Federal Register, Volume 79 Issue 195 (Wednesday, October 8, 2014)

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60811-60831]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23985]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XD256

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Low-
Energy Marine Geophysical Survey in the Scotia Sea and South Atlantic
Ocean, September to October 2014

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization
(IHA).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA),
notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an IHA to the
National Science Foundation (NSF) Division of Polar Programs, and
Antarctic Support Contract (ASC) on behalf of two research
institutions, University of Texas at Austin and University of Memphis,
to take marine mammals, by Level B harassment, incidental to conducting
a low-energy marine geophysical (seismic) survey in the Scotia Sea and
South Atlantic Ocean, September to October 2014.

DATES: Effective September 20, 2014, to December 1, 2014.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the IHA and the application are available by
writing Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division,
Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315
East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 or by telephone the contacts
listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
An electronic copy of the IHA application containing a list of the
references used in this document may be obtained by writing to the
address specified above, telephoning the contact listed here (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) or visiting the Internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/. Documents cited in this
notice, including the IHA application, may also be viewed by
appointment, during regular business hours, at the aforementioned
address.
An ``Environmental Assessment on the Issuance of an Incidental
Harassment Authorization to the National Science Foundation and
Antarctic Support Contract to Take Marine Mammals by Harassment
Incidental to a Low-energy Marine Geophysical Survey in the Scotia Sea
and South Atlantic Ocean, September to October 2014'' was prepared by
NMFS. NMFS also issued a Biological Opinion under section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) to evaluate the effects of the low-energy
seismic survey and IHA on marine species listed as threatened and
endangered. The NMFS Biological Opinion is available online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/consultations/opinions.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Howard Goldstein or Jolie Harrison,
Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 301-427-8401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA, (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.)
direct the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to allow, upon request,
the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine
mammals by United States citizens who engage in a specified activity
(other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region
if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if
the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed
authorization is provided to the public for review.
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS
finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s), will

[[Page 60812]]

not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the
species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the
permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the
mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.
NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 as ``. . . an
impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably
expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the
species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or
survival.''
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or
marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering [Level B harassment].

Summary of Request

On April 15, 2014, NMFS received an application from NSF and ASC
requesting that NMFS issue an IHA for the take, by Level B harassment
only, of small numbers of marine mammals incidental to conducting a
low-energy marine seismic survey in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)
of the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands and International
Waters (i.e., high seas) in the Scotia Sea and southern Atlantic Ocean
during September to October 2014.
The research will be conducted by two research institutions:
University of Texas at Austin and University of Memphis. NSF and ASC
plan to use one source vessel, the RVIB Nathaniel B. Palmer (Palmer),
and a seismic airgun array and hydrophone streamer to collect seismic
data in the Scotia Sea and southern Atlantic Ocean. The vessel will be
operated by ASC, which operates the United States Antarctic Program
(USAP) under contract with NSF. In support of the USAP, NSF and ASC
plan to use conventional low-energy, seismic methodology to perform
marine-based studies in the Scotia Sea, including evaluation of
lithosphere adjacent to and beneath the Scotia Sea and southern
Atlantic Ocean in two areas, the South Georgia micro-continent and the
seafloor of the eastern portion of the central Scotia Sea (see Figures
1 and 2 of the IHA application). In addition to the planned operations
of the seismic airgun array and hydrophone streamer, NSF and ASC intend
to operate a single-beam echosounder, multi-beam echosounder, acoustic
Doppler current profiler (ADCP), and sub-bottom profiler continuously
throughout the survey. NMFS published a notice making preliminary
determinations and proposing to issue an IHA on August 5, 2014 (79 FR
45592). The notice initiated a 30-day public comment period.
Acoustic stimuli (i.e., increased underwater sound) generated
during the operation of the seismic airgun array may have the potential
to cause behavioral disturbance for marine mammals in the survey area.
This is the principal means of marine mammal taking associated with
these activities, and NSF and ASC have requested an authorization to
take 26 species of marine mammals by Level B harassment. Take is not
expected to result from the use of the single-beam echosounder, multi-
beam echosounder, ADCP, and sub-bottom profiler, as the brief exposure
of marine mammals to one pulse, or small numbers of signals, to be
generated by these instruments in this particular case is not likely to
result in the harassment of marine mammals. Also, NMFS does not expect
take to result from collision with the source vessel because it is a
single vessel moving at a relatively slow, constant cruise speed of 5
knots ([kts]; 9.3 kilometers per hour [km/hr]; 5.8 miles per hour
[mph]) during seismic acquisition within the survey, for a relatively
short period of time (approximately 30 operational days). It is likely
that any marine mammal will be able to avoid the vessel.

Description of the Specified Activity

Overview

NSF and ASC plans to use one source vessel, the Palmer, a two GI
airgun array and one hydrophone streamer to conduct the conventional
seismic survey as part of the NSF-funded research project ``Role of
Central Scotia Sea Floor and North Scotia Ridge in the Onset and
Development of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current.'' In addition to the
airguns, NSF and ASC intend to conduct a bathymetric survey, dredge
sampling, and geodetic measurements from the Palmer during the low-
energy seismic survey.

Dates and Duration

The Palmer is expected to depart from Punta Arenas, Chile on
approximately September 20, 2014 and arrive at Punta Arenas, Chile on
approximately October 20, 2014. Research operations will be conducted
over a span of 30 days, including to and from port. Some minor
deviation from this schedule is possible, depending on logistics and
weather (e.g., the cruise may depart earlier or be extended due to poor
weather; or there could be additional days of seismic operations if
collected data are deemed to be of substandard quality).

Specified Geographic Region

The planned project and survey sites are located in selected
regions of the Scotia Sea (located northeast of the Antarctic
Peninsula) and the southern Atlantic Ocean and focus on two areas: (1)
Between the central rise of the Scotia Sea and the East Scotia Sea, and
(2) the far southern Atlantic Ocean immediately northeast of South
Georgia towards the northeastern Georgia Rise (both encompassing the
region between 53 to 58[deg] South, and between 33 to 40[deg] West)
(see Figure 2 of the IHA application). The majority of the planned
seismic survey will be within the EEZ of the Government of the South
Georgia and South Sandwich Islands (United Kingdom) and a limited
portion of the seismic survey will be conducted in International
Waters. Figure 3 of the IHA application illustrates the general
bathymetry of the planned study area and the border of the existing
South Georgia Maritime Zone. Water depths in the survey area exceed
1,000 m. There is limited information on the depths in the study area
and therefore more detailed information on bathymetry is not available.
The planned seismic survey will be within an area of approximately
3,953 km\2\ (1,152.5 nmi\2\). This estimate is based on the maximum
number of kilometers for the seismic survey (2,950 km) multiplied by
the predicted rms radii (m) based on modeling and empirical
measurements (assuming 100% use of the two 105 in\3\ GI airguns in
greater than 1,000 m water depths), which was calculated to be 675 m
(2,214.6 ft).

Detailed Description of the Specified Activity

NSF and ASC plans to conduct a low-energy seismic survey in the
Scotia Sea and the southern Atlantic Ocean from September to October
2014. In addition to the low-energy seismic survey, scientific
activities will include conducting a bathymetric profile survey of the
seafloor using transducer-based instruments such as a multi-beam
echosounder and sub-bottom profiler; collecting global positioning
system (GPS) information through the temporary installation of three
continuous Global Navigation Satellite Systems (cGNSS) on the South
Georgia micro-continent; and collecting dredge

[[Page 60813]]

sampling around the edges of seamounts or ocean floor with significant
magnetic anomalies to determine the nature and age of bathymetric highs
near the eastern edge of the central Scotia Sea. Water depths in the
survey area are greater than 1,000 meters (m) (3,280.1 feet [ft]). The
seismic survey is scheduled to occur for a total of approximately 325
hours over the course of the entire cruise, which will be for
approximately 30 operational days in September to October 2014. The
planned seismic survey will be conducted during the day and night, and
for up to 40 hours of continuous operations at a time. The operation
hours and survey length will include equipment testing, ramp-up, line
changes, and repeat coverage. The long transit time between port and
the study site constrains how long the ship can be in the study area
and effectively limits the maximum amount of time the airguns can
operate. Some minor deviation from these dates will be possible,
depending on logistics and weather.
The low-energy seismic survey of the Scotia Sea and southern
Atlantic Ocean will involve conducting single channel seismic
reflection profiling across the northern central Scotia Sea along two
lines that cross the seismically active and apparently compressive
boundary between the South Georgia micro-continent and the Northeast
Georgia Rise. The targeted seismic survey will occur in the unexplored
zones of elevated crust in the eastern central Scotia Sea and is
designed to address several critical questions with respect to the
tectonic nature of the northern and southern boundaries of the South
Georgia micro-continent.
Opening of deep Southern Ocean gateways between Antarctica and
South America and between Antarctica and Australia permitted complete
circum-Antarctic circulation. This Antarctic Circumpolar Current is not
well understood. The Antarctic Circumpolar Current may have been
critical in the transition from a warm Earth in the early Cenozoic to
the subsequent much cooler conditions that persist to the present day.
Opening of Drake Passage and the west Scotia Sea likely broke the final
barrier formed by the Andes of Tierra del Fuego and the
``Antarctandes'' of the Antarctic Peninsula. Once this deep gateway,
usually referred to as the Drake Passage gateway, was created, the
strong and persistent mid-latitude winds could generate one of the
largest deep currents on Earth, at approximately 135 Sverdrup (a
Sverdrup [Sv] is a measure of average flow rate in million cubic meters
of water per second). This event is widely believed to be closely
associated in time with a major, abrupt drop in global temperatures and
the rapid expansion of the Antarctic ice sheets at 33 to 34 Million
Annus (Ma, i.e., million years from the present/before the current
date), the Eocene-Oligocene boundary.
The events leading to the complete opening of the Drake Passage
gateway are very poorly known. The uncertainty is due to the complex
tectonic history of the Scotia Sea and its enclosing Scotia Ridge, the
eastward-closing, locally emergent submarine ridge that joins the
southernmost Andes to the Antarctic Peninsula and deflects the
Antarctic Circumpolar Current through gaps in its northern limb. The
critical keys to this problem are the enigmatic floor of the central
Scotia Sea between the high relief South Georgia (approximately 3,000 m
[9,842.5 ft]) and the lower South Orkney islands (approximately 1,200 m
[3,937 ft]), emergent parts of micro-continental blocks on the North
and South Scotia ridges respectively, and the North Scotia Ridge
itself.
In 2008, an International Polar Year research program was conducted
using the RVIB Nathaniel B. Palmer (Palmer) (Cruise NBP 0805) that was
designed to elucidate the structure and history of this area to help
provide the constraints necessary for understanding of the initiation
of the critical Drake Passage--Scotia Sea gateway. Underway data and
dredged samples produced unexpected results that led to a structurally
different view of the central Scotia Sea and highlighted factors
bearing on initiation of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current that had not
been previously considered.
The results of this study of the central Scotia Sea are fragmentary
due to the limited time available during Cruise NBP 0805. Therefore,
the extent, geometry, and physiography of a submerged volcanic arc that
may have delayed formation of a complete Antarctic Circumpolar Current
until after the initiation of Antarctic glaciation are poorly defined,
with direct dating limited to a few sites. To remedy these
deficiencies, thereby further elucidating the role of the central
Scotia Sea in the onset and development of the Antarctic Circumpolar
Current, the planned targeted surveying and dredging will determine
likely arc constructs in the eastern central Scotia Sea. These will be
combined with a survey of the margins of the South Georgia micro-
continent and installation of three continuous GPS stations on South
Georgia that will test the hypothesis regarding the evolution of the
North Scotia Ridge, also an impediment to the present Antarctic
Circumpolar Current. The Principal Investigators are Dr. Ian Dalziel
and Dr. Lawrence Lawver of the University of Texas at Austin, and Dr.
Robert Smalley of the University of Memphis.
The procedures to be used for the survey will be similar to those
used during previous low-energy seismic surveys by NSF and will use
conventional seismic methodology. The planned survey will involve one
source vessel, the Palmer. NSF and ASC will deploy a two Sercel
Generator Injector (GI) airgun array (each with a discharge volume of
105 in\3\ [1,720 cm\3\], in one string, with a total volume of 210
in\3\ [3,441.3 cm\3\]) as an energy source, at a tow depth of up to 3
to 4 m (9.8 to 13.1 ft) below the surface (more information on the
airguns can be found in Appendix B of the IHA application). A third
airgun will serve as a ``hot spare'' to be used as a back-up in the
event that one of the two operating airguns malfunctions. The airguns
in the array will be spaced approximately 3 m (9.8 ft) apart and 15 to
40 m (49.2 to 131.2 ft) astern of the vessel. The receiving system will
consist of one or two 100 m (328.1 ft) long, 24-channel, solid-state
hydrophone streamer(s) towed behind the vessel. Data acquisition is
planned along a series of predetermined lines, all of which will be in
water depths greater than 1,000 m. As the GI airguns are towed along
the survey lines, the hydrophone streamer(s) will receive the returning
acoustic signals and transfer the data to the onboard processing
system. All planned seismic data acquisition activities will be
conducted by technicians provided by NSF and ASC, with onboard
assistance by the scientists who have planned the study. The vessel
will be self-contained, and the crew will live aboard the vessel for
the entire cruise.
The weather and sea conditions will be closely monitored, including
for conditions that could limit visibility. Pack ice is not anticipated
to be encountered during the planned cruise; therefore, no icebreaking
activities are expected. If situations are encountered which pose a
risk to the equipment, impede data collection, or require the vessel to
stop forward progress, the equipment will be shut-down and retrieved
until conditions improve. In general, the airgun array and streamer(s)
can be retrieved in less than 30 minutes.
The planned seismic survey (including equipment testing, start-up,
line changes, repeat coverage of any areas, and equipment recovery)
will consist of approximately 2,950 kilometers (km) (1,592.9 nautical
miles

[[Page 60814]]

[nmi]) of transect lines (including turns) in the survey area in the
Scotia Sea and southern Atlantic Ocean (see Figures 1, 2, and 3 of the
IHA application). In addition to the operation of the airgun array, a
single-beam and multi-beam echosounder, ADCP, and a sub-bottom profiler
will also likely be operated from the Palmer continuously throughout
the cruise. There will be additional airgun operations associated with
equipment testing, ramp-up, and possible line changes or repeat
coverage of any areas where initial data quality is sub-standard. In
NSF and ASC's estimated take calculations, 25% has been added for those
additional operations.

