; 

August 17, 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 

SIO 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’s 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 20, 2017, NMFS received a 

request from SIO for an IHA to take 

marine mammals incidental to 

conducting a low-energy marine 

geophysical survey in the northeastern 

Pacific Ocean. On July 5, 2017, we 

deemed SIO’s application for 

authorization to be adequate and 

complete. SIO’s request is for take of a 

small number of 27 species of marine 

mammals by Level B harassment and 

Level A harassment. Neither SIO 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 Specified Activity 

A detailed description of SIO’s lowenergy geophysical survey is provided 

in the Federal Register notice for the 

proposed IHA (82 FR 39276; August 17, 

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 August 

17, 2017 (82 FR 39276). 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 SIO’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: A comment received 

from a member of the general public 

expressed concern that the survey 

would result in the deaths of marine 

mammals. 

Response: NMFS does not anticipate 

that SIO’s survey will result in the 

deaths of marine mammals and the 

authorization does not permit serious 

injury or mortality of marine mammals. 

Comment 2: The Commission 

expressed concerns regarding SIO’s 

method to estimate the extent of the 

Level A and Level 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 SIO, in collaboration with 

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of 

Columbia University (L–DEO) (which 

performed the modeling of Level A and 

Level B harassment zones) 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. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

Commission’s concerns about LDEO’s 

current modeling approach for 

estimating Level A and Level B 

harassment zones and takes. SIO’s 

application (LGL, 2017) and the Federal 

Register notice of the proposed IHA (82 

FR 39276; August 17, 2017) describe the 

applicant’s approach to modeling Level 

A and Level B harassment zones. The 

model L–DEO currently uses does not 

allow for the consideration of 

environmental and site-specific 

parameters as requested by the 

Commission. 

L–DEO’s application (LGL, 2017) 

describes their approach to modeling 

Level A and Level B harassment zones. 

In summary, L–DEO acquired field 

measurements for several array 

configurations at shallow, intermediate, 

and deep-water depths during acoustic 

verification studies conducted in the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
49316 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 

northern Gulf of Mexico in 2007 and 

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

empirical data from those studies, L– 

DEO developed a sound propagation 

modeling approach that predicts 

received sound levels as a function of 

distance from a particular airgun array 

configuration in deep water. For this 

survey, L–DEO modeled Level A and 

Level B harassment zones based on the 

empirically-derived measurements from 

the Gulf of Mexico calibration survey 

(Appendix H of NSF–USGS 2011). For 

deep water (>1000 m), L–DEO used the 

deep-water radii obtained from model 

results down to a maximum water depth 

of 2,000 m (Figure 2 and 3 in Appendix 

H of NSF–USGS 2011); the radii for 

intermediate water depths (100–1,000 

m) were derived from the deep-water 

ones by applying a correction factor 

(multiplication) of 1.5, such that 

observed levels at very near offsets fall 

below the corrected mitigation curve 

(Fig. 16 in Appendix H of the NSF– 

USGS 2011). 

In 2015, L–DEO explored the question 

of whether the Gulf of Mexico 

calibration data described above 

adequately informs the model to predict 

exclusion isopleths in other areas by 

conducting a retrospective sound power 

analysis of one of the lines acquired 

during L–DEO’s seismic survey offshore 

New Jersey in 2014 (Crone, 2015). 

NMFS presented a comparison of the 

predicted radii (i.e., modeled exclusion 

zones) with radii based on in situ 

measurements (i.e., the upper bound 

[95th percentile] of the cross-line 

prediction) in a previous notice of 

issued Authorization for LamontDoherty (see 80 FR 27635, May 14, 

2015, Table 1). Briefly, the anlysis 

presented in Crone (2015), specific to 

the survey site offshore New Jersey, 

confirmed that in-situ, site specific 

measurements and estimates of 160 dB 

and 180 dB isopleths collected by the 

hydrophone streamer of the R/V Marcus 

Langseth in shallow water were smaller 

than the modeled (i.e., predicted) zones 

for two seismic surveys conducted 

offshore New Jersey in shallow water in 

2014 and 2015. In that particular case, 

Crone’s (2015) results showed that L– 

DEO’s modeled 180 dB and 160 dB 

zones were approximately 28 percent 

and 33 percent smaller, respectively, 

than the in-situ, site-specific 

measurements, thus confirming that L– 

DEO’s model was conservative in that 

case. 

The following is a summary of two 

additional analyses of in-situ data that 

support L–DEO’s use of the modeled 

Level A and Level B harassment zones 

zones in this particular case. In 2010, L– 

DEO assessed the accuracy of their 

modeling approach by comparing the 

sound levels of the field measurements 

acquired in the Gulf of Mexico study to 

their model predictions (Diebold et al., 

2010). They reported that the observed 

sound levels from the field 

measurements fell almost entirely below 

the predicted mitigation radii curve for 

deep water (greater than 1,000 m; 3280.8 

ft) (Diebold et al., 2010). In 2012, L–DEO 

used a similar process to model 

distances to isopleths corresponding to 

the isopleths corresponding to Level A 

and Level B harassment thresholds for 

a shallow-water seismic survey in the 

northeast Pacific Ocean offshore 

Washington State. L–DEO conducted 

the shallow-water survey using the same 

airgun configuration planned for the 

surveys considered in this IHA (i.e., 

6,600 in3) and recorded the received 

sound levels on both the shelf and slope 

using the Langseth’s 8 km hydrophone 

streamer. Crone et al. (2014) analyzed 

those received sound levels from the 

2012 survey and confirmed that in-situ, 

site specific measurements and 

estimates of the 160 dB and 180 dB 

isopleths collected by the Langseth’s 

hydrophone streamer in shallow water 

were two to three times smaller than L– 

DEO’s modeling approach had 

predicted. While the results confirmed 

bathymetry’s role in sound propagation, 

Crone et al. (2014) were also able to 

confirm that the empirical 

measurements from the Gulf of Mexico 

calibration survey (the same 

measurements used to inform L–DEO’s 

modeling approach for the planned 

surveys in the southwest Pacific Ocean) 

overestimated the size of the exclusion 

and buffer zones for the shallow-water 

2012 survey off Washington State and 

were thus precautionary, in that 

particular case. 

NMFS continues to work with L–DEO 

to address the issue of incorporating 

site-specific information for future 

authorizations for seismic surveys. 

However, L–DEO’s current modeling 

approach (supported by the three data 

points discussed previously) represents 

the best available information for NMFS 

to reach determinations for this IHA. As 

described earlier, the comparisons of L– 

DEO’s model results and the field data 

collected in the Gulf of Mexico, offshore 

Washington State, and offshore New 

Jersey illustrate a degree of 

conservativeness built into L–DEO’s 

model for deep water, which NMFS 

expects to offset some of the limitations 

of the model to capture the variability 

resulting from site-specific factors. 

Based upon the best available 

information (i.e., the three data points, 

two of which are peer-reviewed, 

discussed in this response), NMFS finds 

that the Level A and Level B harassment 

zone calculations are appropriate for use 

in this particular IHA. 

L–DEO has conveyed to NMFS that 

additional modeling efforts to refine the 

process and conduct comparative 

analysis may be possible with the 

availability of research funds and other 

resources. Obtaining research funds is 

typically accomplished through a 

competitive process, including those 

submitted to U.S. Federal agencies. The 

use of models for calculating buffer and 

exclusion zone radii and for developing 

take estimates is not a requirement of 

the MMPA incidental take authorization 

process. Furthermore, NMFS does not 

provide specific guidance on model 

parameters nor prescribe a specific 

model for applicants as part of the 

MMPA incidental take authorization 

process at this time, although we do 

review methods to ensure adequate for 

prediction of take. There is a level of 

variability not only with parameters in 

the models, but also the uncertainty 

associated with data used in models, 

and therefore, the quality of the model 

results submitted by applicants. NMFS 

considers this variability when 

evaluating applications and the take 

estimates and mitigation measures that 

the model informs. NMFS takes into 

consideration the model used, and its 

results, in determining the potential 

impacts to marine mammals; however, 

it 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.). 

Comment 3: 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 4: The Commission 

expressed concern that information was 

missing in NMFS’s Federal Register 

notice of proposed IHA (82 FR 39276; 

August 17, 2017) and SIO’s application, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 49317 

including operating frequency of the 

multibeam echosounder (MBES) and 

sub-bottom profiler (SBP) and 

information regarding densities, Level A 

daily ensonified areas, and number of 

days of activities that informed NMFS’s 

analysis. 

NMFS Response: We appreciate the 

Commission pointing out the 

deficiencies in the Federal Register 

notice of proposed IHA (82 FR 39276; 

August 17, 2017). In response to the 

Commisison’s concerns we have done 

the following, as recommended by the 

Commission: (1) Used the Dall’s 

porpoise density derived from Beaufort 

sea states (BSS) of 0–5 rather than 0–3; 

(2) ensured that pinniped densities are 

based on the best available information; 

and (3) ensured the estimated numbers 

of Level A and B harassment takes are 

correct based on the relevant densities, 

daily ensonified areas, and number of 

days of activities (Table 8). The MBES 

will operate at 12 kilohertz (kHz) and 

the SBP will operate at 3.5 kHz. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Section 4 of the IHA 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 

northeastern Pacific Ocean and 

summarizes information related to the 

population or stock, including 

regulatory status under the MMPA and 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) and 

potential biological removal (PBR), 

where known. For taxonomy, we follow 

Committee on Taxonomy (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 2017 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 

North Pacific right whale 5

(Eubalaena japonica).

Eastern North Pacific ......... E/D; Y 31 ....................................... 0.1 Rare. 

Gray whale 5 (Eschrichtius 

robustus).

Eastern North Pacific ......... -/-; N 20,990 (0.05; 20,125; 

2011).

3.1 Common in nearshore 

areas, rare elsewhere. 

Humpback whale 6

(Megaptera 

novaeangliae).

California/Oregon/Washington.E/T/D; N 1,918 (0.03; 1,876; 2014) .. 11 Common in nearshore 

areas, rare elsewhere. 

Minke whale (Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata).

California/Oregon/Washington.-/-; N 636 (0.72; 369; 2014) ........ 3.5 Rare. 

Sei whale (Balaenoptera 

borealis).

Eastern N Pacific ............... E/D; Y 519 (0.4; 374; 2014) .......... 0.75 Rare. 

Fin whale (Balaenoptera 

physalus).

California/Oregon/Washington.E/D; Y 9,029 (0.12; 8,127; 2014) .. 81 Common. 

Blue whale (Balaenoptera 

musculus).

Eastern N Pacific ............... E/D; Y 1,647 (0.07; 1,551; 2011) .. 2.3 Rare. 

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

Family: Physeteridae 

Sperm whale (Physeter 

macrocephalus).

California/Oregon/Washington.E/D; Y 2,106 (0.58; 1,332; 2014) .. 2.7 Common. 

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

Family: Kogiidae 

Pygmy sperm whale (Kogia 

breviceps).

California/Oregon/Washington.-/-; N 4,111 (1.12; 1,924; 2014) .. 19 Rare. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
49318 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 

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 

Dwarf sperm whale (Kogia 

sima).

California/Oregon/Washington.-/-; N unknown (unknown; unknown; 2014).Undet. Rare. 

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

Family: delphinidae 

Killer whale (Orcinus orca) West coast transient .......... -/-; N 243 (n/a; 243; 2009) .......... 2.4 Rare. 

Eastern North Pacific offshore.-/-; N 240 (0.49; 162; 2014) ........ 1.6 Rare. 

False killer whale 7

(Pseudorca crassidens).

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

Short-finned pilot whale 

(Globicephala 

macrorhynchus).

California/Oregon/Washington.-/-; N 836 (0.79; 466; 2014) ........ 4.5 Rare. 

Harbor porpoise (Phocoena 

phocoena).

Northern Oregon/Washington Coast.-/-; N 21,487 (0.44; 15,123; 

2011).

151 Abundant. 

Northern California/Southern Oregon.-/-; N 35,769 (0.52; 23,749; 

2011).

475 Abundant. 

Dall’s porpoise (Phocoena 

dalli).

California/Oregon/Washington.-/-; N 25,750 (0.45; 17,954; 

2014).

172 Abundant. 

Bottlenose dolphin 

(Tursiops truncatus).

California/Oregon/Washington Offshore.-/-; N 1,924 (0.54; 1,255; 2014) .. 11 Rare. 

Striped dolphin (Stenella 

coeruleoala).

California/Oregon/Washington.-/-; N 29,211 (0.2; 24,782; 2014) 238 Rare. 

Risso’s dolphin (Grampus 

griseus).

California/Oregon/Washington.-/-; N 6,336 (0.32; 4,817; 2014) .. 46 Common. 

Short-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus delphis).California/Oregon/Washington.-; N 969,861 (0.17; 839,325; 

2014).

8,393 Common. 

Pacific white-sided dolphin 

(Lagenorhynchus 

obliquidens).

California/Oregon/Washington.-; N 26,814 (0.28; 21,195; 

2014).

191 Abundant. 

Northern right whale dolphin (Lissodelphis borealis).California/Oregon/Washington.-; N 26,556 (0.44; 18,608; 

2014).

179 Common. 

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

Family: Ziphiidae 

Cuvier’s beaked whale 

(Ziphius cavirostris).

California/Oregon/Washington.-/-; N 6,590 (0.55; 4,481; 2008) .. 45 Common. 

Baird’s beaked whale 

(Berardius bairdii).

California/Oregon/Washington.-; N 847 (0.81; 466; 2008) ........ 4.7 Common. 

Mesoplodont beaked 

whales 8.

California/Oregon/Washington.-/-; N 694 (0.65; 389; 2008) ........ 3.9 Rare. 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family: Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions) 

California sea lion 

(Zalophus californianus).

U.S. .................................... -; N 296,750 (n/a; 153,337; 

2011).

9,200 Rare. 

Steller sea lion (Eumetopias 

jubatus).

Eastern U.S. ...................... -; N 41,638 (n/a; 41,638; 2015) 2,498 Common in nearshore 

areas, rare elsewhere. 

Family: Phocidae (earless seals) 

Harbor seal 9 (Phoca 

vitulina).

Oregon/Washington Coast -; N 24,732 (unk; unk; n/a) ....... Unknown Common in nearshore 

areas, rare elsewhere. 

Northern elephant seal 

(Mirounga angustirostris).

California breeding ............. -; N 179,000 (n/a; 81,368; 

2010).

4,882 Common in nearshore 

areas, rare elsewhere. 

Northern fur seal 

(Callorhinus ursinus).

California ............................ -; N 14,050 (n/a; 7,524; 2013) .. 451 Common in nearshore 

areas, rare elsewhere. 

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. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 49319 

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 gray whale and North Pacific right whale are from Muto et al. (2016). 6 Humpback whales in the survey area could originate from either the ESA threatened Mexico DPS or from the ESA endangered Central

America DPS. 7 NMFS does not have a defined stock for false killer whales off the West Coast of the U.S. as they are considered uncommon visitors to the 

area; any false killer whales observed off the West Coast of the U.S. would likely be part of the eastern North Pacific population. Of the stocks 

defined by NMFS, the Hawaii Pelagic stock is the most likely to include individuals in the eastern North Pacific population. 8 Includes the following species: Blainville’s beaked whale (M. densirostris), Perrin’s beaked whale (M. perrini), Lesser beaked whale (M. 

peruvianus), Stejneger’s beaked whale (M. stejnegeri), Gingko-toothed beaked whale (M. gingkodens), and Hubbs’ beaked whale (M. 

carlhubbsi). 9The most recent abundance estimate is from 1999. This is the best available information, but because this abundance estimate is >8 years 

old, there is no current estimate of abundance available for this stock. 

All species that could potentially 

occur in the planned survey area are 

included in Table 1. However, as 

described below, the spatial occurrence 

of the North Pacific right whale and 

dwarf sperm whale are such that take is 

not expected to occur for these species. 

The North Pacific right whale is one of 

the most endangered species of whale in 

the world (Carretta et al., 2017). Only 82 

sightings of right whales in the entire 

eastern North Pacific were reported 

from 1962 to 1999, with the majority of 

these occurring in the Bering Sea and 

adjacent areas of the Aleutian Islands 

(Brownell et al. 2001). Most sightings in 

the past 20 years have occurred in the 

southeastern Bering Sea, with a few in 

the Gulf of Alaska (Wade et al. 2011). 