Table 1--Planned Low-Energy Seismic Survey Activities in the Scotia Sea and the Southern Atlantic Ocean
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative Time between
Survey length (km) duration (hr) Airgun array total airgun shots Streamer length (m)
\1\ volume (distance)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,950 (1,592.9 nmi)............ [cong]325 2 x 105 in\3\ (2 x 5 to 10 seconds 100 (328.1 ft)
1,720 cm\3\) (12.5 to 25 m or
41 to 82 ft)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Airgun operations are planned for no more than 40 continuous hours at a time.

NMFS outlined the purpose of the program in a previous notice for
the proposed IHA (79 FR 45592, August 5, 2014). The activities to be
conducted have not changed between the proposed IHA notice and this
final notice announcing the issuance of the IHA. For a more detailed
description of the authorized action, including vessel and acoustic
source specifications, the reader should refer to the notice for the
proposed IHA (79 FR 45592, August 5, 2014), the IHA application, EA,
and associated documents referenced above this section.

Comments and Responses

A notice of preliminary determinations and proposed IHA for NSF and
ASC's low-energy seismic survey was published in the Federal Register
on August 5, 2015 (79 FR 45592). During the 30-day public comment
period, NMFS received comments from one private citizen and the Marine
Mammal Commission (Commission). The comments are posted online at:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/. Following are the
substantive comments and NMFS's responses:
Comment 1: The Commission questions why L-DEO did not use 4 m (ft)
as the maximum tow depth, because that depth was specified in the IHA
application and should yield greater radii than a tow depth of 3 m. To
estimate the buffer and exclusion zones for the seismic survey in the
Scotia Sea and South Atlantic Ocean, L-DEO used two G airguns as a
proxy for two GI airguns within the Nucleus modeling software and
assumed a maximum tow depth of 3 m. It is also unclear why L-DEO
included in Appendix A of NSF and ASC's IEE/EA the correction factors
based on shallow-water measurements of 2 GI airguns in the Gulf of
Mexico (GOM). The need for correction factors as large as 14.7 does
substantiate the concerns continually expressed by the Commission
regarding the inadequacies of the L-DEO model in environments other
than a three dimensionally uniform and boundless sea. However, the
discussion of such correction factors is irrelevant because the radii
L-DEO proposed to use originated directly from its model, absent any
correction factors. The Commission does not understand why L-DEO
mentioned correction factors that apparently were not used.
Response: In almost all previous NSF EAs using GI airgun arrays, a
typical tow depth was 3 m; therefore, that was used for the modeling
for the planned low-energy seismic survey. As noted in the IHA
application, the model results are for G airguns, which have more
energy than GI airguns of the same size; thus, those results
overestimate (by approximately 10%) the distances for the 105 in\3\ GI
airgun array. Although the distances were known to be overestimated, no
distance adjustments were made to the radii distances to account for
this overestimation. In this case, the difference between a 3 m and 4 m
tow depth are nominal, and would be approximately equivalent given this
10% difference. Therefore, the proposed radii distances for the buffer
and exclusion zones are still valid for monitoring and mitigation as
well as take estimates. NMFS, NSF, ASC, and L-DEO agree that Appendix A
of the IHA application included some superfluous information about
correction factors not relevant to the discussion, given this was a
seismic survey in deep water and only L-DEO model results were used.
NMFS believes that the L-DEO model is adequate for establishing
conservative radii for monitoring and mitigation.
Comment 2: The Commission remains very concerned that the L-DEO
model is not based on best available science and does not support its
continued use. The Commission recommends that NMFS (1) require L-DEO to
re-estimate the proposed exclusion and buffer zones and associated
takes of marine mammals using site-specific (including sound speed
profiles, bathymetry, and sediment characteristics at a minimum) and
operational (including number/type of airguns, tow depth) parameters
for the proposed IHA; and (2) impose the same requirement for all
future IHAs submitted by NSF, ASC, L-DEO, USGS, SIO, or any other
relevant entity.
Response: At present, L-DEO cannot adjust its modeling methodology
to add the environmental and site-specific parameters as requested by
the Commission. NMFS is working with L-DEO, NSF, ASC, USGS, SIO, and
any other relevant entity to explore ways to better consider site-
specific information to inform the take estimates and development of
mitigation measures for future seismic surveys with L-DEO and NSF, and
NSF has been exploring different approaches in collaboration with L-DEO
and other academic institutions with whom they collaborate. When
available, NMFS will review and consider the final results from L-DEO's
expected publications (Crone et al., in prep), in which the results of
a calibration off the coast of Washington will be reported, and how
they reflect on L-DEO's model.
For this seismic survey, L-DEO developed the exclusion and buffer
zones based on the conservative deep-water calibration results from
Diebold et al. (2010). L-DEO's current modeling approach represents the
best available information to reach NMFS's determinations for the IHA.
The comparisons of L-DEO's model results and the field data collected
in the Gulf of Mexico illustrate a degree of conservativeness built
into L-DEO's model for deep water.
NMFS acknowledges the Commission's concerns about L-DEO's current
modeling approach for estimating exclusion and buffer zones and also
acknowledge that L-DEO did not incorporate site-specific sound speed
profiles, bathymetry, and sediment characteristics of the research

[[Page 60815]]

area within the current approach to estimate those zones for this IHA.
However, as described below, empirical data collected at two different
sites and compared against model predictions indicate that other facets
of the model (besides the site-specific factors cited above) do result
in a conservative estimate of exposures in the cases tested.
The NSF and ASC IHA application and IEE/EA describe the approach to
establishing mitigation exclusion and buffer zones. In summary, L-DEO
acquired field measurements for several array configurations at
shallow- and deep-water depths during acoustic verification studies
conducted in the northern Gulf of Mexico in 2003 (Tolstoy et al., 2004)
and in 2007 and 2008 (Tolstoy et al., 2009). Based on the empirical
data from those studies, L-DEO developed a sound propagation modeling
approach that conservatively predicts received sound levels as a
function of distance from a particular airgun array configuration in
deep water. In 2010, L-DEO assessed the accuracy of their modeling
approach by comparing the sound levels of the field measurements in the
Gulf of Mexico study to its model predictions (Diebold et al., 2010).
L-DEO reported that the observed sound levels from the field
measurements fell almost entirely below the predicted mitigation radii
curve for deep water (Diebold et al., 2010). Based on this information,
L-DEO has shown that its model can reliably estimate the mitigation
radii in deep water.
L-DEO's model is most directly applicable to deep water. Reflected
and refracted arrivals were considered in verifying L-DEO's model.
Given the planned seismic survey is entirely in deep water, and the
model has been demonstrated to be conservative in deep water, NMFS
concludes that the L-DEO model is an effective means to aid in
determining potential impacts to marine mammals from the planned
seismic survey and estimating take numbers, as well as establishing
buffer and exclusion zones for mitigation.
During a March 2013 meeting, L-DEO discussed the L-DEO model with
the Commission, NMFS, and NSF. L-DEO compared the Gulf of Mexico (GOM)
calibration measurements (Tolstoy et al., 2004; Tolstoy et al., 2009;
Diebold et al., 2010) comparison with L-DEO model results. L-DEO showed
that at the calibration sites the model overestimated the size of the
exclusion zones and, therefore, is likely precautionary in most cases.
Based on the best available information that the current model
overestimates mitigation zones, we will not require L-DEO to re-
estimate the proposed buffer and exclusion zones and associated number
of marine mammal takes using operational and site-specific
environmental parameters for this IHA.
However, we continue to work with the NSF, ASC, L-DEO, and other
related entities on verifying the accuracy of their model. L-DEO is
currently analyzing whether received levels can be measured in real-
time using the ship's hydrophone streamer to estimate the sound field
around the ship and determine actual distances to the buffer and
exclusion zones. Crone et al. (2013) are analyzing Langseth streamer
data collected in 2012 off the Washington coast shelf and slope to
measure received levels in situ up to 8 km (4.3 nmi) away from the
ship. While results confirm the role that bathymetry plays in
propagation, it also confirmed that empirical measurements from the GOM
survey used to inform buffer and exclusion zones in shallow water and
model results adapted for intermediate water depths also over-estimated
the size of the zones for the Washington survey. Preliminary results
were presented in a poster session at the American Geophysical Union
fall meeting in December 2013 (Crone et al., 2013; available at: http://berna.ldeo.columbia.edu/agu2013/agu2013.pdf) and a peer-reviewed
journal publication is anticipated in 2014. When available, NMFS will
review and consider the final results and how they reflect on the L-DEO
model.
L-DEO has conveyed to NMFS that additional modeling efforts to
refine the process and conduct comparative analysis may be possible
with the availability of research funds and other resources. Obtaining
research funds is typically through a competitive process, including
those conducted by federal agencies. The use of models for calculating
buffer and exclusion zone radii and developing take estimates is not a
requirement of the MMPA ITA process. Furthermore, NMFS does not provide
specific guidance on model parameters nor prescribe a specific model
for applicants as part of the MMPA ITA process. There is a level of
variability not only with parameters in models, but the uncertainty
associated with data used in models, and therefore the quality of the
model results submitted by applicants. NMFS, however, takes all of this
variability into consideration when evaluating applications. Applicants
use models as a tool to evaluate potential impacts, to estimate the
number of takes of marine mammals, and for mitigation purposes. NMFS
takes into consideration the model used and its results in determining
the potential impacts to marine mammals; however, it is just a
component of NMFS's analysis during the MMPA consultation process, as
NMFS also takes into consideration other factors associated with the
proposed action, such as geographic location, duration of activities,
context, intensity, etc. Takes generated by modeling are used as
estimates, not absolutes, and are factored into NMFS's analysis
accordingly. Of broader note, NMFS is currently pursuing methods that
include site-specific components to allow us to better cross-check
isopleth and propagation predictions submitted by applicants. Using
this information, NMFS could potentially recommend modifications to
take estimates and/or mitigation zones, as appropriate.
Comment 3: The Commission states that in 2011, NSF and USGS modeled
sound propagation under various environmental conditions in their PEIS.
L-DEO and NSF (in cooperation with Pacific Gas and Electric Company
[PG&E]) also used a similar modeling approach in the recent IHA
application and associated EA for a seismic survey of Diablo Canyon in
California (77 FR 58256). These recent examples indicate that L-DEO,
NSF, and related entities are able to implement the recommended
approach, if required to do so by NMFS. The Commission understands the
constraints imposed by the current budgetary environment, but notes
that other agencies that contend with similar funding constraints
incorporate modeling based on site-specific parameters. USGS, L-DEO,
NSF, and related entities should be held to that same standard. NMFS
recently indicated that it does not, and does not believe it is
appropriate to, prescribe the use of any particular modeling package
(79 FR 38499). The Commission agrees that NMFS should not instruct
applicants to use specific contractors or modeling packages, but it
should hold applicants to the same standard, primarily one in which
site- and operation-specific environmental parameters are incorporated
into the models.
Response: PG&E submitted an IHA application to NMFS and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service for the Central Coastal California Seismic
Imaging Project in 2012. The IHA application included a report of
acoustic propagation modeling conducted by Greeneridge Sciences, Inc.,
sponsored by Padre Associates, Inc., to estimate received sound
pressure level radii for airgun pulses operating off central California
in the vicinity of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. A wave-