Despite many miles of systematic aerial 

and ship-based surveys for marine 

mammals off the coasts of Washington, 

Oregon and California over several 

years, only seven documented sightings 

of right whales were made from 1990 to 

2000 (Waite et al. 2003). Because of the 

small population size and the fact that 

North Pacific right whales spend the 

summer feeding in high latitudes, the 

likelihood that the planned survey 

would encounter a North Pacific right 

whale is discountable. Along the U.S. 

west coast, no at-sea sightings of dwarf 

sperm whales have ever been reported 

despite numerous vessel surveys of this 

region (Barlow 1995; Barlow and 

Gerrodette 1996; Barlow and Forney 

2007; Forney 2007; Barlow 2010, Barlow 

2016). Therefore, based on the best 

available information, we believe the 

likelihood of the survey encountering a 

dwarf sperm whale is discountable. SIO 

requested authorization for the 

incidental take of dwarf sperm whales 

(the request was for a combined two 

takes of pygmy and/or dwarf sperm 

whales). However as we have 

determined the likelihood of take of 

dwarf sperm whales is discountable, we 

do not authorize take of dwarf sperm 

whales. Thus, the North Pacific right 

whale and dwarf sperm whale are not 

discussed further in this document. 

A detailed description of the of the 

species likely to be affected by SIO’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 

39276; August 17, 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 for generalized species 

accounts: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ 

species/mammals/. 

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 

of proposed IHA (82 FR 39276; August 

17, 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 that Federal Register 

notice for that information. No instances 

of serious injury or mortality are 

expected as a result of SIO’s survey 

activities. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes 

authorized through this IHA, which will 

inform 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 are primarily 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 high frequency 

cetaceans and phocid pinnipeds. 

Auditory injury is unlikely to occur for 

low- and 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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
49320 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 

harassed (equated to Level B 

harassment) or to incur PTS of some 

degree (equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment for non-explosive 

sources—Though significantly driven by 

received level, the onset of behavioral 

disturbance from anthropogenic noise 

exposure is also informed to varying 

degrees by other factors related to the 

source (e.g., frequency, predictability, 

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

bathymetry), and the receiving animals 

(hearing, motivation, experience, 

demography, behavioral context) and 

can be difficult to predict (Southall et 

al., 2007, Ellison et al. 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 decibedl (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. SIO’s 

planned 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) as a result of 

exposure to noise from two different 

types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). 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. 

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: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ 

acoustics/guidelines.htm. As described 

above, SIO’s planned activity includes 

the use of intermittent and impulsive 

seismic sources. 

To appropriately assess the potential 

effects of exposure to sound, it is 

necessary to understand the frequency 

ranges marine mammals are able to 

hear. Current data indicate that not all 

marine mammal species have equal 

hearing capabilities (e.g., Richardson et 

al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au 

and Hastings, 2008). To reflect this, 

Southall et al. (2007) recommended that 

marine mammals be divided into 

functional hearing groups based on 

directly measured or estimated hearing 

ranges on the basis of available 

behavioral response data, audiograms 

derived using auditory evoked potential 

techniques, anatomical modeling, and 

other data. Note that no direct 

measurements of hearing ability have 

been successfully completed for 

mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency 

cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2016) 

described generalized hearing ranges for 

these marine mammal hearing groups 

(Table 2). Generalized hearing ranges 

were chosen based on the 

approximately 65 dB threshold from the 

normalized composite audiograms, with 

the exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower 

bound was deemed to be biologically 

implausible and the lower bound from 

Southall et al. (2007) retained. The 

functional groups and the associated 

frequencies are indicated below (note 

that these frequency ranges correspond 

to the range for the composite group, 

with the entire range not necessarily 

reflecting the capabilities of every 

species within that group): 

• Low-frequency cetaceans 

(mysticetes): Generalized hearing is 

estimated to occur between 

approximately 7 hertz (Hz) and 35 kHz, 

with best hearing estimated to be from 

100 Hz to 8 kHz; 

• Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger 

toothed whales, beaked whales, and 

most delphinids): Generalized hearing is 

estimated to occur between 

approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz, 

with best hearing from 10 to less than 

100 kHz; 

• High-frequency cetaceans 

(porpoises, river dolphins, and members 

of the genera Kogia and 

Cephalorhynchus; including two 

members of the genus Lagenorhynchus, 

on the basis of recent echolocation data 

and genetic data): Generalized hearing is 

estimated to occur between 

approximately 275 Hz and 160 kHz. 

• Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true 

seals): Generalized hearing is estimated 

to occur between approximately 50 Hz 

to 86 kHz, with best hearing between 1– 

50 kHz; 

• Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared 

seals): Generalized hearing is estimated 

to occur between 60 Hz and 39 kHz, 

with best hearing between 2–48 kHz. 

The pinniped functional hearing 

group was modified from Southall et al. 

(2007) on the basis of data indicating 

that phocid species have consistently 

demonstrated an extended frequency 

range of hearing compared to otariids, 

especially in the higher frequency range 

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

2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013). 

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). 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 49321 

For more detail concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 

please see NMFS (2016) for a review of 

available information. Twenty four 

marine mammal species (all cetaceans) 

have the reasonable potential to cooccur with the planned survey 

activities. Please refer to Table 1. Of the 

cetacean species that may be present, 6 

are classified as low-frequency 

cetaceans (i.e., all mysticete species), 16 

are classified as mid-frequency 

cetaceans (i.e., all delphinid and ziphiid 

species and the sperm whale), and 2 are 

classified as high-frequency cetaceans 

(i.e., Kogia spp.). 

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. 

Phocid Pinnipeds (PW)(Underwater) ...................................... Lpk,flat: 218 dB, LE,PW,24h: 185 dB ......................................... LE,PW,24h: 201 dB. 

Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) .................................... Lpk,flat: 232 dB, LE,OW,24h: 203 dB ......................................... LE,OW,24h: 219 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 planned survey would entail the 

use of a 2-airgun array with a total 

discharge of 90 cubic inches (in3) at a 

tow depth of 3 meters (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 airgun array. 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). In addition, propagation 

measurements of pulses from a 36- 

airgun array at a tow depth of 6 m have 

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

intermediate water depth on the slope 

(∼600–1100 m), and shallow water (∼50 

m) in the Gulf of Mexico in 2007–2008 

(Tolstoy et al. 2009; Diebold et al. 2010). 

The estimated distances to the Level B 

harassment isopleth for the Revelle 

airgun array are shown in Table 4. 

TABLE 4—PREDICTED RADIAL DISTANCES FROM R/V REVELLE 90 IN3

SEISMIC SOURCE TO ISOPLETH CORRESPONDING TO LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLD

Water depth 

Predicted distance 

to threshold 

(160 dB re 1 μPa) 

>1000 m .................... 448 m. 

100–1,000 m ............. 672 m. 

For modeling of radial distances to 

predicted isopleths corresponding to 

harassment thresholds in deep water 

(>1,000 m), LDEO used the deep-water 

radii for various Sound Exposure Levels 

obtained from LDEO model results 

down to a maximum water depth of 

2,000 m (see Figure 2 in the IHA 

application). Radial distances to 

predicted isopleths corresponding to 

harassment thresholds in intermediate 

water depths (100–1,000 m) were 

derived by LDEO from the deep-water 

distances by applying a correction factor 

(multiplication) of 1.5, such that 

observed levels at very near offsets fall 

below the corrected mitigation curve 

(Fig. 16 in Appendix H of NSF–USGS 

2011). LDEO’s modeling methodology is 

described in greater detail in the IHA 

application (LGL 2017) and we refer the 

reader to that document rather than 

repeating it here. 

Predicted distances to Level A 

harassment isopleths, which vary based 

on marine mammal functional 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 level 

(SPL) 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 Revelle 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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
49322 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 

kilometers (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 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 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. Though 

the array effect is not expected to be as 

pronounced in the case of a 2-airgun 

array as it would be with a larger airgun 

array, the modified farfield method is 

considered more appropriate than use of 

the theoretical farfield signature. 

TABLE 5—MODELED SOURCE LEVELS USING MODIFIED FARFIELD METHOD FOR R/V REVELLE 90-IN3 AIRGUN ARRAY

Functional hearing group Peak SPLflat SELcum

Low frequency cetaceans (Lpk,flat: 219 dB; LE,LF,24h: 183 dB) ............................................................................... 232.805 dB 206.0165 dB. 

Mid frequency cetaceans (Lpk,flat: 230 dB; LE,MF,24h: 185 dB) ............................................................................... 229.89 dB 205.9638 dB. 