[[Page 60816]]

theory model and precise waveguide parameters that describe sound
reflections and refractions at the ocean surface, seafloor, and water
column were used to accurately model sound transmission in the ocean.
As the action proponent, PG&E funded the seismic survey and related
environmental compliance documents (e.g., IHA application,
Environmental Assessment, etc.). NSF, as the owner of the Langseth,
served as the federal nexus for the ESA section 7 consultation and need
for the preparation of the NEPA document. L-DEO is the operator of the
Langseth and often applies for IHAs for NSF-funded seismic surveys
conducted for scientific research purposes.
There are many different modeling products and services
commercially available that applicants could potentially use in
developing their take estimates and analyses for MMPA ITAs. These
different models range widely in cost, complexity, and the number of
specific factors that can be considered in any particular modeling run.
NMFS does not, and does not believe that it is appropriate to,
prescribe the use of any particular modeling package. Rather, each
applicant's approach is evaluated independently in the context of its
activity. In cases where simpler models are used and there is concern
that a model might not capture the variability across a parameter(s)
that is not represented in the model, conservative choices are often
made at certain decision points in the model to help ensure that
modeled estimates are buffered in a manner that would not result in the
agency underestimating the number of takes or extent of effects. In
this case, results have shown that L-DEO's model reliably and
conservatively estimates mitigation radii in deep water. The observed
sound levels from the field measurements fell almost entirely below L-
DEO's estimated mitigation radii for deep water (Diebold et al., 2010).
Based on these empirical data, which illustrate the model's
conservative exposure estimates across two sites, NMFS finds that L-
DEO's model effectively estimates sound exposures.
NMFS encourages applicants to incorporate modeling based on site-
specific and operation-specific parameters in their IHA applications,
whenever possible, but it is unrealistic to require all applicants to
do so in IHA applications and/or NEPA documents (EAs and EISs) as
activities may vary in their scope and level of anticipated impacts,
and applicants may have varying funding and resource constraints.
However, it is still incumbent upon NMFS to take the uncertainty that
comes along with varying models into consideration in both the analysis
of effects and the consideration of mitigation measures. In this case,
as described elsewhere in this section, we have considered the
uncertainty associated with the applicant's model and have determined
that it does not change either our findings regarding the anticipated
level and severity of impacts on marine mammals or our conclusion that
the mitigation measures required provide the means of effecting the
least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their
habitat.
Of broader note, NMFS is currently pursuing methods (that include
site-specific components) to allow us to better cross-check isopleth
and propagation predictions submitted by applicants. Using this
information, we could potentially recommend modifications to take
estimates and/or mitigation zones, as appropriate.
Comment 4: The Commission recommends that NMFS either estimate the
numbers of takes that could occur during the bathymetric survey, which
includes the use of the multi-beam echosounder and sub-bottom profiler
absent the airguns, based on the 120 dB (rms) threshold rather than the
160 dB (rms) threshold, or not include authorization for taking by the
acoustic sources (echosounder, sub-bottom profiler, ADCP) in the final
IHA.
Response: NMFS disagrees with the Commission's recommendation that
NMFS require NSF and ASC to estimate the number of marine mammals taken
when the single-beam and multi-beam echosounder, ADCP, and sub-bottom
profiler are used in the absence of the airgun array based on the 120
dB (rms) threshold, for continuous sounds, rather than the 160 dB (rms)
threshold, for impulsive sounds. 160 dB (rms) is the appropriate
threshold for these sound sources. Continuous sounds are those whose
sound pressure level remains above that of the ambient sound, with
negligibly small fluctuations in level (NIOSH, 1998; ANSI, 2005), while
intermittent sounds are defined as sounds with interrupted levels of
low or no sound (NIOSH, 1998). Echosounder signals are emitted as
separate pulses separated by silence, and thus are not continuous
sounds but rather intermittent sounds. Intermittent sounds can further
be defined as either impulsive or non-impulsive. Impulsive sounds have
been defined as sounds which are typically transient, brief (less than
1 second), broadband, and consist of a high peak pressure with rapid
rise time and rapid decay (ANSI, 1986; NIOSH, 1998). Echosounder
signals also have durations that are typically very brief (less than 1
second), with temporal characteristics that more closely resemble those
of impulsive sounds than non-impulsive sounds, which typically have
more gradual rise times and longer decays (ANSI, 1995; NIOSH, 1998).
With regard to behavioral thresholds, we therefore consider the
temporal and spectral characteristics of echosounder signals to more
closely resemble those of an impulsive sound than a continuous sound.
The Commission suggests that, for certain sources considered here,
the interval between pulses would not be discernible to the animal,
thus rendering them effectively continuous. However, an echosounder's
``rapid staccato'' of pulse trains is emitted in a similar fashion as
odontocete echolocation click trains. Research indicates that marine
mammals, in general, have extremely fine auditory temporal resolution
and can detect each signal separately (e.g., Au et al., 1988; Dolphin
et al., 1995; Supin and Popov, 1995; Mooney et al., 2009), especially
species with echolocation capabilities. Therefore, it is highly
unlikely that marine mammals would perceive echosounder signals as
being continuous.
In conclusion, echosounder, ADCP, and sub-bottom profiler signals
are intermittent rather than continuous signals, and the fine temporal
resolution of the marine mammals auditory systems allows them to
perceive these sounds as such. Further, the physical characteristics of
these signals indicate a greater similarity to the way that
intermittent, impulsive sounds are received. Therefore, the 160 dB
threshold (typically associated with impulsive sources) is more
appropriate than the 120 dB threshold (typically associated with
continuous sources) for estimating takes by behavioral harassment
incidental to use of such sources.
Comment 5: The Commission believes that NMFS misinterpreted its
implementing regulations, which require that applicants include ``the
suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting
that will result in increased knowledge of the species, the level of
taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to
be present while conducting activities, and suggested means of
minimizing burdens by coordinating such reporting requirements with
other schemes already applicable to persons conducting such activity.''
The Commission believes that monitoring and reporting requirements need
to be

[[Page 60817]]

sufficient to provide accurate information on the numbers of marine
mammals being taken and the manner in which they are taken, not merely
better information on the qualitative nature of the impacts. The
Commission continues to believe that appropriate g(0) and f(0) values
are essential for making accurate estimates of the numbers of marine
mammals taken during surveys. The Commission recommends that NMFS
consult with the funding agency (e.g., NSF) and individual applicants
(e.g., ASC, L-DEO, USGS, SIO, and other related entities) to develop,
validate, and implement a monitoring program that provides a
scientifically sound, reasonably accurate assessment of the types of
marine mammal takes and the actual numbers of marine mammals taken,
accounting for applicable g(0) and f(0) values.
Response: NMFS does not believe that we misinterpreted the MMPA
implementing regulations in our previous response that the Commission
references. With respect to levels of take, NMFS interprets the
sentence quoted by the Commission to require the applicants include
suggested monitoring and reporting that will result in ``an increased
knowledge of . . . the level of taking . . .'' This is the most logical
interpretation, because if we were to assume that the phrase
``increased knowledge of'' does not modify ``the level of taking,''
then the sentence would read: ``the suggested means of accomplishing
the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in . . . the
level of taking . . . ,'' which does not make sense.
Even putting any potential grammatical questions aside, NMFS does
not believe that the regulations suggests that the monitoring conducted
by an authorized entity must be able to quantify the exact number of
takes that occurred during the action, but rather that the monitoring
increase understanding of the level and effects of the action. In fact,
the Commission's comment supports this interpretation. As noted by the
Commission, section 101(a)(5)(D)(iv) requires that NMFS ``modify,
suspend, or revoke an authorization'' if it finds, among other things,
that the authorized taking is having more than a negligible impact or
that more than small numbers of marine mammals are being taken. Both
the negligible impact and small numbers findings may be made using
qualitative, or relative (compared to the stock abundance) information.
The sorts of qualitative, or relative information collected during the
wide variety of monitoring that is conducted pursuant to MMPA
authorizations can be used to provide broad support for the findings
underlying the issuance of an IHA or can highlight red flags that might
necessitate either a reconsideration of an issued IHA or a change in
analyses in future authorizations. NMFS's previous response is included
below for reference.
NMFS's implementing regulations require that applicants include
monitoring that will result in ``an increased knowledge of the species,
the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that
are expected to be present while conducting activities . . .'' This
increased knowledge of the level of taking could be qualitative or
relative in nature, or it could be more directly quantitative.
Scientists use g(0) and f(0) values in systematic marine mammal surveys
to account for the undetected animals indicated above; however, these
values are not simply established and the g(0) value varies across
every observer based on their sighting acumen. While we want to be
clear that NMFS does not generally believe that post-activity take
estimates using f(0) and g(0) are required to meet the monitoring
requirement of the MMPA, in the context of the NSF and L-DEO's
monitoring plan, NMFS agrees that developing and incorporating a way to
better interpret the results of their monitoring (perhaps a simplified
or generalized version of g(0) and f(0)) is a good idea. NMFS is
continuing to examine this issue with NSF (and other entities) to
develop ways to improve their post-survey take estimates. NMFS will
consult with the Commission and NMFS scientists prior to finalizing
these recommendations.
NMFS notes that current monitoring measures for past and current
IHAs for research seismic surveys require the collection of visual
observation data by PSOs prior to, during, and after airgun operations.
This data collection may contribute to baseline data on marine mammals
(e.g., presence/absence) and provide some generalized support for
estimated take numbers (as well as providing data regarding behavioral
responses to seismic operation that are observable at the surface).
However, it is unlikely that the information gathered from these
cruises alone would result in any statistically robust conclusions for
any particular species because of the small numbers of animals
typically observed.
Comment 6: One private citizen opposed the issuance of an IHA by
NMFS and the conduct of the low-energy seismic survey in the Scotia Sea
and South Atlantic Ocean, September to October 2014 by NSF and ASC. The
commenter stated that NMFS should protect marine life from harm.
Response: As described in detail in the notice of the proposed IHA
(79 FR 45592, August 5, 2014), as well as in this document, NMFS does
not believe NSF and ASC's low-energy seismic survey would cause injury,
serious injury, or mortality to marine mammals, and no take by injury,
serious injury, or mortality is authorized. The required monitoring and
mitigation measures that NSF and ASC will implement during the low-
energy seismic survey will further reduce the potential impacts on
marine mammals to the lowest level practicable. NMFS anticipates only
behavioral disturbance to occur during the conduct of the low-energy
seismic survey.

Description of the Marine Mammals in the Specified Geographic Area of
the Specified Activity

Various national Antarctic research programs (e.g., British
Antarctic Survey, Australian Antarctic Division, and NMFS National
Marine Mammal Laboratory), academic institutions (e.g., Duke
University, University of St. Andrews, and Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution), and other organizations (e.g., South Georgia Museum,
Fundacion Cethus, Whale and Dolphin Conservation, and New England
Aquarium) have conducted scientific cruises and/or examined data on
marine mammal sightings along the coast of Antarctica, south Atlantic
Ocean, Scotia Sea, and around South Georgia and South Sandwich islands,
and these data were considered in evaluating potential marine mammals
in the action area. Records from the International Whaling Commission's
International Decade of Cetacean Research (IDCR), Southern Ocean
Collaboration Program (SOC), and Southern Ocean Whale and Ecosystem
Research (IWC-SOWER) circumpolar cruises were also considered.
The marine mammals that generally occur in the planned action area
belong to three taxonomic groups: mysticetes (baleen whales),
odontocetes (toothed whales), and pinnipeds (seals and sea lions). The
marine mammal species that could potentially occur within the southern
Atlantic Ocean in proximity to the action area in the Scotia Sea
include 32 species of cetaceans and 7 species of pinnipeds.
The waters of the Scotia Sea and southern Atlantic Ocean,
especially those near South Georgia Island, are characterized by high
biomass and productivity of phytoplankton, zooplankton, and vertebrate
predators,

[[Page 60818]]

and may be a feeding ground for many of these marine mammals
(Richardson, 2012). In general, many of the species present in the sub-
Antarctic study area may be present or migrating through the Scotia Sea
during the planned low-energy seismic survey. Many of the species that
may be potentially present in the study area seasonally migrate to
higher latitudes near Antarctica. In general, most large whale species
(except for the killer whale) migrate north in the middle of the
austral winter and return to Antarctica in the early austral summer.
The six species of pinnipeds that are found in the southern
Atlantic Ocean and Southern Ocean and may be present in the planned
study area include the crabeater (Lebodon carcinophagus), leopard
(Hydrurga leptonyx), Weddell (Leptonychotes weddellii), southern
elephant (Mirounga leonina), Antarctic fur (Arctocephalus gazella), and
Subantarctic fur (Arctocephalus tropicalis) seal. Many of these
pinniped species breed on either the pack ice or subantarctic islands.
The southern elephant seal and Antarctic fur seal have haul-outs and
rookeries that are located on subantarctic islands and prefer beaches.
The Ross seal (Ommatophoca rossii) is generally found in dense
consolidated pack ice and on ice floes, but may migrate into open water
to forage. This species' preferred habitat is not in the planned study
area, and thus it is not considered further in this document.
Marine mammal species likely to be encountered in the planned study
area that are listed as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), includes the southern right
(Eubalaena australis), humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae), sei
(Balaenoptera borealis), fin (Balaenoptera physalus), blue
(Balaenoptera musculus), and sperm (Physeter macrocephalus) whale.
In addition to the 26 species known to occur in the Scotia Sea and
the southern Atlantic Ocean, there are 14 cetacean species with ranges
that are known to potentially occur in the waters of the study area:
pygmy right (Caperea marginata), Bryde's (Balaenoptera brydei), dwarf
minke (Balaenoptera acutorostrata spp.), pygmy blue (Balaenoptera
musculus brevicauda), pygmy sperm (Kogia breviceps), dwarf sperm (Kogia
sima), Andrew's beaked (Mesoplodon bowdoini), Blainville's beaked
(Mesoplodon densirostris), Hector's beaked (Mesoplodon hectori), and
spade-toothed beaked (Mesoplodon traversii) whale, and Commerson's
(Cephalorhynchus commersonii), Dusky (Lagenorhynchus obscurus),
bottlenose (Tursiops truncatus), and Risso's (Grampus griseus) dolphin.
However, these species have not been sighted and are not expected to
occur where the planned activities will take place. These species are
not considered further in this document. Table 2 (below) presents
information on the habitat, occurrence, distribution, abundance,
population status, and conservation status of the species of marine
mammals that may occur in the planned study area during September to
October 2014.

Table 2--The Habitat, Occurrence, Range, Regional Abundance, and Conservation Status of Marine Mammals That May Occur in or Near the Low-Energy Seismic
Survey Area in the Scotia Sea and Southern Atlantic Ocean
[See text and Tables 6 and 7 in NSF and ASC's IHA application for further details]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Habitat Occurrence Range Population estimate ESA \1\ MMPA \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mysticetes:
Southern right whale Coastal, pelagic..... Common............... Circumpolar 20 to 8,000 \3\ to 15,000 EN D
(Eubalaena australis). 55[deg] South. \4\.
Pygmy right whale (Caperea Coastal, pelagic..... Rare................. 30 to 55[deg] South.. NA................... NL NC
marginata).
Humpback whale (Megaptera Pelagic, nearshore Common............... Cosmopolitan......... 35,000 to 40,000 \3\-- EN D
novaeangliae). waters, and banks. Worldwide, 9,484
\5\--Scotia Sea and
Antarctica Peninsula.
Minke whale (Balaenoptera Pelagic and coastal.. Common............... Circumpolar--Southern NA................... NL NC
acutorostrata including dwarf Hemisphere to
sub-species). 65[deg] South.
Antarctic minke whale Pelagic, ice floes... Common............... 7[deg] South to ice Several 100,000 \3\-- NL NC
(Balaenoptera bonaerensis). edge (usually 20 to Worldwide, 18,125
65[deg] South). \5\--Scotia Sea and
Antarctica Peninsula.
Bryde's whale (Balaenoptera Pelagic and coastal.. Rare................. Circumglobal 40[deg] NA................... NL NC
brydei). North to 40[deg]
South.
Sei whale (Balaenoptera Primarily offshore, Uncommon............. Migratory, Feeding 80,000 \3\--Worldwide EN D
borealis). pelagic. Concentration 40 to
50[deg] South.
Fin whale (Balaenoptera Continental slope, Common............... Cosmopolitan, 140,000 \3\-- EN D
physalus). pelagic. Migratory. Worldwide, 4,672
\5\--Scotia Sea and
Antarctica Peninsula.
Blue whale (Balaenoptera Pelagic, shelf, Uncommon............. Migratory Pygmy blue 8,000 to 9,000 \3\-- EN D
musculus; including pygmy coastal. whale--North of Worldwide, 1,700
blue whale [Balaenoptera Antarctic \6\--Southern Ocean.
musculus brevicauda]). Convergence 55[deg]
South.
Odontocetes:
Sperm whale (Physeter Pelagic, deep sea.... Common............... Cosmopolitan, 360,000 \3\-- EN D
macrocephalus). Migratory. Worldwide, 9,500
\3\--Antarctic.

[[Page 60819]]

Pygmy sperm whale (Kogia Pelagic, slope....... Rare................. Widely distributed in NA................... NL NC
breviceps). tropical and
temperate zones.
Dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima) Pelagic, slope....... Rare................. Widely distributed in NA................... NL NC
tropical and
temperate zones.
Arnoux's beaked whale Pelagic.............. Common............... Circumpolar in NA................... NL NC
(Berardius arnuxii). Southern Hemisphere,
24 to 78[deg] South.
Cuvier's beaked whale (Ziphius Pelagic.............. Uncommon............. Cosmopolitan......... NA................... NL NC
cavirostris).
Shepherd's beaked whale Pelagic.............. Common............... Circumpolar--south of NA................... NL NC
(Tasmacetus shepherdi). 30[deg] South.
Southern bottlenose whale Pelagic.............. Common............... Circumpolar--30[deg] 500,000 \3\--South of NL NC
(Hyperoodon planifrons). South to ice edge. Antarctic
Convergence.
Andrew's beaked whale Pelagic.............. Rare................. 32 to 55[deg] South.. NA................... NL NC
(Mesoplodon bowdoini).
Blainville's beaked whale Pelagic.............. Rare................. Temperate and NA................... NL NC
(Mesoplodon densirostris). tropical waters
worldwide.
Gray's beaked whale Pelagic.............. Common............... 30[deg] South to NA................... NL NC
(Mesoplodon grayi). Antarctic waters.
Hector's beaked whale Pelagic.............. Rare................. Circumpolar--cool NA................... NL NC
(Mesoplodon hectori). temperate waters of
Southern Hemisphere.
Spade-toothed beaked whale Pelagic.............. Rare................. Circumantarctic...... NA................... NL NC
(Mesoplodon traversii).
Strap-toothed beaked whale Pelagic.............. Common............... 30[deg] South to NA................... NL NC
(Mesoplodon layardii). Antarctic
Convergence.
Killer whale (Orcinus orca)... Pelagic, shelf, Common............... Cosmopolitan......... 80,000 \3\--South of NL NC
coastal, pack ice. Antarctic
Convergence, 25,000
\7\--Southern Ocean.
Long-finned pilot whale Pelagic, shelf, Common............... Circumpolar--19 to 200,000 3 8--South of NL NC
(Globicephala melas). coastal. 68[deg] South in Antarctic
Southern Hemisphere. Convergence.
Risso's dolphin (Grampus Shelf, slope, Rare................. 60[deg] North to NA................... NL NC
griseus). seamounts. 60[deg] South.
Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops Offshore, inshore, Rare................. 45[deg] North to >625,500 \3\-- NL NC
truncatus). coastal, estuaries. 45[deg] South. Worldwide.
Southern right whale dolphin Pelagic.............. Uncommon............. 12 to 65[deg] South.. NA................... NL NC
(Lissodelphis peronii).
Peale's dolphin Coastal, continental Uncommon............. 33 to 60[deg] South.. NA, 200--southern NL NC
(Lagenorhynchus australis). shelf, islands. Chile \3\.
Commerson's dolphin Coastal, continental Rare................. South America, 3,200--Strait of NL NC
(Cephalorhynchus commersonii). shelf, islands. Falkland Islands, Magellan \3\.
Kerguelen Islands.
Dusky dolphin (Lagenorhynchus Coastal, continental Rare................. Widespread in NA................... NL NC
obscurus). shelf and slope. Southern Hemisphere.
Hourglass dolphin Pelagic, ice edge.... Common............... 33[deg] South to pack 144,000 \3\--South of NL NC
(Lagenorhynchus cruciger). ice. Antarctic
Convergence.
Spectacled porpoise (Phocoena Coastal, pelagic..... Uncommon............. Circumpolar--Southern NA................... NL NC
dioptrica). Hemisphere.
Pinnipeds:
Crabeater seal (Lobodon Coastal, pack ice.... Common............... Circumpolar--Antarcti 5,000,000 to NL NC
carcinophaga). c. 15,000,000 3 9.
Leopard seal (Hydrurga Pack ice, sub- Common............... Sub-Antarctic islands 220,000 to 440,000 3 NL NC
leptonyx). Antarctic islands. to pack ice. 10.

[[Page 60820]]

Ross seal (Ommatophoca rossii) Pack ice, smooth ice Rare................. Circumpolar--Antarcti 130,000 \3\ 20,000 to NL NC
floes, pelagic. c. 220,000 \14\.
Weddell seal (Leptonychotes Fast ice, pack ice, Uncommon............. Circumpolar--Southern 500,000 to 1,000,000 NL NC
weddellii). sub-Antarctic Hemisphere. \3\ \11\.
islands.
Southern elephant seal Coastal, pelagic, sub- Common............... Circumpolar--Antarcti 640,000 \12\ to NL NC
(Mirounga leonina). Antarctic waters. c Convergence to 650,000 \3\,
pack ice. 470,000--South
Georgia Island \14\.
Antarctic fur seal Shelf, rocky habitats Common............... Sub-Antarctic islands 1,600,000 \13\ to NL NC
(Arctocephalus gazella). to pack ice edge. 3,000,000 \3\.
Subantarctic fur seal Shelf, rocky habitats Uncommon............. Subtropical front to Greater than 310,000 NL NC
(Arctocephalus tropicalis). sub-Antarctic \3\.
islands and
Antarctica.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NA = Not available or not assessed.
\1\ U.S. Endangered Species Act: EN = Endangered, T = Threatened, DL = Delisted, NL = Not listed.
\2\ U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act: D = Depleted, S = Strategic, NC = Not Classified.
\3\ Jefferson et al., 2008.
\4\ Kenney, 2009.
\5\ Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) survey area (Reilly et al., 2004).
\6\ Sears and Perrin, 2009.
\7\ Ford, 2009.
\8\ Olson, 2009.
\9\ Bengston, 2009.
\10\ Rogers, 2009.
\11\ Thomas and Terhune, 2009.
\12\ Hindell and Perrin, 2009.
\13\ Arnould, 2009.
\14\ Academic Press, 2009.

Refer to sections 3 and 4 of NSF and ASC's IHA application for
detailed information regarding the abundance and distribution,
population status, and life history and behavior of these other marine
mammal species and their occurrence in the planned project area. The
IHA application also presents how NSF and ASC calculated the estimated
densities for the marine mammals in the study area. NMFS has reviewed
these data and determined them to be the best available scientific
information for the purposes of the IHA.

Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals

This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that the
types of stressors associated with the specified activity (e.g.,
seismic airgun operation, vessel movement, gear deployment) have been
observed to impact marine mammals. This discussion may also include
reactions that we consider to rise to the level of a take and those
that we do not consider to rise to the level of take (for example, with
acoustics, we may include a discussion of studies that showed animals
not reacting at all to sound or exhibiting barely measureable
avoidance). This section is intended as a background of potential
effects and does not consider either the specific manner in which this
activity will be carried out or the mitigation that will be
implemented, and how either of those would shape the anticipated
impacts from this specific activity. The ``Estimated Take by Incidental
Harassment'' section later in this document will include a quantitative
analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by
this activity. The ``Negligible Impact Analysis'' section will include
the analysis of how this specific activity will impact marine mammals
and will consider the content of this section, the ``Estimated Take by
Incidental Harassment'' section, the ``Mitigation'' section, and the
``Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat'' section to draw
conclusions regarding the likely impacts of this activity on the
reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and from that on
the affected marine mammal populations or stocks.
When considering the influence of various kinds of sound on the
marine environment, it is necessary to understand that different kinds
of marine life are sensitive to different frequencies of sound. Based
on available behavioral data, audiograms have been derived using
auditory evoked potentials, anatomical modeling, and other data,
Southall et al. (2007) designate ``functional hearing groups'' for
marine mammals and estimate the lower and upper frequencies of
functional hearing of the groups. The functional groups and the
associated frequencies are indicated below (though animals are less
sensitive to sounds at the outer edge of their functional range and
most sensitive to sounds of frequencies within a smaller range
somewhere in the middle of their functional hearing range):
Low-frequency cetaceans (13 species of mysticetes):
Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and
30 kHz;
Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 species of dolphins, six
species of larger toothed whales, and 19 species of beaked and
bottlenose whales): Functional hearing is estimated to occur between
approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;
High-frequency cetaceans (eight species of true porpoises,
six species of river dolphins, Kogia spp., the franciscana [Pontoporia
blainvillei], and four species of cephalorhynchids): Functional hearing
is estimated to occur between approximately 200 Hz and 180 kHz; and
Phocid pinnipeds in water: Functional hearing is estimated
to occur

[[Page 60821]]

between approximately 75 Hz and 100 kHz;
Otariid pinnipeds in water: Functional hearing is
estimated to occur between approximately 100 Hz and 40 kHz.
As mentioned previously in this document, 26 marine mammal species
(20 cetacean and 6 pinniped species) are likely to occur in the seismic
survey area. Of the 20 cetacean species likely to occur in NSF and
ASC's action area, 7 are classified as low-frequency cetaceans
(southern right, humpback, minke, Antarctic minke, sei, fin, and blue
whale), 12 are classified as mid-frequency cetaceans (sperm, Arnoux's
beaked, Cuvier's beaked, Shepherd's beaked, southern bottlenose, Gray's
beaked, strap-toothed beaked, killer, and long-finned pilot whale, and
southern right whale, Peale's, and hourglass dolphin), and 1 is
classified as a high-frequency cetacean (spectacled porpoise) (Southall
et al., 2007). Of the 6 pinniped species likely to occur in NSF and
ASC's planned action area, 4 are classified as phocid pinnipeds
(crabeater, leopard, Weddell, and southern elephant seal), and 2 are
classified as otariid pinnipeds (Antarctic and Subantarctic fur seal)
(Southall et al., 2007). A species functional hearing group is a
consideration when we analyze the effects of exposure to sound on
marine mammals.
Acoustic stimuli generated by the operation of the airguns, which
introduce sound into the marine environment, may have the potential to
cause Level B harassment of marine mammals in the survey area. The
effects of sounds from airgun operations might include one or more of
the following: Tolerance, masking of natural sounds, behavioral
disturbance, temporary or permanent hearing impairment, or non-auditory
physical or physiological effects (Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon et
al., 2004; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2007). Permanent
hearing impairment, in the unlikely event that it occurred, would
constitute injury, but temporary threshold shift (TTS) is not an injury
(Southall et al., 2007). Although the possibility cannot be entirely
excluded, it is unlikely that the planned project will result in any
cases of temporary or permanent hearing impairment, or any significant
non-auditory physical or physiological effects. Based on the available
data and studies described here, some behavioral disturbance is
expected, but NMFS expects the disturbance to be localized and short-
term. NMFS described the range of potential effects from the specified
activity in the notice of the proposed IHA (79 FR 45592). A more
comprehensive review of these issues can be found in the ``Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement
prepared for Marine Seismic Research that is funded by the National
Science Foundation and conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey'' (NSF/
USGS, 2011) and L-DEO's ``Draft Environmental Assessment of a Marine
Geophysical Survey by the R/V Marcus G. Langseth in the Atlantic Ocean
off Cape Hatteras, September to October 2014.''
The notice of the proposed IHA (79 FR 45592, August 5, 2014)
included a discussion of the effects of sounds from airguns on
mysticetes and odontocetes, including tolerance, masking, behavioral
disturbance, hearing impairment, and other non-auditory physical
effects. NMFS refers the readers to USGS's IHA application and EA for
additional information on the behavioral reactions (or lack thereof) by
all types of marine mammals to seismic vessels.

Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat

NMFS included a detailed discussion of the potential effects of
this action on marine mammal habitat, including physiological and
behavioral effects on marine fish and invertebrates, in the notice of
the proposed IHA (79 FR 45592, August 5, 2014). The seismic survey will
not result in any permanent impacts on habitats used by the marine
mammals in the study area, including the food sources they use (i.e.,
fish and invertebrates), and there will be no physical damage to any
habitat. While NMFS anticipates that the specified activity may result
in marine mammals avoiding certain areas due to temporary
ensonification, this impact to habitat is temporary and reversible,
which was considered in further detail in the notice of the proposed
IHA (79 FR 45592, August 5, 2014), as behavioral modification. The main
impact associated with the activity will be temporarily elevated noise
levels and the associated direct effects on marine mammals.

Mitigation

In order to issue an Incidental Take Authorization (ITA) under
section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible
methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of
effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its
habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and
areas of similar significance, and the availability of such species or
stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (where relevant).
NSF and ASC reviewed the following source documents and have
incorporated a suite of appropriate mitigation measures into their
project description.
(1) Protocols used during previous NSF and USGS-funded seismic
research cruises as approved by NMFS and detailed in the ``Final
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental
Impact Statement for Marine Seismic Research Funded by the National
Science Foundation or Conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey;''
(2) Previous IHA applications and IHAs approved and authorized by
NMFS; and
(3) Recommended best practices in Richardson et al. (1995), Pierson
et al. (1998), and Weir and Dolman, (2007).
To reduce the potential for disturbance from acoustic stimuli
associated with the planned activities, NSF, ASC, and their designees
shall implement the following mitigation measures for marine mammals:
(1) Exclusion zones around the sound source;
(2) Speed and course alterations;
(3) Shut-down procedures; and
(4) Ramp-up procedures.
Exclusion Zones--During pre-planning of the cruise, the smallest
airgun array was identified that could be used and still meet the
geophysical scientific objectives. NSF and ASC use radii to designate
exclusion and buffer zones and to estimate take for marine mammals.
Table 3 (see below) shows the distances at which one would expect to
receive three sound levels (160, 180, and 190 dB) from the two GI
airgun array. The 180 and 190 dB level shut-down criteria are
applicable to cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively, as specified by
NMFS (2000). NSF and ASC used these levels to establish the exclusion
and buffer zones.

[[Page 60822]]

Table 3--Predicted and Modeled (Two 105 in\3\ GI Airgun Array) Distances to Which Sound Levels >= 160, 180, and 190 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) Could Be
Received in Deep Water During the Low-energy Seismic Survey in the Scotia Sea and the Southern Atlantic Ocean, September to October 2014
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predicted RMS radii distances (m) for 2 GI airgun array
Source and total volume Tow depth (m) Water depth (m) --------------------------------------------------------------------
160 dB 180 dB 190 dB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two GI Airguns (105 in\3\)......... 3 to 4................ Deep >(1,000)......... 670.................. 100 (328.1 ft)....... 20 (65.6 ft) * 100
(2,198.2 ft)......... will be used for
pinnipeds as well as
cetaceans*.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Received sound levels have been modeled by L-DEO for a number of
airgun configurations, including two 45 in\3\ Nucleus G airguns, in
relation to distance and direction from the airguns (see Figure 2 of
the IHA application). In addition, propagation measurements of pulses
from two GI airguns have been reported for shallow water (approximately
30 m [98.4 ft] depth) in the GOM (Tolstoy et al., 2004). However,
measurements were not made for the two GI airguns in deep water. The
model does not allow for bottom interactions, and is most directly
applicable to deep water. Based on the modeling, estimates of the
maximum distances from the GI airguns where sound levels are predicted
to be 190, 180, and 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) in shallow, intermediate,
and deep water were determined (see Table 3 above).
Empirical data concerning the 190, 180, and 160 dB (rms) distances
were acquired for various airgun arrays based on measurements during
the acoustic verification studies conducted by L-DEO in the northern
GOM in 2003 (Tolstoy et al., 2004) and 2007 to 2008 (Tolstoy et al.,
2009). Results of the 18 and 36 airgun arrays are not relevant for the
two GI airguns to be used in the planned survey because the airgun
arrays are not the same size or volume. The empirical data for the 6,
10, 12, and 20 airgun arrays indicate that, for deep water, the L-DEO
model tends to overestimate the received sound levels at a given
distance (Tolstoy et al., 2004). Measurements were not made for the two
GI airgun array in deep water; however, NSF and ASC plan to use the
safety radii predicted by L-DEO's model for the planned GI airgun
operations in deep water, although they are likely conservative given
the empirical results for the other arrays.
Based on the modeling data, the outputs from the pair of 105 in\3\
GI airguns planned to be used during the seismic survey are considered
a low-energy acoustic source in the NSF/USGS PEIS (2011) for marine
seismic research. A low-energy seismic source was defined in the NSF/
USGS PEIS as an acoustic source whose received level at 100 m is less
than 180 dB. The NSF/USGS PEIS also established for these low-energy
sources, a standard exclusion zone of 100 m for all low-energy sources
in water depths greater than 100 m. This standard 100 m exclusion zone
will be used during the planned low-energy seismic survey. The 180 and
190 dB (rms) radii are shut-down criteria applicable to cetaceans and
pinnipeds, respectively, as specified by NMFS (2000); these levels were
used to establish exclusion zones. Therefore, the assumed 180 and 190
dB radii are 100 m for intermediate and deep water. If the PSO detects
a marine mammal within or about to enter the appropriate exclusion
zone, the airguns will be shut-down immediately.
Speed and Course Alterations--If a marine mammal is detected
outside the exclusion zone and, based on its position and direction of
travel (relative motion), is likely to enter the exclusion zone,
changes of the vessel's speed and/or direct course will be considered
if this does not compromise operational safety or damage the deployed
equipment. This will be done if operationally practicable while
minimizing the effect on the planned science objectives. For marine
seismic surveys towing large streamer arrays, course alterations are
not typically implemented due to the vessel's limited maneuverability.
However, the Palmer will be towing a relatively short hydrophone
streamer, so its maneuverability during airgun operations with the
hydrophone streamer will not be limited as vessels towing long
streamers, thus increasing the potential to implement course
alterations, if necessary. After any such speed and/or course
alteration is begun, the marine mammal activities and movements
relative to the seismic vessel will be closely monitored to ensure that
the marine mammal does not approach within the exclusion zone. If the
marine mammal appears likely to enter the exclusion zone, further
mitigation actions will be taken, including further speed and/or course
alterations, and/or shut-down of the airgun(s). Typically, during
airgun operations, the source vessel is unable to change speed or
course, and one or more alternative mitigation measures will need to be
implemented.
Shut-down Procedures--If a marine mammal is detected outside the
exclusion zone for the airgun(s) and the vessel's speed and/or course
cannot be changed to avoid having the animal enter the exclusion zone,
NSF and ASC will shut-down the operating airgun(s) before the animal is
within the exclusion zone. Likewise, if a marine mammal is already
within the exclusion zone when first detected, the seismic source will
be shut-down immediately.
Following a shut-down, NSF and ASC will not resume airgun activity
until the marine mammal has cleared the exclusion zone. NSF and ASC
will consider the animal to have cleared the exclusion zone if:
A PSO has visually observed the animal leave the exclusion
zone, or
A PSO has not sighted the animal within the exclusion zone
for 15 minutes for species with shorter dive durations (i.e., small
odontocetes and pinnipeds), or 30 minutes for species with longer dive
durations (i.e., mysticetes and large odontocetes, including sperm,
pygmy and dwarf sperm, killer, and beaked whales).
Although power-down procedures are often standard operating
practice for seismic surveys, they will not be used during this planned
seismic survey because powering-down from two airguns to one airgun
would make only a small difference in the exclusion zone(s) that
probably would not be enough to allow continued one-airgun operations
if a marine mammal came within the exclusion zone for two airguns.
Ramp-up Procedures--Ramp-up of an airgun array provides a gradual
increase in sound levels, and involves a step-wise increase in the
number and total volume of airguns firing until the full volume of the
airgun array is achieved. The purpose of a ramp-up is to ``warn''
marine mammals in the vicinity of the airguns and to provide the time
for them to leave the area, avoiding any potential injury or impairment
of their hearing

[[Page 60823]]

abilities. NSF and ASC will follow a ramp-up procedure when the airgun
array begins operating after a specified period without airgun
operations or when a shut-down has exceeded that period. NSF and ASC
proposed that, for the present cruise, this period would be
approximately 15 minutes. SIO, L-DEO, and USGS have used similar
periods (approximately 15 minutes) during previous low-energy seismic
surveys.
Ramp-up will begin with a single GI airgun (105 in\3\). The second
GI airgun (105 in\3\) will be added after 5 minutes. During ramp-up,
the PSOs will monitor the exclusion zone, and if marine mammals are
sighted, a shut-down will be implemented as though both GI airguns were
operational.
If the complete exclusion zone has not been visible for at least 30
minutes prior to the start of operations in either daylight or
nighttime, NSF and ASC will not commence the ramp-up. Given these
provisions, it is likely that the airgun array will not be ramped-up
from a complete shut-down at night or in thick fog, because the outer
part of the exclusion zone for that array would not be visible during
those conditions. If one airgun has operated, ramp-up to full power
will be permissible at night or in poor visibility, on the assumption
that marine mammals will be alerted to the approaching seismic vessel
by the sounds from the single airgun and could move away if they
choose. A ramp-up from a shut-down may occur at night, but only where
the exclusion zone is small enough to be visible. NSF and ASC will not
initiate a ramp-up of the airguns if a marine mammal is sighted within
or near the applicable exclusion zones during the day or close to the
vessel at night.

Mitigation Conclusions

NMFS has carefully evaluated the applicant's mitigation measures
and has considered a range of other measures in the context of ensuring
that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least practicable
impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their
habitat. NMFS's evaluation of potential measures included consideration
of the following factors in relation to one another:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts
to marine mammals;
(2) The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to
minimize adverse impacts as planned; and
(3) The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation
including consideration of personnel safety, practicality of
implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the activity.
Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to
accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on
current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of
the general goals listed below:
(1) Avoidance of minimization of injury or death of marine mammals
wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).
(2) A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or
number at biologically important time or location) exposed to received
levels of airguns, or other activities expected to result in the take
of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing
harassment takes only).
(3) A reduction in the number of time (total number or number at
biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed
to received levels of airguns, or other activities expected to result
in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or
to reducing harassment takes only).
(4) A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number
or number at biologically important time or location) to received
levels of airguns, or other activities, or other activities expected to
result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to a,
above, or to reducing the severity of harassment takes only).
(5) Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal
habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that
block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas,
permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance
of habitat during a biologically important time.
(6) For monitoring directly related to mitigation--an increase in
the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more
effective implementation of the mitigation.
Based on NMFS's evaluation of the applicant's measures, as well as
other measures considered by NMFS or recommended by the public, NMFS
has determined that the mitigation measures provide the means of
effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or
stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries,
mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.

Monitoring and Reporting

In order to issue an ITA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth ``requirements pertaining to
the monitoring and reporting of such taking.'' The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for IHAs
must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary
monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the
species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine
mammals that are expected to be present in the action area. NSF and ASC
submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan as part of the IHA
application. It can be found in Section 13 of the IHA application. The
plan has not been modified or supplemented between the notice of the
proposed IHA (79 FR 45592, August 5, 2014) and this final notice
announcing the issuance of the IHA, as none of the comments or new
information received from the public during the public comment period
required a change to the plan.
Monitoring measures prescribed by NMFS should accomplish one or
more of the following general goals:
(1) An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals,
both within the mitigation zone (thus allowing for more effective
implementation of the mitigation) and in general to generate more data
to contribute to the analyses mentioned below;
(2) An increase in our understanding of how many marine mammals are
likely to be exposed to levels of sound (airguns) that we associate
with specific adverse effects, such as behavioral harassment, TTS, or
PTS;
(3) An increase in our understanding of how marine mammals respond
to stimuli expected to result in take and how anticipated adverse
effects on individuals (in different ways and to varying degrees) may
impact the population, species, or stock (specifically through effects
on annual rates of recruitment or survival) through any of the
following methods:
Behavioral observations in the presence of stimuli
compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to
accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other
pertinent information);
Physiological measurements in the presence of stimuli
compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to
accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other
pertinent information); and
Distribution and/or abundance comparisons in times or
areas with concentrated stimuli versus times or areas without stimuli;

[[Page 60824]]

(4) An increased knowledge of the affected species; and
(5) An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of
certain mitigation and monitoring measures.