High frequency cetaceans (Lpk,flat: 202 dB; LE,HF,24h: 155 dB) .............................................................................. 232.867 dB 206.384 dB. 

Phocid Pinnipeds (Underwater) (Lpk,flat: 218 dB; LE,HF,24h: 185 dB) ...................................................................... 232.356 dB 205.9638 dB. 

Otariid Pinnipeds (Underwater) (Lpk,flat: 232 dB; LE,HF,24h: 203 dB) ...................................................................... 224.7897 dB 206.806 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 Revelle’s airgun 

array (modeled in 1 Hz bands) was used 

to make adjustments (dB) to the 

unweighted spectrum levels, by 

frequency, according to the weighting 

functions for each relevant marine 

mammal hearing group. These adjusted/ 

weighted spectrum levels were then 

converted to pressures (mPa) in order to 

integrate them over the entire 

broadband spectrum, resulting in 

broadband weighted source levels by 

hearing group that could be directly 

incorporated within the User 

Spreadsheet (i.e., to override the 

Spreadsheet’s more simple weighting 

factor adjustment). Using the User 

Spreadsheet’s ‘‘safe distance’’ 

methodology for mobile sources 

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

hearing group-specific weighted source 

levels, and inputs assuming spherical 

spreading propagation, a source velocity 

of 2.57 m/second, and shot interval of 

7.78 seconds (LGL 2017), potential 

radial distances to auditory injury zones 

were then calculated for SELcum

thresholds. 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. As described above, the larger 

distance of the dual criteria (SELcum or 

Peak SPLflat) is used for estimating takes 

by Level A harassment. The weighting 

functions used are shown in Table 3 of 

the IHA application. 

TABLE 6—MODELED RADIAL DISTANCES (m) FROM R/V REVELLE 90-IN3 AIRGUN ARRAY TO ISOPLETHS CORRESPONDING

TO LEVEL A HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS

Functional hearing group 

(Level A harassment thresholds) Peak SPLflat SELcum

Low frequency cetaceans (Lpk,flat: 219 dB; LE,LF,24h: 183 dB) ................................................................................ 4.9 7.9 

Mid frequency cetaceans (Lpk,flat: 230 dB; LE,MF,24h: 185 dB) ................................................................................ 1.0 0 

High frequency cetaceans (Lpk,flat: 202 dB; LE,HF,24h: 155 dB) .............................................................................. 34.9 0 

Phocid Pinnipeds (Underwater) (Lpk,flat: 218 dB; LE,HF,24h: 185 dB) ...................................................................... 5.2 0.1 

Otariid Pinnipeds (Underwater) (Lpk,flat: 232 dB; LE,HF,24h: 203 dB) ....................................................................... 0.4 0 

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 the planned 

seismic survey, the User Spreadsheet 

predicts the closest distance at which a 

stationary animal would not incur PTS 

if the sound source traveled by the 

animal in a straight line at a constant 

speed. 

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. 

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 Barlow (2016) were used. 

These represent the most 

comprehensive and recent density data 

available for cetacean species in slope 

and offshore waters of Oregon and 

Washington and are based on data 

collected via NMFS Southwest Fisheries 

Science Center (SWFSC) ship-based 

surveys in 1991, 1993, 1996, 2001, 2005, 

2008, and 2014. The surveys were 

conducted up to ∼556 km from shore 

from June or August to November or 

December. The densities from NMFS 

SWFSC vessel-based surveys were 

corrected by the authors for both 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 49323 

trackline detection probability and 

availability bias. Trackline detection 

probability bias is associated with 

diminishing sightability with increasing 

lateral distance from the trackline and is 

measured by f(0). Availability bias refers 

to the fact that there is less than 100 

percent probability of sighting an 

animal that is present along the survey 

trackline, and it is measured by g(0). 

Abundance and density were not 

estimated for gray whales or harbor 

porpoises in the NMFS SWFSC surveys 

because their inshore habitats were 

inadequately covered in those studies. 

Gray whale density is derived from the 

abundance of gray whales that remain 

between Oregon and British Columbia 

in summer (updated based on 

abundance calculated by Calambokidis 

et al. 2014) and the area out to 43 km 

from shore, using the U.S. Navy (2010) 

method. Harbor porpoise densities are 

based on data from aerial line-transect 

surveys during 2007–2012 for the 

Northern Oregon/Washington Coast 

stock (Forney et al. 2014). 

Systematic, offshore, at-sea survey 

data for pinnipeds are more limited than 

those for cetaceans. Densities for 

pinnipeds were calculated as the 

estimated number of animals at sea 

divided by the area encompassing their 

range. Densities for the Steller sea lion, 

California sea lion, northern elephant 

seal, and northern fur seal were 

calculated using the methods in U.S. 

Navy (2010) with updated abundance 

estimates from Carretta et al. (2016) and 

Muto et al. (2016), when appropriate. 

For the harbor seal, densities were 

calculated using the population estimate 

for the Oregon/Washington Coastal 

stock and the range for that stock from 

Carretta et al. (2016). 

In the Federal Register notice of the 

proposed IHA (82 FR 39276; August 17, 

2017), areas encompassing the ranges of 

pinniped species, which were used to 

estimate pinniped densities, were based 

on areas reported in U.S. Navy (2010). 

However, after publication of the notice 

of the proposed IHA, the Commission 

noted in their comment letter that the 

best available data on areas 

encompassing the ranges of pinniped 

species in the project area is presented 

in U.S. Navy (2014). We have reviewed 

U.S. Navy (2014) and have revised 

densities in the final IHA from those 

shown in the proposed IHA accordingly, 

to reflect the best available information 

on areas encompassing the ranges of 

pinniped species. The estimates of the 

numbers of animals at sea that were 

used to estimate densities in the 

proposed IHA remains the best available 

information for all five pinniped species 

expected to occur in the survey area; 

thus, in revising estimated densities we 

used the updated areas from U.S. Navy 

2014 (when updated areas were 

available), and the same estimates of the 

numbers of animals at sea as those that 

were used to estimate density in the 

proposed IHA. For three species (Steller 

sea lion, northern elephant seal, and 

northern fur seal) the areas reported in 

U.S. Navy (2014) were the same as those 

in U.S. Navy (2010); therefore, there was 

no need to revise densities for these 

species. For harbor seal and California 

sea lion, areas reported in U.S. Navy 

(2014) were different than those 

reported in U.S. Navy (2010); therefore, 

we have revised density estimates of 

these two species to reflect the best 

available information. Note that 

correction factors were applied in some 

cases in the calculations of density 

estimates for pinnipeds (see footnotes in 

Table 8). 

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 

A harassment or Level B harassment, 

radial distances from the airgun array to 

predicted isopleths corresponding to the 

Level A harassment threshold and Level 

B harassment threshold are calculated, 

as described above. Those radial 

distances are then used to calculate the 

area(s) around the airgun array 

predicted to be ensonified to sound 

levels that exceed the Level A 

harassment and Level B harassment 

thresholds. The area estimated to be 

ensonified to those thresholds in a 

single day of the survey is then 

calculated (Table 7), based on the areas 

predicted to be ensonified around the 

array and the estimated trackline 

distance traveled per day. This number 

is then multiplied by the number of 

survey days (i.e., 5). The product is then 

multiplied by 1.25 to account for the 

additional 25 percent contingency, as 

described above. This results in an 

estimate of the total areas in square 

kilometers (km2) expected to be 

ensonified to the Level A harassment 

and Level B harassment thresholds 

(Table 7). For purposes of Level B take 

calculations, areas estimated to be 

ensonified to Level A harassment 

thresholds are subtracted from total 

areas estimated to be ensonified to Level 

B harassment thresholds in order to 

avoid double counting the animals 

taken (i.e., if an animal is taken by Level 

A harassment, it is not also counted as 

taken by Level B harassment). The 

marine mammals predicted to occur 

within these respective areas, based on 

estimated densities, are assumed to be 

incidentally taken. Areas estimated to 

be ensonified to the Level B harassment 

threshold for the planned survey are 

shown in Table 7. Estimated takes for all 

marine mammal species are shown in 

Table 8. 

TABLE 7— AREAS (km2) ESTIMATED TO BE ENSONIFIED TO LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS OVER THE

DURATION OF THE SURVEY

Level B harassment 

threshold 

Level A harassment threshold 1

All marine 

mammals 

Low frequency 

cetaceans 

Mid frequency 

cetaceans 

High 

frequency 

cetaceans 

Otariid 

Pinnipeds 

1,276.25 21.1 2.6 96.2 1.2 13.9 

Note: Estimated areas based on five survey days and include additional 25 percent contingency (effectively resulting in 6.25 survey days). 