Monitoring

NSF and ASC will conduct marine mammal monitoring during the low-
energy seismic survey, in order to implement the mitigation measures
that require real-time monitoring and to satisfy the anticipated
monitoring requirements of the IHA. NSF and ASC's ``Monitoring Plan''
is described below this section. NSF and ASC understand that this
monitoring plan will be subject to continuing review by NMFS and that
refinements may be required. The monitoring work described here has
been planned as a self-contained project independent of any other
related monitoring projects that may be occurring simultaneously in the
same regions. NSF and ASC are prepared to discuss coordination of their
monitoring program with any related work that might be done by other
groups insofar as this is practical and desirable.

Vessel-Based Visual Monitoring

NSF and ASC's PSOs will be based aboard the seismic source vessel
and will watch for marine mammals near the vessel during daytime airgun
operations and during any ramp-ups of the airguns at night. PSOs will
also watch for marine mammals near the seismic vessel for at least 30
minutes prior to the start of airgun operations and after an extended
shut-down (i.e., greater than approximately 15 minutes for this low-
energy seismic survey). When feasible, PSOs will conduct observations
during daytime periods when the seismic system is not operating (such
as during transits) for comparison of sighting rates and behavior with
and without airgun operations and between acquisition periods. Based on
PSO observations, the airguns will be shut-down when marine mammals are
observed within or about to enter a designated exclusion zone. The
exclusion zone is a region in which a possibility exists of adverse
effects on animal hearing or other physical effects.
During seismic operations in the Scotia Sea and southern Atlantic
Ocean, at least three PSOs will be based aboard the Palmer. At least
one PSO will stand watch at all times while the Palmer is operating
airguns during the low-energy seismic survey; this procedure will also
be followed when the vessel is in transit. NSF and ASC will appoint the
PSOs with NMFS's concurrence. The lead PSO will be experienced with
marine mammal species in the Scotia Sea, southern Atlantic Ocean, and/
or Southern Ocean, the second and third PSOs will receive additional
specialized training from the lead PSO to ensure that they can identify
marine mammal species commonly found in the Scotia Sea and southern
Atlantic Ocean. Observations will take place during ongoing daytime
operations and nighttime ramp-ups of the airguns. During the majority
of seismic operations, at least one PSO will be on duty from
observation platforms (i.e., the best available vantage point on the
source vessel) to monitor marine mammals near the seismic vessel.
PSO(s) will be on duty in shifts no longer than 4 hours in duration.
Other crew will also be instructed to assist in detecting marine
mammals and implementing mitigation requirements (if practical). Before
the start of the low-energy seismic survey, the crew will be given
additional instruction on how to do so.
The Palmer is a suitable platform for marine mammal observations
and will serve as the platform from which PSOs will watch for marine
mammals before and during seismic operations. Two locations are likely
as observation stations onboard the Palmer. One observing station is
located on the bridge level, with the PSO eye level at approximately
16.5 m (54.1 ft) above the waterline and the PSO will have a good view
around the entire vessel. In addition, there is an aloft observation
tower for the PSO approximately 24.4 m (80.1 ft) above the waterline
that is protected from the weather, and affords PSOs an even greater
view. The approximate view around the vessel from the bridge is
270[deg] and from the aloft observation tower is 360[deg].
Standard equipment for PSOs will be reticle binoculars. Night-
vision equipment will not be available. The PSOs will be in
communication with ship's officers on the bridge and scientists in the
vessel's operations laboratory, so they can advise promptly of the need
for avoidance maneuvers or seismic source shut-down. During daytime,
the PSO(s) will scan the area around the vessel systematically with
reticle binoculars (e.g., 7 x 50 Fujinon FMTRC-SX) and the naked eye.
These binoculars will have a built-in daylight compass. Estimating
distances is done primarily with the reticles in the binoculars. The
PSO(s) will be in direct (radio) wireless communication with ship's
officers on the bridge and scientists in the vessel's operations
laboratory during seismic operations, so they can advise the vessel
operator, science support personnel, and the science party promptly of
the need for avoidance maneuvers or a shut-down of the seismic source.
When a marine mammal is detected within or about to enter the
designated exclusion zone, the airguns will immediately be shut-down,
unless the vessel's speed and/or course can be changed to avoid having
the animal enter the exclusion zone. The PSO(s) will continue to
maintain watch to determine when the animal is outside the exclusion
zone by visual confirmation. Airgun operations will not resume until
the animal is confirmed to have left the exclusion zone, or is not
observed after 15 minutes for species with shorter dive durations
(small odontocetes and pinnipeds) or 30 minutes for species with longer
dive durations (mysticetes and large odontocetes, including sperm,
killer, and beaked whales).

PSO Data and Documentation

PSOs will record data to estimate the numbers of marine mammals
exposed to various received sound levels and to document apparent
disturbance reactions or lack thereof. Data will be used to estimate
numbers of animals potentially ``taken'' by harassment (as defined in
the MMPA). They will also provide information needed to order a shut-
down of the airguns when a marine mammal is within or near the
exclusion zone. Observations will also be made during daytime periods
when the Palmer is underway without seismic operations (i.e., transits
to, from, and through the study area) to collect baseline biological
data.
When a sighting is made, the following information about the
sighting will be recorded:
1. Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable),
behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, heading (if
consistent), bearing and distance from seismic vessel, sighting cue,
apparent reaction to the seismic source or vessel (e.g., none,
avoidance, approach, paralleling, etc.), and behavioral pace.
2. Time, location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel, sea
state, wind force, visibility, and sun glare.
The data listed under (2) will also be recorded at the start and
end of each observation watch, and during a watch whenever there is a
change in one or more of the variables.
All observations, as well as information regarding ramp-ups or
shut-downs will be recorded in a standardized format. Data will be
entered into an electronic database. The data accuracy will be verified
by computerized data validity checks as the data are entered and by
subsequent

[[Page 60825]]

manual checking of the database by the PSOs at sea. These procedures
will allow initial summaries of data to be prepared during and shortly
after the field program, and will facilitate transfer of the data to
statistical, graphical, and other programs for further processing and
archiving.
Results from the vessel-based observations will provide the
following information:
1. The basis for real-time mitigation (airgun shut-down).
2. Information needed to estimate the number of marine mammals
potentially taken by harassment, which must be reported to NMFS.
3. Data on the occurrence, distribution, and activities of marine
mammals in the area where the seismic study is conducted.
4. Information to compare the distance and distribution of marine
mammals relative to the source vessel at times with and without seismic
activity.
5. Data on the behavior and movement patterns of marine mammals
seen at times with and without seismic activity.

Reporting

NSF and ASC will submit a comprehensive report to NMFS within 90
days after the end of the cruise. The report will describe the
operations that were conducted and sightings of marine mammals near the
operations. The report submitted to NMFS will provide full
documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all
monitoring. The 90-day report will summarize the dates and locations of
seismic operations and all marine mammal sightings (i.e., dates, times,
locations, activities, and associated seismic survey activities). The
report will include, at a minimum:
Summaries of monitoring effort--total hours, total
distances, and distribution of marine mammals through the study period
accounting for Beaufort sea state and other factors affecting
visibility and detectability of marine mammals;
Analyses of the effects of various factors influencing
detectability of marine mammals including Beaufort sea state, number of
PSOs, and fog/glare;
Species composition, occurrence, and distribution of
marine mammals sightings including date, water depth, numbers, age/
size/gender, and group sizes, and analyses of the effects of seismic
operations;
Sighting rates of marine mammals during periods with and
without airgun activities (and other variables that could affect
detectability);
Initial sighting distances versus airgun activity state;
Closest point of approach versus airgun activity state;
Observed behaviors and types of movements versus airgun
activity state;
Numbers of sightings/individuals seen versus airgun
activity state; and
Distribution around the source vessel versus airgun
activity state.
The report will also include estimates of the number and nature of
exposures that could result in ``takes'' of marine mammals by
harassment or in other ways. NMFS will review the draft report and
provide any comments it may have, and NSF and ASC will incorporate
NMFS's comments and prepare a final report. After the report is
considered final, it will be publicly available on the NMFS Web site
at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/.
Reporting Prohibited Take--In the unanticipated event that the
specified activity clearly causes the take of a marine mammal in a
manner prohibited by this IHA, such as an injury (Level A harassment),
serious injury or mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear interaction, and/
or entanglement), NSF and ASC would immediately cease the specified
activities and immediately report the incident to the Chief of the
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS
at 301-427-8401 and/or by email to [email protected] and
[email protected]. The report must include the following
information:
Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the
incident;
Name and type of vessel involved;
Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
Description of the incident;
Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding
the incident;
Water depth;
Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction,
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24
hours preceding the incident;
Species identification or description of the animal(s)
involved;
Fate of the animal(s); and
Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if
equipment is available).
Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS shall work with NSF and ASC
to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. NSF and ASC may not resume
their activities until notified by NMFS via letter or email, or
telephone.
Reporting an Injured or Dead Marine Mammal with an Unknown Cause of
Death--In the event that NSF and ASC discover an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or
death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than
a moderate state of decomposition), NSF and ASC shall immediately
report the incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation
Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401, and/or
by email to [email protected] and [email protected]. The
report must include the same information identified in the paragraph
above. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of
the incident. NMFS will work with NSF and ASC to determine whether
modifications in the activities are appropriate.
Reporting an Injured or Dead Marine Mammal Not Related to the
Activities--In the event that NSF and ASC discover an injured or dead
marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is
not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA
(e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate or advanced
decomposition, or scavenger damage), NSF and ASC will report the
incident to the Chief of the Permits and Conservation Division, Office
of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401, and/or by email to
[email protected] and [email protected], within 24 hours
of discovery. NSF and ASC will provide photographs or video footage (if
available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting to
NMFS. Activities may continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of
the incident.

Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment

Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or
marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering [Level B harassment].

[[Page 60826]]

Table 4--NMFS's Current Underwater Acoustic Exposure Criteria
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impulsive (non-explosive) sound
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criterion Criterion definition Threshold
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A harassment (injury)........ Permanent threshold shift (PTS)...... 180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa-m (root means
(Any level above that which is known square [rms]) (cetaceans).
to cause TTS). 190 dB re 1 [mu]Pa-m (rms)
(pinnipeds).
Level B harassment................. Behavioral disruption (for impulsive 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa-m (rms).
noise).
Level B harassment................. Behavioral disruption (for continuous 120 dB re 1 [mu]Pa-m (rms).
noise).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Level B harassment is anticipated and authorized as a result of the
low-energy seismic survey in the Scotia Sea and southern Atlantic
Ocean. Acoustic stimuli (i.e., increased underwater sound) generated
during the operation of the seismic airgun array are expected to result
in the behavioral disturbance of some marine mammals. There is no
evidence that the planned activities for which NSF and ASC seek the IHA
could result in injury, serious injury, or mortality. The required
mitigation and monitoring measures will minimize any potential risk for
injury, serious injury, or mortality.
The following sections describe NSF and ASC's methods to estimate
take by incidental harassment and present the applicant's estimates of
the numbers of marine mammals that could be affected during the low-
energy seismic survey in the Scotia Sea and southern Atlantic Ocean.
The estimates are based on a consideration of the number of marine
mammals that could be harassed during the approximately 325 hours and
2,950 km of seismic airgun operations with the two GI airgun array to
be used.
During simultaneous operations of the airgun array and the other
sound sources, any marine mammals close enough to be affected by the
single and multi-beam echosounders, ADCP, or sub-bottom profiler will
already be affected by the airguns. During times when the airguns are
not operating, it is unlikely that marine mammals will exhibit more
than minor, short-term responses to the echosounders, ADCPs, and sub-
bottom profiler given their characteristics (e.g., narrow, downward-
directed beam) and other considerations described previously in the
notice of the proposed IHA (79 FR 45592, August 5, 2014). Such
reactions are not considered to constitute ``taking'' (NMFS, 2001).
Therefore, for this activity, take was not authorized specifically for
these sound sources beyond that which is already planned to be
authorized for airguns.
There are no stock assessments and very limited population
information available for marine mammals in the Scotia Sea and southern
Atlantic Ocean. Published estimates of marine mammal densities are
limited for the planned low-energy seismic survey's action area.
Available density estimates from the Naval Marine Species Density
Database (NMSDD) (NAVFAC, 2012) were used for 5 mysticetes and eight
odontocetes. Density of spectacled porpoise was based on the density
reported in Santora et al. (2009; as reported in NOAA SWFSC, 2013).
Densities for minke (including the dwarf sub-species) whales and
Subantarctic fur seals were unavailable and the densities for Antarctic
minke whales and Antarctic fur seals were used as proxies,
respectively.
For other mysticetes and odontocetes, reported sightings data from
two previous research surveys in the Scotia Sea and vicinity were used
to identify species that may be present in the planned action area and
to estimate densities. While these surveys were not specifically
designed to quantify marine mammal densities, there was sufficient
information to develop density estimates. The data collected for the
two studies were in terms of animals sighted per time unit, and the
sighting data were then converted to an areal density (number of
animals per square km) by multiplying the number of animals observed by
the estimated area observed during the survey.
Some marine mammals that were present in the area may not have been
observed. Southwell et al. (2008) suggested a 20 to 40% sighting factor
for pinnipeds, and the most conservative value from Southwell et al.
(2008) was applied for cetaceans. Therefore, the estimated frequency of
sightings data in the notice of the proposed IHA (79 FR 45592, August
5, 2014) and this IHA for cetaceans incorporates a correction factor of
5, which assumes only 20% of the animals present were reported due to
sea and other environmental conditions that may have hindered
observation, and therefore, there were 5 times more cetaceans actually
present. The correction factor (20%) was intended to conservatively
account for unobserved animals.
Sighting data collected during the 2003 RRS James Clark Ross Cruise
JR82 (British Antarctic Survey, undated) were used as the basis to
estimate densities for four species: southern right whale, southern
bottlenose whale, hourglass dolphin, and Peale's dolphin. The cruise
length was 4,143 km (2,237 nmi); however, lateral distance from the
vessel where cetaceans were viewed was not identified in the report.
Therefore, it was assumed that all species were sighted within 2.5 km
(1.4 nmi) of the vessel (5 km [2.7 nmi] width) because this was the
assumed sighting distance (half strip width). This resulted in a survey
area of 20,715 km\2\ (6,039 nmi\2\). Density of the strap-toothed
beaked whale was based on sighting data reported in Rossi-Santos et al.
(2007). The survey length was 1,296 km (699.8 nmi); however, lateral
distance from the vessel where cetaceans were sighted was not
identified in the report. Therefore, it was assumed that all species
were sighted within 2.5 km of the vessel (5 km width) because this was
assumed as a conservative distance where cetaceans could be
consistently observed. This width was needed to calculate densities
from data sources where only cruise distance and animal numbers were
available in the best available reports. This resulted in a survey area
of 6,480 km\2\ (1,889.3 nmi\2\)
With respect to pinnipeds, one study (Santora et al., 2009 as
reported in NOAA SWFSC, 2013) provided a density estimate for southern
elephant seals. No other studies in the region of the Scotia Sea
provided density estimates for pinnipeds. Therefore, reported sighting
data from two previous research surveys in the Scotia Sea and vicinity
were used to identify species that may be present and to estimate
densities. Sighting data collected during the 2003 RRS James Clark Ross
Cruise JR82 (British Antarctic Survey, undated) were used as the basis
to estimate densities for four species: Antarctic fur seal, crabeater
seal, leopard seal, and Weddell seal. The survey length was 4,143 km
(1,207.9 nmi); however, lateral distance from the vessel where
pinnipeds were viewed was not identified in the report.