Level A ensonified areas are estimated based on the greater of the distances calculated to Level A isopleths using dual criteria (SELcum and 

peakSPL). 

Take estimates for Dall’s porpoise and 

harbor porpoise have been been revised 

from those reflected in the Federal 

Register notice of proposed IHA (82 FR 

39276; August 17, 2017). For Dall’s 

porpoise, we have adopted the 

Commission’s suggestion that the take 

estimate should be based on the density 

for the species that was derived in BSS 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
49324 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 

of 0–5 (58.3 animals per km2) versus the 

density that was derived in BSS of 0– 

3 (54.4 animals per km2) which was 

used in the take stimate shown in the 

proposed IHA, based on the fact that 

previous geophysical surveys in waters 

of northern California, Oregon, and 

Washington have occurred in BSSs of 0– 

7 during the same season. Additionally, 

for species for which Level A take is 

being authorized, the Commission 

correctly noted that Level A estimates 

should be subtracted from Level B 

estimates when calculating the total 

number of authorized takes (to avoid 

double counting the animals taken by 

Level A harassment, as described 

above); this step had mistakenly not 

been performed for the take estimates 

reflected in the proposed IHA. These 

revisions resulted in a revised estimate 

of 69 Level B takes (versus 68 as shown 

in the proposed IHA) and a revised 

estimate of 74 total takes (versus 73 as 

shown in the proposed IHA). Harbor 

porpoise takes were recalculated due to 

a mathematical error in the take 

estimate reflected in the proposed IHA, 

and were also revised to avoid double 

counting of takes (as described for Dall’s 

porpoise above). This resulted in a 

revised estimate of 552 Level B takes 

(versus 582) and a revised estimate of 

596 total takes (versus 627). 

Take estimates for harbor porpoise 

and California sea lion have been also 

been revised based on use of revised 

density estimates for these species as 

described above. As noted above, in 

response to concerns raised by the 

Commission, density estimates used to 

estimate take for harbor seal and 

California sea lion have been revised to 

reflect the best available information on 

the range of those species (represented 

by U.S. Navy (2014)). As areas 

representing the range of the species for 

harbor seal and California sea lion 

reported in U.S. Navy (2014) were 

greater than those reported in U.S. Navy 

(2010), and estimates of the numbers of 

animals at sea remained the same for 

both species, this resulted in lower 

estimated densities, and lower 

estimated take numbers, for both 

species. For Caifornia sea lion, density 

was revised from 283.3 animals per 

1,000 km2 to 33.3 animals per 1,000 

km2. This resulted in a revised take 

estimate of 43 takes by Level B 

harassment (versus the previous 

estimate of 362 takes by Level B 

harassment) (Table 8). For harbor seal, 

density was revised from 292 animals 

per 1,000 km2 to 279 animals per 1,000 

km2. This resulted in a revised take 

estimate of 356 takes by Level B 

harassment; however, as Level A 

estimates are subtracted from Level B 

estimates when calculating the total 

number of authorized takes (to avoid 

double counting the animals taken by 

Level A harassment, as described above) 

the revised take estimate for harbor seals 

is 352 takes by Level B harassment and 

4 takes by Level A harassment (versus 

the previous estimate of 367 takes by 

Level B harassment) (Table 8). 

TABLE 8—NUMBERS OF POTENTIAL INCIDENTAL TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS AUTHORIZED

Species 

Density 

(#/1,000 

km2) 

Estimated 

and 

authorized 

Level A 

takes 

Estimated 

Level B 

takes 

Authorized 

Level B 

takes 

Total 

authorized 

takes 

Total 

authorized 

Level A and 

Level B 

takes as a 

percentage 

of 

population 

Gray whale ....................................................................... 2.6 0 4 4 4 <0.1 

Humpback whale ............................................................. 2.1 0 3 3 3 0.2 

Minke whale ..................................................................... 1.3 0 2 2 2 0.3 

Sei whale 1 ....................................................................... 0.4 0 1 2 2 0.4 

Fin whale .......................................................................... 4.2 0 6 6 6 <0.1 

Blue whale ....................................................................... 0.3 0 1 1 1 <0.1 

Sperm whale 1 .................................................................. 0.9 0 2 6 6 0.3 

Pygmy sperm whale ........................................................ 1.6 0 2 2 2 <0.1 

Killer whale 1 .................................................................... 0.9 0 2 8 8 

West coast transient stock ............................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 3.3 

Eastern No. Pacific offshore stock .................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 3.3 

False killer whale 1 ........................................................... 0 0 0 5 5 0.3 

Short-finned pilot whale 1 ................................................. 0.2 0 1 18 18 2.2 

Harbor porpoise ............................................................... 467.0 44 552 552 596 

No.California/So. Oregon stock ....................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 1.7 

Northern Oregon/Washington coast stock ....................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 2.7 

Dall’s porpoise ................................................................. 58.3 5 69 69 74 0.3 

Bottlenose dolphin 1 ......................................................... 0 0 0 13 13 6.8 

Striped dolphin 1 ............................................................... 7.7 0 10 109 109 3.7 

Risso’s dolphin 1 ............................................................... 11.8 0 16 28 28 4.4 

Short-beaked common dolphin 1 ...................................... 69.2 0 89 286 286 <0.1 

Pacific white sided dolphin 1 ............................................ 40.7 0 52 62 62 2.3 

Northern right whale dolphin 1 ......................................... 46.4 0 60 63 63 2.5 

Cuvier’s beaked whale ..................................................... 2.8 0 4 4 4 <0.1 

Baird’s beaked whale ....................................................... 10.7 0 14 14 14 1.7 

Mesoplodont beaked whales 2 ......................................... 1.2 0 2 2 2 2.9 

Northern fur seal 3 ............................................................ 83.4 0 107 107 107 0.8 

California sea lion 4 .......................................................... 33.3 0 43 43 43 <0.1 

Steller sea lion 5 ............................................................... 15.0 0 20 20 20 <0.1 

Harbor seal 6 .................................................................... 292.3 4 352 352 356 1.4 

Northern elephant seal 7 .................................................. 83.1 1 105 105 106 <0.1 

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

size (as reported in Barlow (2016)). 2 May be any of the following: Blainville’s beaked whale, Perrin’s beaked whale, Lesser beaked whale, Stejneger’s beaked whale, Gingkotoothed beaked whale, or Hubb’s beaked whale. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 49325 

3 Estimated density based on abundance of Eastern Pacific stock from Muto et al. (2016) plus California stock from Carretta et al. (2017) subtracting pups for Eastern Pacific stock (Muto et al. 2016) and subtracting pups for San Miguel Island (Carretta et al. 2017) as it was assumed 

that pups would not be at sea during the survey. Area representing range of the stock is 6,165,000 km2 (U.S. Navy 2014). 4 Estimated density based on abundance estimate from Jeffries et al. (2000). Area representing range of the stock is 150,000 km2 (U.S. Navy 

2014). 5 Estimated density based on abundance estimate from Muto et al. (2016); abundance estimate was multiplied by 0.25, as an estimate of the 

percentage of the population at sea (Bonnell and Bowlby 1992; U.S. Navy 2014). Area representing range of the stock is 1,244,000 km2 (U.S. 

Navy 2014). 6 Estimated density based on abundance estimate from Carretta et al. (2017); abundance estimate was multiplied by 0.35, as 35 percent of 

the population is estimated to be in the water at any given time (Huber et al. 2001; U.S. Navy 2014). Area representing range of the stock is 

31,000 km2 (U.S. Navy 2014). 7 Estimated density based on abundance estimate from Carretta et al. (2017), with adult males assumed to be at rookeries subtracted from 

abundance estimate (U.S. Navy, 2014). Area representing range of the stock is 2,032,000 km2 (U.S. Navy 2014). 