[[Page 60827]]

Therefore, it was assumed that all species were sighted within 0.4 km
(0.2 nmi) of the vessel (0.8 km [0.4 nmi] width), based on Southwell et
al. (2008). This resulted in a survey area of 3,315 km\2\ (966.5
nmi\2\).
Some pinnipeds that were present in the area during the British
Antarctic Survey cruise may not have been observed. Therefore, a
correction factor of 1.66 was applied to the pinniped density
estimates, which assumes 66% more animals than observed were present
and potentially may have been in the water. This conservative
correction factor takes into consideration that pinnipeds are
relatively difficult to observe in the water due to their small body
size and surface behavior, and some pinnipeds may not have been
observed due to poor visibility conditions.
The pinnipeds that may be present in the study area during the
planned action and are expected to be observed occur mostly near pack
ice, coastal areas, and rocky habitats on the shelf, and are not
prevalent in open sea areas where the low-energy seismic survey will be
conducted. Because density estimates for pinnipeds in the sub-Antarctic
and Antarctic regions typically represent individuals that have hauled-
out of the water, those estimates are not necessarily representative of
individuals that are in the water and could be potentially exposed to
underwater sounds during the seismic airgun operations; therefore, the
pinniped densities have been adjusted downward to account for this
consideration. Take was not requested for Ross seals because preferred
habitat for this species is not within the planned action area.
Although there is some uncertainty about the representativeness of the
data and the assumptions used in the calculations below, the approach
used here is believed to be the best available approach, using the best
available science.

Table 5--Estimated Densities and Number of Marine Mammal Species That Might Be Exposed to Greater Than or Equal to 160 dB (Airgun Operations) During NSF
and ASC's Low-Energy Seismic Survey (approximately 2,950 km of tracklines/approximately 3,953 km\2\ [0.67 km x 2 x 2,950 km] ensonified area for airgun
operations) in the Scotia Sea and Southern Atlantic Ocean, September to October 2014
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calculated
take from
seismic
airgun
operations
(i.e., Approximate
estimated percentage
Density (# number of Authorized of
Species of animals/ individuals take Abundance \3\ population Population trend \5\
km\2\) \1\ exposed to estimate
sound (authorized
levels take) \4\
>=160 dB
re 1
[micro]Pa)
\2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mysticetes:
Southern right whale................. 0.0079652 31 31 8,000 to 15,000............. 0.39 Increasing at 7 to 8% per
year
Humpback whale....................... 0.0006610 3 3 35,000 to 40,000--Worldwide 0.03 Increasing
9,484--Scotia Sea and
Antarctica Peninsula.
Antarctic minke whale................ 0.1557920 616 616 Several 100,000--Worldwide 3.4 Stable
18,125--Scotia Sea and
Antarctica Peninsula.
Minke whale (including dwarf minke 0.1557920 616 616 NA.......................... NA NA
whale sub-species).
Sei whale............................ 0.0063590 25 25 80,000--Worldwide........... 0.03 NA
Fin whale............................ 0.0182040 72 72 140,000--Worldwide 4,672-- 1.54 NA
Scotia Sea and Antarctica
Peninsula.
Blue whale........................... 0.0000510 1 1 8,000 to 9,000--Worldwide... 0.01 NA
Odontocetes:
Sperm whale.......................... 0.0020690 8 8 360,000--Worldwide 9,500-- <0.01 NA
Antarctic.
Arnoux's beaked whale................ 0.0113790 45 45 NA.......................... NA NA
Cuvier's beaked whale................ 0.000548 3 3 NA.......................... NA NA
Gray's beaked whale.................. 0.0018850 7 7 NA.......................... NA NA
Shepherd's beaked whale.............. 0.0092690 37 37 NA.......................... NA NA
Strap-toothed beaked whale........... 0.0007716 3 3 NA.......................... NA NA
Southern bottlenose whale............ 0.0089307 35 35 50,000--South of Antarctic 0.07 NA
Convergence.
Killer whale......................... 0.0153800 61 61 80,000--South of Antarctic 0.08 NA
Convergence.
Long-finned pilot whale.............. 0.2145570 848 848 200,000--South of Antarctic 0.42 NA
Convergence.
Peale's dolphin...................... 0.0026551 10 10 NA--Worldwide; 200--southern NA 5 NA
Chile\3\.
Hourglass dolphin.................... 0.0154477 61 61 144,000..................... 0.04 NA
Southern right whale dolphin......... 0.0061610 24 24 NA.......................... NA NA
Spectacled porpoise.................. 0.0015000 6 6 NA.......................... NA NA
Pinnipeds:
Crabeater seal....................... 0.0185313 73 73 5,000,000 to 15,000,000..... <0.01 Increasing
Leopard seal......................... 0.0115194 46 46 220,000 to 440,000.......... 0.02 NA
Weddell seal......................... 0.005129 20 20 500,000 to 1,000,000........ <0.01 NA
Southern elephant seal............... 0.0003000 1 1 640,000 to 650,000-- <0.01 Increasing, decreasing, or
Worldwide; 470,000--South stable depending on
Georgia Island. breeding population
Antarctic fur seal................... 0.5103608 2,017 2,017 1,600,000 to 3,000,000...... 0.13 Increasing

[[Page 60828]]

Subantarctic fur seal................ 0.5103608 2,017 2,017 >310,000.................... 0.65 Increasing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NA = Not available or not assessed.
\1\ Sightings from a 47 day (7,560 km) period on the RRS James Clark Ross JR82 survey during January to February 2003 and sightings from a 34 day (1,296
km) period on the Kotic II from January to March 2006.
\2\ Calculated take is estimated density (reported density times correction factor) multiplied by the area ensonified to 160 dB (rms) around the planned
seismic lines, increased by 25% for contingency.
\3\ See population estimates for marine mammal species in Table 4 (above).
\4\ Total authorized takes expressed as percentages of the species or regional populations.
\5\ Jefferson et al. (2008).
Note: Take was not requested for Ross seals because preferred habitat for these species is not within the planned action area.

Numbers of marine mammals that might be present and potentially
disturbed are estimated based on the available data about marine mammal
distribution and densities in the planned Scotia Sea and southern
Atlantic Ocean study area. NSF and ASC estimated the number of
different individuals that may be exposed to airgun sounds with
received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms)
for seismic airgun operations on one or more occasions by considering
the total marine area that would be within the 160 dB radius around the
operating airgun array on at least one occasion and the expected
density of marine mammals in the area (in the absence of the a seismic
survey). The number of possible exposures can be estimated by
considering the total marine area that would be within the 160 dB
radius (the diameter is 670 m times 2) around the operating airguns.
The 160 dB radii are based on acoustic modeling data for the airguns
that may be used during the planned action (see Attachment B of the IHA
application). As summarized in Table 3 (see Table 8 of the IHA
application), the modeling results for the planned low-energy seismic
airgun array indicate the received levels are dependent on water depth.
Since the majority of the planned airgun operations will be conducted
in waters greater than 1,000 m deep, the buffer zone of 670 m for the
two 105 in\3\ GI airguns was used.
The number of different individuals potentially exposed to received
levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) from
seismic airgun operations was calculated by multiplying:
(1) The expected species density (in number/km\2\), times
(2) The anticipated area to be ensonified to that level during
airgun operations.
Applying the approach described above, approximately 3,953 km\2\
(including the 25% contingency) would be ensonified within the 160 dB
isopleth for seismic airgun operations on one or more occasions during
the planned survey. The take calculations within the study sites do not
explicitly add animals to account for the fact that new animals (i.e.,
turnover) not accounted for in the initial density snapshot could also
approach and enter the area ensonified above 160 dB for seismic airgun
operations. However, studies suggest that many marine mammals will
avoid exposing themselves to sounds at this level, which suggests that
there will not necessarily be a large number of new animals entering
the area once the seismic survey started. Because this approach for
calculating take estimates does not account for turnover in the marine
mammal populations in the area during the course of the planned survey,
the actual number of individuals exposed may be underestimated.
However, any underestimation is likely offset by the conservative
(i.e., probably overestimated) line-kilometer distances (including the
25% contingency) used to calculate the survey area, and the fact the
approach assumes that no cetaceans or pinnipeds will move away or
toward the tracklines as the Palmer approaches in response to
increasing sound levels before the levels reach 160 dB for seismic
airgun operations, which is likely to occur and which will decrease the
density of marine mammals in the survey area. Another way of
interpreting the estimates in Table 5 is that they represent the number
of individuals that will be expected (in absence of a seismic program)
to occur in the waters that will be exposed to greater than or equal to
160 dB (rms) for seismic airgun operations.
NSF and ASC's estimates of exposures to various sound levels assume
that the planned seismic survey will be carried out in full; however,
the ensonified areas calculated using the planned number of line-
kilometers has been increased by 25% to accommodate lines that may need
to be repeated, equipment testing, etc. As is typical during offshore
ship surveys, inclement weather and equipment malfunctions will be
likely to cause delays and may limit the number of useful line-
kilometers of seismic operations that can be undertaken. The estimates
of the numbers of marine mammals potentially exposed to 160 dB (rms)
received levels are precautionary and probably overestimate the actual
numbers of marine mammals that could be involved. These estimates
assume that there will be no weather, equipment, or mitigation delays
that limit the seismic operations, which is highly unlikely.
Table 5 shows the estimates of the number of different individual
marine mammals anticipated to be exposed to greater than or equal to
160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for seismic airgun operations

[[Page 60829]]

during the low-energy seismic survey if no animals moved away from the
survey vessel. The total authorized take authorization is given in the
middle column (fourth from the right) of Table 5.

Encouraging and Coordinating Research

NSF and ASC will coordinate the planned marine mammal monitoring
program associated with the low-energy seismic survey with other
parties that express interest in this activity and area. NSF and ASC
will coordinate with applicable U.S. agencies (e.g., NMFS), and will
comply with their requirements. NSF has already prepared a permit
application for the Government of South Georgia and South Sandwich
Islands for the planned research activities, including trawling and
sampling of the seafloor. The action will complement fieldwork studying
other Antarctic ice shelves, oceanographic studies, and ongoing
development of ice sheet and other ocean models. It will facilitate
learning at sea and ashore by students, help to fill important spatial
and temporal gaps in a lightly sampled region of coastal Antarctica,
provide additional data on marine mammals present in the Scotia Sea
study areas, and communicate its findings via reports, publications,
and public outreach.

Impact on Availability of Affected Species or Stock for Taking for
Subsistence Uses

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA also requires NMFS to determine
that the authorization will not have an unmitigable adverse effect on
the availability of marine mammal species or stocks for subsistence
use. There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals
implicated by this action (in the Scotia Sea and southern Atlantic
Ocean study area). Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking
of affected species or stocks will not have an unmitigable adverse
impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for
subsistence purposes.