Species with Take Estimates Less than 

Mean Group Size: Using the approach 

described above to estimate take, the 

take estimates for the sei whale, sperm 

whale, killer whale, short-finned pilot 

whale, false killer whale, bottlenose 

dolphin, short beaked common dolphin, 

striped dolphin, Pacific white sided 

dolphin, Risso’s dolphin and Northern 

right whale dolphin were less than the 

average group sizes estimated for these 

species (Table 8). However, information 

on the social structures and life histories 

of these species indicates it is common 

for these species to be encountered in 

groups. The results of take calculations 

support the likelihood that SIO’s survey 

is expected to encounter and to 

incidentally take these species, and we 

believe it is likely that these species 

may be encountered in groups, therefore 

it is reasonable to conservatively assume 

that one group of each of these species 

will be taken during the planned survey. 

We therefore authorize the take of the 

average (mean) group size for these 

species and stocks to account for the 

possibility that SIO’s survey encounters 

a group of any of these species or stocks 

(Table 8). 

No density data were available for the 

false killer whale or the bottlenose 

dolphin in the planned survey area, as 

these species are not typically observed 

in the planned survey area (Carretta et 

al., 2017). However, we believe it is 

possible that these species may be 

encountered by SIO during the planned 

survey. Though false killer whales are a 

tropical species that is usually found in 

waters warmer than those typical of the 

planned survey area, they have been 

observed off the U.S. west coast during 

warm-water periods. Several sightings 

were made off California during 2014– 

2016, when waters were unusually 

warm, and historically there are very 

rare records farther north (pers. comm. 

K. Forney, NMFS Southwest Fisheries 

Science Center, to J. Carduner, NMFS, 

July 27, 2017). Bottlenose dolphins have 

not been observed off the coast of 

Oregon and Washington (Carretta et al., 

2017). However, they occur frequently 

off the coast of California, and they may 

range into Oregon and Washington 

waters during warm-water periods. 

(Carretta et al., 2017). Though no 

density data are available, we believe it 

is reasonable to conservatively assume 

that SIO’s planned survey may 

encounter and incidentally take false 

killer whales and bottlenose dolphins. 

We therefore authorize the take of the 

average (mean) group size for both 

species (Table 8). 

It should be noted that the take 

numbers shown in Table 8 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 

planned 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 

sub-standard. Additionally, marine 

mammals would be expected to move 

away from a loud sound source that 

represents an aversive stimulus, 

potentially reducing the number of 

Level A takes. 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 8. 

For some marine mammal species, we 

authorize a different number of 

incidental takes than the number of 

incidental takes requested by SIO (see 

Table 7 in the IHA application for 

requested take numbers). For instance, 

for several species, SIO increased the 

take request from the calculated take 

number to 1 percent of the estimated 

population size. However, we do not 

believe it is likely that 1 percent of the 

estimated population size of those 

species will be taken by SIO’s planned 

survey, therefore we authorize take 

numbers as shows in Table 8, which we 

believe are based on the best available 

information. 

To calculate distances to isopleths 

corresponding to Level A harassment 

thresholds using Peak SPLflat, LDEO first 

ran the modeling for a single shot and 

then applied a high pass filter for each 

hearing group based on the group’s 

generalized hearing range. A high pass 

filter is a type of band-pass filter, which 

pass frequencies within a defined range 

without reducing amplitude and 

attenuate frequencies outside that 

defined range (Yost 2007). LDEO ran the 

modeling both with and without the 

application of the high pass filter and 

SIO included information on isopleths 

corresponding to Level A harassment 

thresholds both with and without the 

high pass filter in their IHA application. 

The Technical Guidance referred to 

auditory weighting functions based on a 

generic band-pass filter (NMFS 2016). 

However, it is important to note that the 

two datasets relied upon to define peak 

SPL thresholds, either directly or as a 

surrogate means to derive thresholds for 

groups where no data are available (i.e., 

a beluga exposed to seismic water gun 

and harbor porpoise exposed to a single 

airgun) did not use a filter of any kind 

(i.e., thresholds provided were flat 

across the entire spectrum of the sound 

source). Therefore, for the purposes of 

modeling isopleths corresponding to 

Level A harassment thresholds using 

Peak SPLflat, NMFS believes that sound 

produced from the Revelle airgun array 

should be considered flat to result in no 

weighting/high pass filtering of any type 

at this time. Therefore, for the purposes 

of the take calculation, we rely on the 

distances to isopleths corresponding to 

Level A harassment thresholds using 

Peak SPLflat based on modeling 

performed by LDEO without the high 

pass filter applied. Thus, the Level A 

take numbers shown in Table 8 for 

harbor porpoise, Dall’s porpoise and 

harbor seal are higher than the Level A 

take numbers requested by SIO as they 

are the result of modeling of isopleths 

corresponding to Level A harassment 

thresholds using Peak SPLflat with no 

weighting/high pass filtering applied. 

Level A take numbers for other species 

are not affected. 

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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
49326 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 

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 

of a military readiness activity, 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity. 

SIO 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, SIO will 

implement the following mitigation 

measures for marine mammals: 

(1) Vessel-based visual mitigation 

monitoring; 

(2) Establishment of an exclusion 

zone and buffer zone; 

(3) Shutdown procedures; 

(4) Ramp-up procedures; and 

(5) Ship strike avoidance measures. 

In addition to these measures, NMFS 

proposed the following additional 

mitigation measures: 

(1) Shutdown for a killer whale 

observed at any distance; and 

(2) Shutdown for a north Pacific right 

whale observed at any distance. 

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. If airguns are operating 

throughout the night, observations will 

begin 30 minutes prior to sunrise. If 

airguns are operating after sunset, 

observations will continue until 30 

minutes following sunset. Following a 

shutdown for any reason, observations 

will occur for at least 30 minutes prior 

to the planned start of airgun 

operations. Observations will also occur 

for 30 minutes after airgun operations 

cease for any reason. Observations will 

also be made during daytime periods 

when the Revelle is underway without 

seismic operations, such as during 

transits, to allow for comparison of 

sighting rates and behavior with and 

without airgun operations and between 

acquisition periods. Airgun operations 

will be suspended when marine 

mammals are observed within, or about 

to enter, the designated Exclusion Zone 

(EZ) (as described below). 

During seismic operations, at least 

three visual PSOs will be based aboard 

the Revelle. PSOs will be appointed by 

SIO with NMFS approval. During the 

majority of seismic operations, two 

PSOs will monitor for marine mammals 

around the seismic vessel. A minimum 

of one PSO must be on duty at all times 

when the array is active. PSO(s) 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). 

Before the start of the seismic survey, 

the crew will be given additional 

instruction in detecting marine 

mammals and implementing mitigation 

requirements. 

The Revelle is a suitable platform 

from which PSOs will watch for marine 

mammals. The Revelle has been used for 

that purpose during the routine 

California Cooperative Oceanic 

Fisheries Investigations surveys. 

Observing stations are located at the 02 

level, with the observer eye level at 

∼10.4 m above the waterline. At a 

forward-centered position on the 02 

deck, the view is ∼240° an aft-centered 

view includes the 100-m radius area 

around the GI airguns. The observer eye 

level on the bridge is ∼15 m above sea 

level. Standard equipment for marine 

mammal observers will be 7 x 50 

reticule binoculars and optical range 

finders. At night, night-vision 

equipment will be available. The 

observers will be in communication 

with ship’s officers on the bridge and 

scientists in the vessel’s operations 

laboratory, so they can advise promptly 

of the need for avoidance maneuvers or 

seismic source shutdown. 

The PSOs must have no tasks other 

than to conduct observational effort, 

record observational data, and 

communicate with and instruct relevant 

vessel crew with regard to the presence 

of marine mammals and mitigation 

requirements. PSO resumes have been 

be provided to NMFS for approval. At 

least one PSO must have a minimum of 

90 days at-sea experience working as 

PSOs during a seismic survey. One 

‘‘experienced’’ visual PSO will be 

designated as the lead for the entire 

protected species observation team. The 

lead will serve as primary point of 

contact for the vessel operator. 

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. 

Exclusion Zone and Buffer Zone 

An EZ is a defined area within which 

occurrence of a marine mammal triggers 

mitigation action intended to reduce the 

potential for certain outcomes, e.g., 

auditory injury, disruption of critical 

behaviors. The PSOs will establish a 

minimum EZ with a 100 m radius for 

the airgun array. The 100 m EZ will be 

based on radial distance from any 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 49327 

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 shut 

down (see Shut Down Procedures 

below). 

The 100 m radial distance of the 

standard EZ is precautionary in the 

sense that it would be expected to 

contain sound exceeding peak pressure 

injury criteria for all marine mammal 

hearing groups (Table 6) while also 

providing a consistent, reasonably 

observable zone within which PSOs 

would typically be able to conduct 

effective observational effort. In this 

case, the 100 m radial distance would 

also be expected to contain sound that 

would exceed the Level A harassment 

threshold based on sound exposure 

level (SELcum) criteria for all marine 

mammal hearing groups (Table 6). In the 

2011 Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement for marine scientific 

research funded by NSF or the U.S. 

Geological Survey (NSF–USGS 2011), 

Alternative B (the Preferred Alternative) 

conservatively applied a 100 m EZ for 

all low-energy acoustic sources in water 

depths >100 m, with low-energy 

acoustic sources defined as any towed 

acoustic source with a single or a pair 

of clustered airguns with individual 

volumes of ≤250 in3. Thus the 100 m EZ 

for this survey is consistent with the 

PEIS. 

Our intent in prescribing a standard 

exclusion zone distance is to (1) 

encompass zones within which auditory 

injury could occur on the basis of 

instantaneous exposure; (2) provide 

additional protection from the potential 

for more severe behavioral reactions 

(e.g., panic, antipredator response) for 

marine mammals at relatively close 

range to the acoustic source; (3) provide 

consistency for PSOs, who need to 

monitor and implement the EZ; and (4) 

define a distance within which 

detection probabilities are reasonably 

high for most species under typical 

conditions. 

PSOs will also establish and monitor 

a 200 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 operator to 

prepare for potential shutdown of the 

acoustic source. The buffer zone is 

discussed further under Ramp Up 

Procedures below. PSOs will also 

monitor the entire extent of the Level B 

zone, or as far as possible if the extent 

of the Level B zone is not visible. 

Shutdown Procedures 

If a marine mammal is detected 

outside the EZ but is likely to enter the 

EZ, and if the vessel’s speed and/or 

course cannot be changed to avoid 

having the animal enter the EZ, the 

airguns will be shut down before the 

animal is within the EZ. Likewise, if a 

marine mammal is already within the 

EZ when first detected, the airguns will 

be shut down immediately. 

Following a shutdown, airgun activity 

will not resume until the marine 

mammal has cleared the 100 m EZ. The 

animal will be considered to have 

cleared the 100 m EZ if the following 

conditions have been met: 

• It is visually observed to have 

departed the 100 m EZ, or 

• it has not been seen within the 100 

m EZ for 15 minutes in the case of small 

odontocetes, or 

• it has not been seen within the 100 

m EZ for 30 minutes in the case of 

mysticetes and large odontocetes, 

including sperm, pygmy sperm, dwarf 

sperm, and beaked whales. 

This shutdown 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 shutdown 

requirement will apply solely to specific 

genera of small dolphins—Tursiops, 

Stenella, Delphinus, Lagenorhynchus 

and Lissodelphis—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 shutdown 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 shutdown will 

be implemented. 

We include this small delphinoid 

exception because 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 midfrequency cetaceans (e.g., delphinids), 

as this group is relatively insensitive to 

sound produced at the predominant 

frequencies in an airgun pulse while 

also having a relatively high threshold 

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

permanent threshold shift). 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 Revelle 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 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 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, shutdown of the 

acoustic source will also be required 

upon observation of any of the 

following: 

• A killer whale; 

• a large whale (i.e., sperm whale or 

any baleen whale) with a calf; 

• a north Pacific right whale; or 

• 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 potential situations 

that would require shutdown of the 

array for marine mammals observed 

beyond the 100 m EZ. Killer whales 

belonging to the Southern Resident 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
49328 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 

distinct population segment (DPS) are 

not expected to occur in the area of the 

planned survey as the easternmost track 

lines of the planned survey (those that 

approach nearest to shore) are further 

west than the migratory range of the 

Southern Resident stock off Oregon and 

southern Washington (pers. comm., B. 

Hanson, NMFS Northwest Fishery 

Science Center to J. Carduner, NMFS 

Office of Protected Resources (OPR), 

April 12, 2017). As the Eastern North 

Pacific Southern Resident stock would 

be expected to occur closer to shore 

than the planned survey area, the survey 

is not expected to encounter any 

individuals from this stock. However, as 

the known migratory range of the 

Southern Resident DPS occurs near the 

planned survey area, and due to the 

precarious conservation status of the 

Southern Resident killer whale DPS, 

NMFS believes it is reasonable to 

implement measures that are 

conservative and also practicable in 

order to prevent the potential for a 

Southern Resident killer whale to be 

exposed to airgun sounds. Thus the 

requirement to shut down the array 

upon observation of a killer whale at 

any distance is designed to avoid any 

potential for harassment of any 

Southern Resident killer whales. 

As described above, we do not expect 

the survey to encounter a north Pacific 

right whale and take of north Pacific 

right whales is not authorized. However, 

in the extremely rare event that a north 

Pacific right whale was observed at any 

distance, the array would be shut down 

and would not be activated until 30 

minutes had elapsed since the most 

recent sighting. 

Ramp-Up Procedures 

Ramp-up of an acoustic source is 

intended to provide a gradual increase 

in sound levels following a shutdown, 

enabling animals to move away from the 

source if the signal is sufficiently 

aversive prior to its reaching full 

intensity. Ramp-up will be required 

after the array is shut down for any 

reason. Ramp-up will begin with the 

activation of one 45 in3 airgun, with the 

second 45 in3 airgun activated after 5 

minutes. 

PSOs are required to monitor during 

ramp-up. During ramp up, the PSOs will 

monitor the EZ, and if marine mammals 

were observed within or approaching 

the 100 m EZ, a shutdown will be 

implemented as though the full array 

were operational. If airguns have been 

shut down due to PSO detection of a 

marine mammal within or approaching 

the 100 m EZ, ramp-up will not be 

initiated until all marine mammals have 

cleared the EZ, during the day or night. 

Criteria for clearing the EZ will be as 

described above. 

Thirty minutes of pre-clearance 

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

minutes (i.e., if the array were shut 

down during transit from one line to 

another). This 30 minute pre-clearance 

period may occur during any vessel 

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

mammal were observed within or 

approaching the 100 m EZ during this 

pre-clearance period, ramp-up will not 

be initiated until all marine mammals 

cleared the EZ. Criteria for clearing the 

EZ will be as described above. If the 

airgun array has been shut down for 

reasons other than mitigation (e.g., 

mechanical difficulty) for a period of 

less than 30 minutes, it may be activated 

again without ramp-up if PSOs have 

maintained constant visual observation 

and no detections of any marine 

mammal have occurred within the EZ or 

buffer zone. Ramp-up will be planned to 

occur during periods of good visibility 

when possible. However, ramp-up is 

allowed at night and during poor 

visibility if the 100 m EZ and 200 m 

buffer zone have been monitored by 

visual PSOs for 30 minutes prior to 

ramp-up. 

The operator will be required to notify 

a designated PSO of the planned start of 

ramp-up as agreed-upon with the lead 

PSO; the notification time should not be 

less than 60 minutes prior to the 

planned ramp-up. A designated PSO 

must be notified again immediately 

prior to initiating ramp-up procedures 

and the operator must receive 

confirmation from the PSO to proceed. 

The operator must provide information 

to PSOs documenting that appropriate 

procedures were followed. Following 

deactivation of the array for reasons 

other than mitigation, the operator is 

required to communicate the near-term 

operational plan to the lead PSO with 

justification for any planned nighttime 

ramp-up. 

Speed or Course Alteration 

If a marine mammal is detected 

outside the EZ, based on its position 

and the relative motion, is likely to 

enter the EZ, the vessel’s speed and/or 

direct course could be changed. This 

will be done if operationally practicable 

while minimizing the effect on the 

planned science objectives. The 

activities and movements of the marine 

mammal (relative to the seismic vessel) 

will then be closely monitored to 

determine whether the animal is 

approaching the EZ. If the animal 

appears likely to enter the EZ, a 

shutdown of the seismic source will 

cocur. Typically, during seismic 

operations, the source vessel is unable 

to change speed or course and one or 

more alternative mitigation measures (as 

described above) will need to be 

implemented. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

mitigation measures as described above, 

NMFS has determined that the 

mitigation measures provide the means 

effecting the least practicable impact on 

the affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance. 

Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present in the planned 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; 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 49329 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat); and 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

SIO 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 

shutdowns of the airgun array, are 

described above and are not repeated 

here. 