Analysis and Determinations

Negligible Impact

Negligible impact is ``an impact resulting from the specified
activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably
likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival'' (50 CFR 216.103). A
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of Level B harassment takes,
alone, is not enough information on which to base an impact
determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of
marine mammals that might be ``taken'' through behavioral harassment,
NMFS must consider other factors, such as the likely nature of any
responses (their intensity, duration, etc.) and the context of any
responses (critical reproductive time or location, migration, etc.), as
well as the number and nature of estimated Level A harassment takes,
the number of estimated mortalities, effects on habitat, and the status
of the species.
In making a negligible impact determination, NMFS evaluated factors
such as:
(1) The number of anticipated serious injuries and or mortalities;
(2) The number and nature of anticipated injuries;
(3) The number, nature, intensity, and duration of takes by Level B
harassment (all of which are relatively limited in this case);
(4) The context in which the takes occur (e.g., impacts to areas of
significance, impacts to local populations, and cumulative impacts when
taking into account successive/contemporaneous actions when added to
baseline data);
(5) The status of stock or species of marine mammals (i.e.,
depleted, not depleted, decreasing, increasing, stable, impact relative
to the size of the population);
(6) Impacts on habitat affecting rates of recruitment/survival; and
(7) The effectiveness of monitoring and mitigation measures.
NMFS has determined that the specified activities associated with
the marine seismic survey are not likely to cause PTS, or other non-
auditory injury, serious injury, or death, based on the analysis above
and the following factors:
(1) The likelihood that, given sufficient notice through relatively
slow ship speed, marine mammals are expected to move away from a noise
source that is annoying prior to its becoming potentially injurious;
(2) The availability of alternate areas of similar habitat value
for marine mammals to temporarily vacate the survey area during the
operation of the airgun(s) to avoid acoustic harassment;
(3) The potential for temporary or permanent hearing impairment is
relatively low and would likely be avoided through the implementation
of the required monitoring and mitigation measures (including shut-down
measures); and
(4) The likelihood that marine mammal detection ability by trained
PSOs is high at close proximity to the vessel.
No injuries, serious injuries, or mortalities are anticipated to
occur as a result of NSF and ASC's planned low-energy seismic survey,
and none are authorized by NMFS. Table 5 of this document outlines the
number of authorized Level B harassment takes that are anticipated as a
result of these activities. Due to the nature, degree, and context of
Level B (behavioral) harassment anticipated and described in this
notice (see ``Potential Effects on Marine Mammals'' section above), the
activity is not expected to impact rates of annual recruitment or
survival for any affected species or stock, particularly given NMFS's
and the applicant's planned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
measures to minimize impacts to marine mammals. Additionally, the
seismic survey would not adversely impact marine mammal habitat.
For the marine mammal species that may occur within the action
area, there are no known designated or important feeding and/or
reproductive areas. Many animals perform vital functions, such as
feeding, resting, traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (i.e., 24
hr cycle). Behavioral reactions to noise exposure (such as disruption
of critical life functions, displacement, or avoidance of important
habitat) are more likely to be significant if they last more than one
diel cycle or recur on subsequent days (Southall et al., 2007). While
airgun operations are anticipated to occur on consecutive days, the
estimated duration of the survey will not last more than a total of 30
days. Additionally, the seismic survey will be increasing sound levels
in the marine environment in a relatively small area surrounding the
vessel (compared to the range of the animals), which is constantly
travelling over distances, so individual animals likely will only be
exposed to and harassed by sound for less than a day.
As mentioned previously, NMFS estimates that 26 species of marine
mammals under its jurisdiction could be potentially affected by Level B
harassment over the course of the IHA. The population estimates for the
marine mammal species that may be taken by Level B harassment were
provided in Tables 2 and 5 of this document. As shown in those tables,
the takes all represent small proportions of the overall populations of
these marine mammal species (i.e., all are less than or equal to 5%).
No injury, serious injury, or mortality is expected to occur for any

[[Page 60830]]

of these species, and due to the nature, degree, and context of the
Level B harassment anticipated, the activity is not expected to impact
rates of recruitment or survival for any of these marine mammal
species.
Of the 26 marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction that may or
are known to likely occur in the study area, six are listed as
threatened or endangered under the ESA: Southern right, humpback, sei,
fin, blue, and sperm whales. These species are also considered depleted
under the MMPA. None of the other marine mammal species that may be
taken are listed as depleted under the MMPA. Of the ESA-listed species,
incidental take has been authorized for all six species. To protect
these animals (and other marine mammals in the study area), NSF and ASC
will be required to cease airgun operations if any marine mammal enters
designated exclusion zones. No injury, serious injury, or mortality is
expected to occur for any of these species, and due to the nature,
degree, and context of the Level B harassment anticipated, the activity
is not expected to impact rates of recruitment or survival for any of
these species.
NMFS's practice has been to apply the 160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms)
received level threshold for underwater impulse sound levels to
determine whether take by Level B harassment occurs. Southall et al.
(2007) provide a severity scale for ranking observed behavioral
responses of both free-ranging marine mammals and laboratory subjects
to various types of anthropogenic sound (see Table 4 in Southall et al.
[2007]). NMFS has determined that, provided that the aforementioned
mitigation and monitoring measures are implemented, the impact of
conducting a low-energy marine seismic survey in the Scotia Sea and
southern Atlantic Ocean, September to October 2014, may result, at
worst, in a modification in behavior and/or low-level physiological
effects (Level B harassment) of certain species of marine mammals.
While behavioral modifications, including temporarily vacating the
area during the operation of the airgun(s), may be made by these
species to avoid the resultant acoustic disturbance, the availability
of alternate areas for species to move to and the short and sporadic
duration of the research activities have led NMFS to determine that the
taking by Level B harassment from the specified activity will have a
negligible impact on the affected species in the specified geographic
region. Due to the nature, degree, and context of Level B (behavioral)
harassment anticipated and described (see ``Potential Effects on Marine
Mammals'' section above) in this notice, the activity is not expected
to impact rates of annual recruitment or survival for any affected
species or stock, particularly given the NMFS and applicant's plan to
implement mitigation and monitoring measures will minimize impacts to
marine mammals. Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely
effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat,
and taking into consideration the implementation of the required
monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine
mammal take from NSF and ASC's low-energy seismic survey will have a
negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks.

Small Numbers

As mentioned previously, NMFS estimates that 26 species of marine
mammals under its jurisdiction could be potentially affected by Level B
harassment over the course of the IHA. The population estimates for the
marine mammal species that may be taken by Level B harassment were
provided in Tables 2 and 5 of this document.
The estimated numbers of individual cetaceans and pinnipeds that
could be exposed to seismic sounds with received levels greater than or
equal to 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) during the survey (including a 25%
contingency) are in Table 5 of this document. Of the cetaceans, 31
southern right, 3 humpback, 616 Antarctic minke, 616 minke, 25 sei, 72
fin, 1 blue, and 8 sperm whales could be taken by Level B harassment
during the planned seismic survey, which would represent 0.39, 0.03,
3.4, unknown, 0.03, 1.54, 0.1, and <0.01% of the affected worldwide or
regional populations, respectively. In addition, 45 Arnoux's beaked, 3
Cuvier's beaked, 7 Gray's beaked, 37 Shepherd's beaked, 3 strap-toothed
beaked, and 35 southern bottlenose whales could be taken be Level B
harassment during the planned seismic survey, which would represent
unknown, unknown, unknown, unknown, unknown, and 0.07% of the affected
worldwide or regional populations, respectively. Of the delphinids, 61
killer whales, 848 long-finned pilot whales, and 10 Peale's, 61
hourglass, and 24 southern right whale dolphins, and 6 spectacled
porpoise could be taken by Level B harassment during the planned
seismic survey, which would represent 0.08, 0.42, unknown/5, 0.04,
unknown, and unknown of the affected worldwide or regional populations,
respectively. Of the pinnipeds, 73 crabeater, 46 leopard, 20 Weddell,
and 1 southern elephant seals and 2,017 Antarctic and 2,017
Subantarctic fur seals could be taken by Level B harassment during the
planned seismic survey, which would represent <0.01, 0.02, <0.01,
<0.01, 0.13, and 0.65 of the affected worldwide or regional population,
respectively.
No known current worldwide or regional population estimates are
available for 9 species under NMFS's jurisdiction that could
potentially be affected by Level B harassment over the course of the
IHA. These species include the minke, Arnoux's beaked, Cuvier's beaked,
Gray's beaked, Shepherd's beaked, and strap-toothed beaked whales, and
Peale's and southern right whale dolphins and spectacled porpoises.
Minke whales occur throughout the North Pacific Ocean and North
Atlantic Ocean and the dwarf sub-species occurs in the Southern
Hemisphere (Jefferson et al., 2008). Arnoux's beaked whales have a vast
circumpolar distribution in the deep, cold waters of the Southern
Hemisphere generally southerly from 34[deg] South. Cuvier's beaked
whales generally occur in deep, offshore waters of tropical to polar
regions worldwide. They seem to prefer waters over and near the
continental slope (Jefferson et al., 2008). Gray's beaked whales are
generally found in deep waters of temperate regions (south of 30[deg]
South) in the Southern Hemisphere (Jefferson et al., 2008). Shepherd's
beaked whales are generally found in deep temperate waters (south of
30[deg] South) of the Southern Hemisphere and are thought to have a
circumpolar distribution (Jefferson et al., 2008). Strap-toothed beaked
whales are generally found in deep temperate waters (between 35 to
60[deg] South) of the Southern Hemisphere (Jefferson et al., 2008).
Peale's dolphins generally occur in the waters around the southern tip
of South America from 33 to 38[deg] South, but may extend to islands
further south. This species is considered coastal as they are commonly
found in waters over the continental shelf (Jefferson et al., 2008).
Southern right whale dolphins are generally found in temperate to
subantarctic waters (30 to 65[deg] South), with a southern limit
bounded by the Antarctic Convergence (Jefferson et al., 2008).
Spectacled porpoises are generally found in subantarctic waters and may
have a circumpolar distribution in the Southern Hemisphere (as far
south as 64[deg] South). They have been sighted in oceanic waters, near
islands, as well as in rivers and channels (Jefferson et al., 2008).
Based on these distributions and preferences of these species, NMFS

[[Page 60831]]

concludes that the authorized take of these species likely represent
small numbers relative to the affected species' overall population
sizes.
NMFS makes its small numbers determination based on the number of
marine mammals that will be taken relative to the populations of the
affected species or stocks. The authorized take estimates all represent
small numbers relative to the affected species or stock size (i.e., all
are less than or equal to 5%). Based on the analysis contained herein
of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and
their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the
mitigation and monitoring measures, NMFS finds that small numbers of
marine mammals will be taken relative to the populations of the
affected species or stocks. See Table 5 for the authorized take numbers
of marine mammals.

Endangered Species Act

Of the species of marine mammals that may occur in the survey area,
six are listed as endangered under the ESA: The southern right,
humpback, sei, fin, blue, and sperm whales. Under section 7 of the ESA,
NSF, on behalf of ASC and two other research institutions, initiated
formal consultation with the NMFS, Office of Protected Resources,
Endangered Species Act Interagency Cooperation Division, on this low-
energy seismic survey. NMFS's Office of Protected Resources, Permits
and Conservation Division, initiated and engaged in formal consultation
under section 7 of the ESA with NMFS's Office of Protected Resources,
Endangered Species Act Interagency Cooperation Division, on the
issuance of an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for this
activity. These two consultations were consolidated and addressed in a
single Biological Opinion addressing the direct and indirect effects of
these independent actions. In September 2014, NMFS issued a Biological
Opinion that concluded that the action is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the six listed cetaceans that may occur in the
survey area and included an Incidental Take Statement (ITS)
incorporating the requirements of the IHA as Terms and Conditions of
the ITS. Compliance with those Terms and Conditions is likewise a
mandatory requirement of the IHA. The Biological Opinion also concluded
that designated critical habitat of these species does not occur in the
action area and would not be affected by the survey.

National Environmental Policy Act

With NSF and ASC's complete IHA application, NSF and ASC provided
NMFS an ``Initial Environmental Evaluation/Environmental Assessment to
Conduct a Study of the Role of the Central Scotia Sea and North Scotia
Ridge in the Onset and Development of the Antarctic Circumpolar
Current,'' (IEE/EA), prepared by AECOM on behalf of NSF and ASC. The
IEE/EA analyzes the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental
impacts of the planned specified activities on marine mammals,
including those listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. NMFS,
after review and evaluation of the NSF and ASC IEE/EA for consistency
with the regulations published by the Council of Environmental Quality
(CEQ) and NOAA Administrative Order 216-6, Environmental Review
Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act,
prepared an independent Environmental Assessment titled ``Environmental
Assessment on the Issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization to
the National Science Foundation and Antarctic Support Contract to Take
Marine Mammals by Harassment Incidental to a Low-Energy Marine
Geophysical Survey in the Scotia Sea and South Atlantic Ocean,
September to October 2014.'' NMFS has determined that the issuance of
the IHA is not likely to result in significant impacts on the human
environment and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).

Authorization

NMFS has issued an IHA to NSF and ASC for conducting a low-energy
seismic survey in the Scotia Sea and southern Atlantic Ocean,
incorporating the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting requirements.

Dated: October 2, 2014.
Perry F. Gayaldo,
Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-23985 Filed 10-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P