SIO’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, three visual PSOs 

will be based aboard the Revelle. PSOs 

will be appointed by SIO with NMFS 

approval. During the majority of seismic 

operations, one PSO will monitor for 

marine mammals around the seismic 

vessel. 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 

shutdown of the 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, 

approach, paralleling, etc.), and 

behavioral pace. 

2. Time, location, heading, speed, 

activity of the vessel, sea state, 

visibility, and sun glare. 

All observations and 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 shutdown); 

2. Information needed to estimate the 

number of marine mammals potentially 

taken by harassment, which must be 

reported to NMFS; 

3. Data on the occurrence, 

distribution, and activities of marine 

mammals in the area where the seismic 

study is conducted; 

4. Information to compare the 

distance and distribution of marine 

mammals relative to the source vessel at 

times with and without seismic activity; 

and 

5. Data on the behavior and 

movement patterns of marine mammals 

seen at times with and without seismic 

activity. 

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, including an estimate of 

those on the trackline but not detected. 

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 will occur as a result 

of SIO’s planned seismic survey, even in 

the absence of mitigation. Thus the 

authorization does not authorize any 

mortality. As discussed in the Potential 

Effects section, non-auditory physical 

effects, stranding, and vessel strike are 

not expected to occur. 

We authorize a limited number of 

instances of Level A harassment (Table 

8) for four species. However, we believe 

that any PTS incurred in marine 

mammals as a result of the planned 

activity will be in the form of only a 

small degree of PTS, not total deafness, 

and would be unlikely to affect the 

fitness of any individuals, because of 

the constant movement of both the 

Revelle and of the marine mammals in 

the project area, as well as the fact that 

the vessel is not expected to remain in 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
49330 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 

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 are 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 Revelle’s 

approach due to the vessel’s relatively 

low speed when conducting seismic 

surveys. We expect that the majority of 

takes will 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 previously in 

this document (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 

will be temporary. Feeding behavior is 

not likely to be significantly impacted, 

as marine mammals appear to be less 

likely to exhibit behavioral reactions or 

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 planned project area. 

The activity is expected to impact a 

very small percentage of all marine 

mammal stocks affected by SIO’s 

planned survey (less than 7 percent 

each for all marine mammal stocks). 

Additionally, the acoustic ‘‘footprint’’ of 

the planned survey will be very small 

relative to the ranges of all affected 

marine mammals . Sound levels will 

increase in the marine environment in 

a relatively small area surrounding the 

vessel compared to the range of the 

marine mammals within the planned 

survey area. The seismic array will be 

active 24 hours per day throughout the 

duration of the planned survey. 

However, the very brief overall duration 

of the planned survey (five days) will 

further limit potential impacts that may 

occur as a result of the planned activity. 

As noted above, take estimates for four 

species have been revised since we 

published the proposed IHA. Our 

analysis reflects these revised numbers 

(Table 8). 

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 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 measures will 

be effective in preventing at least some 

extent of potential PTS in marine 

mammals that may otherwise occur in 

the absence of the mitigation measures. 

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: 

Humpback, blue, fin, sei, and sperm 

whales. Population estimates for 

humpback whales for the North Pacific 

have increased substantially from 1,200 

in 1966 to approximately 18,000–20,000 

whales in 2004 to 2006 (Calambokidis et 

al. 2008) indicating a growth rate of 6– 

7 percent (Carretta et al., 2017). There 

are currently insufficient data to 

determine population trends for blue, 

fin, sei, and sperm whales (Carretta et 

al., 2017); however, we are proposing to 

authorize very small numbers of takes 

for these species (Table 8), 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 SIO’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 

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 SIO’s planned seismic survey will 

result in only short-term (temporary and 

short in duration) effects to individuals 

exposed, or some small degree of PTS to 

a very small number of individuals of 

four species. 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 

planned activity on marine mammals 

will primarily be temporary behavioral 

changes due to avoidance of the area 

around the survey vessel. The relatively 

short duration of the planned survey (5 

days) will further limit the potential 

impacts of any temporary behavioral 

changes that may occur; 

• The number of instances of PTS 

that may occur are expected to be very 

small in number (Table 8). 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 planned survey 

to avoid exposure to sounds from the 

activity; 

• The planned survey area does not 

contain areas of significance for feeding, 

mating or calving; 

• The potential adverse effects on fish 

or invertebrate species that serve as prey 

species for marine mammals from the 

planned survey would be temporary and 

spatially limited; 

• The mitigation measures, including 

visual and acoustic monitoring 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. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 25, 2017 / Notices 49331 

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 8 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 (less than 7 percent for all 

species and stocks). Based on the 

analysis contained herein of the 

planned activity (including the 

mitigation and monitoring measures) 

and the anticipated take of marine 

mammals, NMFS finds that small 

numbers of marine mammals will be 

taken relative to the population size of 

the affected species or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

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 will 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 (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. 

The NMFS Permits and Conservation 

Division are authorizing the incidental 

take of 5 species of marine mammals 

which are listed under the ESA: The 

humpback whale (Mexico DPS), sei 

whale, fin whale, blue whale 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 

the humpback whale (Mexico DPS), sei 

whale, fin whale, blue whale and sperm 

whale. 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 SIO 

for the potential harassment of small 

numbers of 27 marine mammal species 

incidental to a low-energy marine 

geophysical survey in the northeast 

Pacific Ocean, provided the previously 

mentioned mitigation, monitoring and 

reporting requirements are incorporated. 

Dated: October 19, 2017. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–23132 Filed 10–24–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

National Integrated Drought 

Information System (NIDIS), NIDIS 

Executive Council Meeting 

AGENCY: Climate Program Office (CPO), 

Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Research (OAR), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Department of Commerce (DOC). 

ACTION: Notice of open meeting. 

SUMMARY: The National Integrated 

Drought Information System (NIDIS) 

Program Office will hold an 

organizational meeting of the NIDIS 

Executive Council on October 24, 2017. 

DATES: The meeting will be held 

Tuesday, October 24, 2017 from 9:00 

a.m. EST to 4:00 p.m. EST. These times 

and the agenda topics described below 

are subject to change. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the National Association of Counties, 

660 North Capitol St. NW., Washington, 

DC 20001. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Veva Deheza, NIDIS Executive Director, 

David Skaggs Research Center, Room 

GD102, 325 Broadway, Boulder CO 

80305. Email: Veva.Deheza@noaa.gov; 

or visit the NIDIS Web site at 

www.drought.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Status: This meeting will be open to 

public participation. Individuals 

interested in attending should register at 

https://cpaess.ucar.edu/meetings/2017/ 

fall-2017-nidis-executive-councilmeeting. Please refer to this Web page 

for the most up-to-date meeting times 

and agenda. Seating at the meeting will 

be available on a first-come, first-served 

basis. 

Special Accommodations: This 

meeting is physically accessible to 

people with disabilities. Requests for 

special accommodations may be 

directed no later than 12:00 p.m. on 

October 18, 2017, to Elizabeth 

Ossowski, Program Coordinator, David 

Skaggs Research Center, Room GD102, 

325 Broadway, Boulder CO 80305; 

Email: Elizabeth.Ossowski@noaa.gov. 

Matters To Be Considered: The 

meeting will include the following 

topics: (1) NIDIS implementation 

updates and 2017—2018 priorities, (2) 

Executive Council member updates and 

2017—2018 priorities, (3) Federal 

coordination around drought early 

warning, (4) Sub-seasonal to seasonal 

prediction, (5) Private sector and nongovernmental partner engagement, and 

(6) open discussion on advancing the 

goals of the NIDIS Public Law and 

Reauthorization. 

The National Integrated Drought 

Information System (NIDIS) was 

established by Public Law 109–430 on 

December 20, 2006, and reauthorized by 

Public Law 113–86 on March 6, 2014, 

with a mandate to provide an effective 

drought early warning system for the 

United States; coordinate, and integrate 

as practicable, Federal research in 

support of a drought early warning 

system; and build upon existing 

forecasting and assessment programs 

and partnerships. See 15 U.S.C. 313d. 

The Public Law also calls for 

consultation with ‘‘relevant Federal, 

regional, State, tribal, and local 

government agencies, research 

institutions, and the private sector’’ in 

the development of NIDIS. 15 U.S.C. 

313d(c). The NIDIS Executive Council 

provides the NIDIS Program Office with 

an opportunity to engage in individual 

consultation with senior resource 

officials from NIDIS’s Federal partners, 

as well as leaders from state and local 

government, academia, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES