[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 147 (Thursday, July 31, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44550-44578]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-17998]



[[Page 44549]]

Vol. 79

Thursday,

No. 147

July 31, 2014

Part IV





Department of Commerce





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





 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration





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





 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Marine 
Geophysical Survey in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean Offshore North 
Carolina, September to October 2014; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 2014 / 
Notices  

[[Page 44550]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XD394


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Marine Geophysical Survey in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean Offshore 
North Carolina, September to October 2014

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

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request 
for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS has received an application from the Lamont-Doherty Earth 
Observatory (Lamont-Doherty) in collaboration with the National Science 
Foundation (Foundation), for an Incidental Harassment Authorization 
(Authorization) to take marine mammals, by harassment incidental to 
conducting a marine geophysical (seismic) survey in the northwest 
Atlantic Ocean off the North Carolina coast from September through 
October, 2014. The proposed dates for this action would be September 
15, 2014 through October 31, 2014, to account for minor deviations due 
to logistics and weather. In accordance with the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act, we are requesting comments on our proposal to issue an 
Authorization to Lamont-Doherty to incidentally take, by Level B 
harassment only, 24 species of marine mammals during the specified 
activity.

DATES: NMFS must receive comments and information on or before 
September 2, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Address comments on the application to Jolie Harrison, 
Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, 
Silver Spring, MD 20910. The mailbox address for providing email 
comments is [email protected]. Please include 0648-XD394 in the subject 
line. Comments sent via email to [email protected], including all 
attachments, must not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. NMFS is not 
responsible for email comments sent to addresses other than the one 
provided here.
    Instructions: All submitted comments are a part of the public 
record and NMFS will post them to http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications without change. All Personal Identifying 
Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by 
the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential 
business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
    To obtain an electronic copy of the application containing a list 
of the references used in this document, visit the internet at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications.
    The Foundation has prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) 
in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the 
regulations published by the Council on Environmental Quality. The EA 
titled ``Draft Environmental Assessment of a Marine Geophysical Survey 
by the R/V Marcus G. Langseth in the Atlantic Ocean off Cape Hatteras, 
September-October 2014,'' prepared by LGL, Ltd. environmental research 
associates, on behalf of the Foundation and Lamont-Doherty is available 
at the same internet address. Information in the Lamont-Doherty's 
application, the Foundation's EA, and this notice collectively provide 
the environmental information related to proposed issuance of the 
Authorization for public review and comment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeannine Cody, NMFS, Office of 
Protected Resources, NMFS (301) 427-8401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, 
as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) directs the Secretary of 
Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, 
taking of small numbers of marine mammals of a species or population 
stock, by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than 
commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if, after 
NMFS provides a notice of a proposed authorization to the public for 
review and comment: (1) NMFS makes certain findings; and (2) the taking 
is limited to harassment.
    Through the authority delegated by the Secretary, NMFS 
(hereinafter, we) shall grant an Authorization for the incidental 
taking of small numbers of marine mammals if we find that the taking 
will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), and will not 
have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species 
or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant).
    The Authorization must also prescribe, where applicable, the 
permissible methods of taking by harassment pursuant to the activity; 
other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the 
species or stock and its habitat, and on the availability of such 
species or stock for taking for subsistence uses (where applicable); 
the measures that we determine are necessary to ensure no unmitigable 
adverse impact on the availability for the species or stock for taking 
for subsistence purposes (where applicable); and requirements 
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such taking. 
We have 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 February 26, 2014, we received an application from Lamont-
Doherty requesting that we issue an Authorization for the take of 
marine mammals, incidental to conducting a seismic survey offshore Cape 
Hatteras, NC September through October, 2014. NMFS determined the 
application complete and adequate on July 15, 2014.
    Lamont-Doherty proposes to conduct a high-energy, 2-dimensional (2-
D) seismic survey on the R/V Langseth in the Atlantic Ocean 
approximately 17 to 422 kilometers (km) (10 to 262 miles (mi)) off the 
coast of Cape Hatteras, NC for approximately 38 days from September 15 
to October 22, 2014. The following specific aspect of the proposed 
activity has the potential to take marine mammals: increased underwater 
sound generated during the operation of the seismic airgun arrays. 
Thus, we anticipate that take, by Level B harassment only, of 24 
species of marine mammals could result from the specified activity.

[[Page 44551]]

Description of the Specified Activity

Overview

    Lamont-Doherty plans to use one source vessel, the R/V Marcus G. 
Langseth (Langseth), seismic airgun arrays configured with 18 or 36 
airguns as the energy source, one hydrophone streamer, and 90 ocean 
bottom seismometers (seismometers) to conduct the conventional seismic 
survey. In addition to the operations of the airguns, Lamont-Doherty 
proposes to operate a multibeam echosounder, a sub-bottom profiler, and 
acoustic Doppler current profiler on the Langseth continuously 
throughout the proposed survey.
    The purpose of the survey is to collect and analyze data on the 
mid-Atlantic coast of the East North America Margin (ENAM). The study 
would cover a portion of the rifted margin of the eastern U.S. and the 
results would allow scientists to investigate how the continental crust 
stretched and separated during the opening of the Atlantic Ocean and 
magnetism's role during the continental breakup. The proposed seismic 
survey is purely scientific in nature and not related to oil and 
natural gas exploration on the outer continental shelf of the Atlantic 
Ocean.

Dates and Duration

    Lamont-Doherty proposes to conduct the seismic survey from the 
period of September 15 through October 22, 2014. The proposed study 
(e.g., equipment testing, startup, line changes, repeat coverage of any 
areas, and equipment recovery) would include approximately 792 hours of 
airgun operations (i.e., a 24-hour operation over 33 days). Some minor 
deviation from Lamont-Doherty's requested dates of September 15 through 
October 22, 2014, is possible, depending on logistics, weather 
conditions, and the need to repeat some lines if data quality is 
substandard. Thus, the proposed Authorization, if issued, would be 
effective from September 15, 2014 through October 31, 2014. Lamont-
Doherty will not conduct the survey after October 31, 2014 to avoid 
exposing North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) to sound at 
the beginning of their migration season.
    We refer the reader to the Detailed Description of Activities 
section later in this notice for more information on the scope of the 
proposed activities.

Specified Geographic Region

    Lamont-Doherty proposes to conduct the seismic survey in the 
Atlantic Ocean, approximately 17 to 422 kilometers (km) (10 to 262 
miles (mi)) off the coast of Cape Hatteras, NC between approximately 
32--37[deg] N and approximately 71.5--77[deg] W (see Figure 1 in this 
notice). Water depths in the survey area are approximately 20 to 5,300 
m (66 feet (ft) to 3.3 mi). They would conduct the proposed survey 
outside of North Carolina state waters, within the U.S. Exclusive 
Economic Zone, and partly in international waters.

Principal Investigators

    The proposed study's principal investigators are: Drs. H. Van 
Avendonk and G. Christeson (University of Texas at Austin). B. Magnani 
(University of Memphis), D. Shillington, A. B[eacute]cel, and J. 
Gaherty (Lamont-Doherty), M. Hornbach (Southern Methodist University), 
B. Dugan (Rice University), M. Long (Yale University), M. Benoit (The 
College of New Jersey), and S. Harder (University of Texas at El Paso).

[[Page 44552]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN31JY14.004

Detailed Description of Activities

Transit Activities
    The Langseth would depart from Norfolk, VA on September 15, 2014, 
and transit for approximately one day to the proposed survey area. 
Setup, deployment, and streamer ballasting would occur over 
approximately three days and seismic acquisition would take 
approximately 33 days. At the conclusion of the proposed survey, the 
Langseth would take approximately one day to retrieve gear. At the 
conclusion of the proposed survey activities, the Langseth would return 
to Norfolk, VA on October 22, 2014.
Vessel Specifications
    The survey would involve one source vessel, the R/V Langseth, and 
two support vessels. The Langseth, owned by the Foundation and operated 
by Lamont-Doherty, is a seismic research vessel with a quiet propulsion 
system that avoids interference with the seismic signals emanating from 
the airgun array. The vessel is 71.5 m (235 ft) long; has a beam of 
17.0 m (56 ft); a maximum draft of 5.9 m (19 ft); and a gross tonnage 
of 3,834 pounds. It has two 3,550 horsepower (hp) Bergen BRG-6 diesel 
engines which drive two propellers. Each propeller has four blades and 
the shaft typically rotates at 750 revolutions per minute (rpm). The 
vessel also has an 800-hp bowthruster, which is not active during 
seismic acquisition.
    The Langseth's speed during seismic operations would be 
approximately 4.5 knots (kt) (8.3 km/hour (hr); 5.1 miles per hour 
(mph)). The vessel's cruising speed outside of seismic operations is 
approximately 10 kt (18.5 km/hr; 11.5 mph). While the Langseth tows the 
airgun array and the hydrophone streamer, its turning rate is limited 
to five degrees per minute, limiting its maneuverability during 
operations while it tows the hydrophone streamer.
    The Langseth also has an observation tower from which protected 
species visual observers (observer) will watch for marine mammals 
before and during the proposed seismic acquisition operations. When 
stationed on the observation platform, the observer's eye level will be 
approximately 21.5 m (71 ft) above sea level providing the observer an 
unobstructed view around the entire vessel.
    The University of Rhode Island's Graduate School of Oceanography 
operates the first support vessel, the R/V Endeavor (Endeavor) which 
has a length of 56.4 m (184 ft), a beam of 10.1 m (33 ft), and a 
maximum draft of 5.6 m (18.3 ft). The Endeavor has one diesel engine 
that produces 3050 hp and drives the single propeller directly at a 
maximum of 900 rpm. The Endeavor can cruise at approximately 10 kt 
(18.5 km/hr; 11.5 mph).
    The second support vessel would be a multi-purpose offshore utility 
vessel similar to the Northstar Commander,

[[Page 44553]]

which is 28 m (91.9 ft) long with a beam of 8 m (26.2 ft) and a draft 
of 2.6 m (8.5 ft). The chase vessel has twin 450-hp screws (Volvo D125-
E).
Data Acquisition Activities
    The proposed survey would cover approximately 5,185 km (3,221 mi) 
of transect lines (approximately 3,425 km for the multi-channel seismic 
and approximately 1,760 km for the seismometer acquisition operations) 
within the survey area. This represents a 1,165 km reduction in 
transect lines from Lamont-Doherty's original proposal that totaled 
6,350 km (3,946 mi) of transect lines within the survey area.
    During the survey, the Langseth crew would deploy a four-string 
array consisting of 36 airguns with a total discharge volume of 
approximately 6,600 cubic inches (in\3\), or a two-string array 
consisting of 18 airguns with a total discharge volume of 3,300 in\3\ 
as an energy source. The Langseth would tow the four-string array at a 
depth of approximately 9 m (30 ft) and would tow the two-string array 
at a depth of 6 m (20 ft). The shot interval during seismometer 
acquisition would be approximately 65 seconds every 150 m (492 ft) and 
22 seconds every 50 m (164 ft) during multi-channel acquisition 
operations. During acquisition, the airguns will emit a brief 
(approximately 0.1 second) pulse of sound and during the intervening 
periods of operations, the airguns are silent. The receiving system 
would consist of one 8-km (5-mi) hydrophone streamer which would 
receive the returning acoustic signals and transfer the data to the on-
board processing system. In addition to the hydrophone, the study would 
also use approximately 90 seismometers placed on the seafloor to record 
the returning acoustic signals from the airgun array internally for 
later analysis.

Seismic Airguns

    The airguns are a mixture of Bolt 1500LL and Bolt 1900LLX airguns 
ranging in size from 40 to 220 in\3\, with a firing pressure of 1,950 
pounds per square inch. The dominant frequency components range from 
zero to 188 Hertz (Hz).
    Airguns function by venting high-pressure air into the water which 
creates an air bubble. The pressure signature of an individual airgun 
consists of a sharp rise and then fall in pressure, followed by several 
positive and negative pressure excursions caused by the oscillation of 
the resulting air bubble. The oscillation of the air bubble transmits 
sounds downward through the seafloor and there is also a reduction in 
the amount of sound transmitted in the near horizontal direction. 
However, the airgun array also emits sounds that travel horizontally 
toward non-target areas.
    The nominal source levels of the airgun array on the Langseth range 
from 246 to 253 decibels (dB) re: 1 [micro]Pa 
(peak to peak). (We express sound pressure level as the 
ratio of a measured sound pressure and a reference pressure level. The 
commonly used unit for sound pressure is dB and the commonly used 
reference pressure level in underwater acoustics is 1 microPascal 
([micro]Pa)). The effective source levels for horizontal propagation 
are lower than source levels for downward propagation and the relative 
sound intensities given in dB in water are not the same as relative 
sound intensities given in dB in air. We refer the reader to the 
Foundation's 2014 EA for this project and their 2011 Programmatic 
Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for a detailed description of the 
airguns and airgun configurations proposed for use in this study.

Ocean Bottom Seismometers

    Lamont-Doherty proposes to place 90 seismometers on the sea floor 
prior to the initiation of the seismic survey. Each seismometer is 
approximately 0.9 m (2.9 ft) high with a maximum diameter of 97 
centimeters (cm) (3.1 ft). An anchor, made of a rolled steel bar grate 
which measures approximately 7 by 91 by 91.5 cm (3 by 36 by 36 inches) 
and weighs 45 kilograms (99 pounds) would anchor the seismometer to the 
seafloor. We refer the reader to section 2.1.3.2 in the Foundation's 
2011 PEIS for a detailed description of this passive acoustic recording 
system.
    The Endeavor crew would deploy and retrieve the seismometers one-
by-one from the stern of the vessel while onboard protected species 
observers will alert them to the presence of marine mammals and 
recommend ceasing deploying or recovering the seismometers to avoid 
potential entanglement with marine mammals.

Additional Acoustic Data Acquisition Systems

    Multibeam Echosounder: The Langseth will operate a Kongsberg EM 122 
multibeam echosounder concurrently during airgun operations to map 
characteristics of the ocean floor. The hull-mounted echosounder emits 
brief pulses of sound (also called a ping) (10.5 to 13.0 kHz) in a fan-
shaped beam that extends downward and to the sides of the ship. The 
transmitting beamwidth is 1 or 2[deg] fore-aft and 150[deg] athwartship 
and the maximum source level is 242 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa.
    Each ping consists of eight (in water greater than 1,000 m; 3,280 
ft) or four (in water less than 1,000 m; 3,280 ft) successive, fan-
shaped transmissions, from two to 15 milliseconds (ms) in duration and 
each ensonifying a sector that extends 1[deg] fore-aft. Continuous wave 
pulses increase from 2 to 15 ms long in water depths up to 2,600 m 
(8,530 ft). The echosounder uses frequency-modulated chirp pulses up to 
100-ms long in water greater than 2,600 m (8,530 ft). The successive 
transmissions span an overall cross-track angular extent of about 
150[deg], with 2-ms gaps between the pulses for successive sectors.
    Sub-bottom Profiler: The Langseth will also operate a Knudsen Chirp 
3260 sub-bottom profiler concurrently during airgun and echosounder 
operations to provide information about the sedimentary features and 
bottom topography. The profiler is capable of reaching depths of 10,000 
m (6.2 mi). The dominant frequency component is 3.5 kHz and a hull-
mounted transducer on the vessel directs the beam downward in a 27[deg] 
cone. The power output is 10 kilowatts (kW), but the actual maximum 
radiated power is three kilowatts or 222 dB re: 1 [micro]Pa. The ping 
duration is up to 64 ms with a pulse interval of one second, but a 
common mode of operation is to broadcast five pulses at 1-s intervals 
followed by a 5-s pause.
    Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler: Lamont-Doherty would measure 
currents using a Teledyne OS75 75-kilohertz (kHz) Acoustic Doppler 
current profiler (ADCP). The ADCP's configuration consists of a 4-beam 
phased array with a beam angle of 30[deg]. The source level is 
proprietary information but has a maximum acoustic source level of 224 
dB.

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity

    Table 1 in this notice provides the following: All marine mammal 
species with possible or confirmed occurrence in the proposed activity 
area; information on those species' status under the MMPA and the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); abundance; 
occurrence and seasonality in the activity area.
    Lamont-Doherty presented species information in Table 2 of their 
application but excluded information on harbor seals and four other 
cetacean species because they anticipated that these species would have 
a more northerly distribution during the summer and thus would have a 
low

[[Page 44554]]

likelihood of occurring in the survey area. The excluded cetacean 
species include: Bryde's whale (Balaenoptera edeni), northern 
bottlenose whale (Hyperoodon ampullatus), Sowerby's beaked whale 
(Mesoplodon bidens), and the white-beaked dolphin (Lagenorhynchus 
albirostris).
    Based on the best available information (DoN, 2012), we expect that 
Bryde's whale may have the potential to occur within the survey area 
and have included additional information for this species in Table 1 of 
this notice. However, we agree with Lamont-Doherty that the other 
species identified earlier have a low likelihood of occurrence in the 
action area during September and October.

      Table 1--General Information on Marine Mammals That Could Potentially Occur in the Proposed Activity Area in September Through October, 2014
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Regulatory status \1\   Stock/Species                                   Occurrence in summer/
              Species                     Stock name                \2\            Abundance \3\               Range                        fall
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Atlantic right whale          Western Atlantic.....  MMPA-D, ESA-EN.......             455  Coastal/shelf..................  Uncommon.
 (Eubalaena glacialis).
Humpback whale (Megaptera           Gulf of Maine........  MMPA-D, ESA-EN.......             823  Pelagic........................  Uncommon.
 novaeangliae).
Minke whale (Balaenoptera           Canadian East Coast..  MMPA-D, ESA-NL.......          20,741  Coastal/shelf..................  Uncommon.
 acutorostrata).
Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis).  Nova Scotia..........  MMPA-D, ESA-EN.......             357  Offshore.......................  Rare.
Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus).  Western North          MMPA-D, ESA-EN.......           3,522  Pelagic........................  Rare.
                                     Atlantic.
Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus)  Western North          MMPA-D, ESA-EN.......         \4\ 440  Coastal/pelagic................  Rare.
                                     Atlantic.
Bryde's whale (Balaenoptera edeni)  NA...................  MMPA-D, ESA-NL.......      \5\ 11,523  Shelf/pelagic..................  Uncommon.
Sperm whale (Physeter               Nova Scotia..........  MMPA-D, ESA-EN.......           2,288  Pelagic........................  Common.
 macrocephalus).
Dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima)....  Western North          MMPA-NC, ESA-NL......           3,785  Off Shelf......................  Uncommon.
                                     Atlantic.
Pygmy sperm whale (K. breviceps)..  Western North          MMPA-NC, ESA-NL......           3,785  Off Shelf......................  Uncommon.
                                     Atlantic.
Blainville's beaked whale           Western North          MMPA-NC, ESA-NL......           7,092  Pelagic........................  Rare.
 (Mesoplodon densirostris).          Atlantic.
Cuvier's beaked whale (Ziphius      Western North          MMPA-NC, ESA-NL......           7,092  Pelagic........................  Uncommon.
 cavirostris).                       Atlantic.
Gervais' beaked whale (M.           Western North          MMPA-NC, ESA-NL......           7,092  Pelagic........................  Rare.
 europaeus).                         Atlantic.
True's beaked whale (M. mirus)....  Western North          MMPA-NC, ESA-NL......           7,092  Pelagic........................  Rare.
                                     Atlantic.
Rough-toothed dolphin (Steno        Western North          MMPA-NC, ESA-NL......             271  Pelagic........................  Uncommon.
 bredanensis).                       Atlantic.
Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops        Western North          MMPA-NC, ESA-NL......          77,532  Pelagic........................  Common.
 truncatus).                         Atlantic Offshore.
                                    Western North          MMPA-D, S, ESA-NL....           9,173  Coastal........................  Common.
                                     Atlantic Southern
                                     Migratory Coastal.
                                    WNA Southern NC        MMPA-D, S, ESA-NL....             188  Coastal........................  Common.
                                     Estuarine System.
                                    WNA Northern NC        MMPA-D, S, ESA-NL....             950  Coastal........................  Common.
                                     Estuarine System.
Pantropical spotted dolphin         Western North          MMPA-NC, ESA-NL......           3,333  Pelagic........................  Common.
 (Stenella attenuata).               Atlantic.
Atlantic spotted dolphin (S.        Western North          MMPA-NC, ESA-NL......          44,715  Shelf/slope pelagic............  Common.
 frontalis).                         Atlantic.
Spinner dolphin (S. longirostris).  Western North          MMPA-NC, ESA-NL......      \6\ 11,441  Coastal/pelagic................  Rare.
                                     Atlantic.
Striped dolphin (S. coeruleoalba).  Western North          MMPA-NC, ESA-NL......          54,807  Off shelf......................  Common.
                                     Atlantic.
Clymene dolphin (S. clymene)......  Western North          MMPA-NC, ESA-NL......       \7\ 6,086  Slope..........................  Uncommon.
                                     Atlantic.
Short-beaked common dolphin         Western North          MMPA-NC, ESA-NL......         173,486  Shelf/pelagic..................  Common.
 (Delphinus delphis).                Atlantic.
Atlantic white-sided-dolphin (L.    Western North          MMPA-NC, ESA-NL......          48,819  Shelf/slope....................  Rare.
 acutus).                            Atlantic.
Fraser's dolphin (Lagenodelphis     Western North          MMPA-NC, ESA-NL......         \8\ 726  Pelagic........................  Rare.
 hosei).                             Atlantic.
Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus).  Western North          MMPA-NC, ESA-NL......          18,250  Shelf/slope....................  Common.
                                     Atlantic.

[[Page 44555]]

 
Melon-headed whale (Peponocephala   Western North          MMPA-NC, ESA-NL......       \9\ 2,283  Pelagic........................  Rare.
 electra).                           Atlantic.
False killer whale (Pseudorca       Northern Gulf of       MMPA-NC, ESA-NL......        \10\ 177  Pelagic........................  Rare.
 crassidens).                        Mexico.
Pygmy killer whale (Feresa          Western North          MMPA-NC, ESA-NL......      \11\ 1,108  Pelagic........................  Rare.
 attenuate).                         Atlantic.
Killer whale (Orcinus orca).......  Western North          MMPA-NC, ESA-NL......         \12\ 28  Coastal........................  Rare.
                                     Atlantic.
Long-finned pilot whale             Western North          MMPA-NC, ESA-NL......          26,535  Pelagic........................  Common.
 (Globicephala melas).               Atlantic.
Short-finned pilot whale (G.        Western North          MMPA-NC, ESA-NL......          21,515  Pelagic........................  Common.
 macrorhynchus).                     Atlantic.
Harbor porpoise (Phocoena           Gulf of Maine/Bay of   MMPA-NC, ESA-NL......          79,883  Coastal........................  Rare.
 phocoena).                          Fundy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ MMPA: D = Depleted, S = Strategic, NC = Not Classified.
\2\ ESA: EN = Endangered, T = Threatened, DL = Delisted, NL = Not listed.
\3\ 2013 NMFS Stock Assessment Report (Waring et al., 2014) unless otherwise noted. NA = Not Available.
\4\ Minimum population estimate based on photo identification studies in the Gulf of St. Lawrence (Waring et al., 2010).
\5\ There is no stock designation for this species in the Atlantic. Abundance estimate derived from the ETP stock = 11,163 (Wade and Gerodette, 1993);
  Hawaii stock = 327 (Barlow, 2006); and Northern Gulf of Mexico stock = 33 (Waring et al., 2012).
\6\ There is no abundance information for this species in the Atlantic. Abundance estimate derived from the Northern Gulf of Mexico Stock = 11,441
  (Waring et al., 2012).
\7\ There is no abundance information for this species in the Atlantic. The best available estimate of abundance was 6,086 (CV=0.93) (Mullin and
  Fulling, 2003).
\8\ There is no abundance information for this species in the Atlantic. The best available estimate of abundance was 726 (CV=0.70) for the Gulf of
  Mexico stock (Mullin and Fulling, 2004).
\9\ There is no abundance information for this species in the Atlantic. The best available estimate of abundance was 2,283 (CV=0.76) for the Gulf of
  Mexico stock (Mullin, 2007).
\10\ There is no abundance information for this species in the Atlantic. The best available estimate of abundance was 177 (CV=0.56) for the Gulf of
  Mexico stock (Mullin, 2007).
\11\ There is no abundance information for this species in the Atlantic. Abundance estimate derived from the Northern Gulf of Mexico stock = 152
  (Mullin, 2007) and the Hawaii stock = 956 (Barlow, 2006).
\12\ There is no abundance information for this species in the Atlantic. Abundance estimate derived from the Northern Gulf of Mexico stock = 28 (Waring
  et al., 2012).

    NMFS refers the public to Lamont-Doherty's application, the 
Foundation's EA (see ADDRESSES), and the 2013 NMFS Marine Mammal Stock 
Assessment Report available online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/pdf/ao2013_draft.pdf for further information on the biology and 
local distribution of these species.

Potential Effects of the Specified Activities 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 operations, vessel movement) impact marine mammals (via 
observations or scientific studies). This section may include a 
discussion of known effects that do not rise to the level of an MMPA 
take (for example, with acoustics, we may include a discussion of 
studies of animals exhibiting no reaction to sound or exhibiting barely 
perceptible avoidance behaviors). This discussion may also include 
reactions that we consider to rise to the level of a take.
    We intend to provide a background of potential effects of Lamont-
Doherty's activities in this section. This section does not consider 
the specific manner in which Lamont-Doherty would carry out the 
proposed activity, what mitigation measures Lamont-Doherty would 
implement, 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 we expect Lamont-Doherty to 
take during this activity. The ``Negligible Impact Analysis'' section 
will include the analysis of how this specific activity would impact 
marine mammals. We will consider the content of the following sections: 
(1) Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment; (3) Proposed Mitigation; 
and (4) Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat, to draw 
conclusions regarding the likely impacts of this activity on the 
reproductive success or survivorship of individuals--and from that 
consideration--the likely impacts of this activity on the affected 
marine mammal populations or stocks.

Acoustic Impacts

    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. Current 
data indicate that not all marine mammal species have equal hearing 
capabilities (Richardson et al., 1995; Southall et al., 1997; Wartzok 
and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008).
    Southall et al. (2007) designated ``functional hearing groups'' for 
marine mammals based on available behavioral data; audiograms derived 
from auditory evoked potentials; anatomical modeling; and other data. 
Southall et al. (2007) also estimated the lower and upper frequencies 
of functional hearing for each group. However, animals are less 
sensitive to sounds at the outer edges of their functional hearing 
range and are more sensitive to a range of frequencies within the 
middle of their functional hearing range.
    The functional groups applicable to this proposed survey and the 
associated frequencies are:
     Low frequency cetaceans (13 species of mysticetes): 
functional hearing estimates occur between approximately 7 Hertz (Hz) 
and 30 kHz (extended from 22 kHz based on data indicating that some 
mysticetes can hear above 22 kHz; Au et al., 2006; Lucifredi

[[Page 44556]]

and Stein, 2007; Ketten and Mountain, 2009; Tubelli et al., 2012);
     Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 species of dolphins, six 
species of larger toothed whales, and 19 species of beaked and 
bottlenose whales): functional hearing estimates occur between 
approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;
     High-frequency cetaceans (eight species of true porpoises, 
six species of river dolphins, Kogia, the franciscana, and four species 
of cephalorhynchids): functional hearing estimates occur between 
approximately 200 Hz and 180 kHz; and
     Pinnipeds in water: phocid (true seals) functional hearing 
estimates occur between approximately 75 Hz and 100 kHz (Hemila et al., 
2006; Mulsow et al., 2011; Reichmuth et al., 2013) and otariid (seals 
and sea lions) functional hearing estimates occur between approximately 
100 Hz to 40 kHz.
    As mentioned previously in this document, 24 marine mammal species 
(7 mysticetes and 17 odontocetes) would likely occur in the proposed 
action area. Table 2 presents the classification of these species into 
their respective functional hearing group. We consider a species' 
functional hearing group when we analyze the effects of exposure to 
sound on marine mammals.

     Table 2--Classification of Marine Mammals That Could Potentially Occur in the Proposed Activity Area in
              September Through October, 2014 by Functional Hearing Group (Southall et. al., 2007)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low frequency hearing range......................................  North Atlantic right, humpback, Bryde's,
                                                                    minke, sei, fin, and blue whale.
Mid-frequency hearing range......................................  Sperm whale, Blainville's beaked whale,
                                                                    Cuvier's beaked whale, Gervais' beaked
                                                                    whale, True's beaked whale, false killer
                                                                    whale, pygmy killer whale, killer whale,
                                                                    rough-toothed dolphin, bottlenose dolphin,
                                                                    pantropical spotted dolphin, Atlantic
                                                                    spotted dolphin, striped dolphin, Clymene
                                                                    dolphin, short-beaked common dolphin,
                                                                    Risso's dolphin, long-finned pilot whale,
                                                                    short-finned pilot whale.
High frequency hearing range.....................................  Harbor porpoise
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Potential Effects of Airgun Sounds on Marine Mammals

    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 impairment, or non-auditory 
physical or physiological effects (Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon et 
al., 2003; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2007). The effects of 
noise on marine mammals are highly variable, often depending on species 
and contextual factors (based on Richardson et al., 1995).

Tolerance

    Studies on marine mammals' tolerance to sound in the natural 
environment are relatively rare. Richardson et al. (1995) defined 
tolerance as the occurrence of marine mammals in areas where they are 
exposed to human activities or manmade noise. In many cases, tolerance 
develops by the animal habituating to the stimulus (i.e., the gradual 
waning of responses to a repeated or ongoing stimulus) (Richardson, et 
al., 1995), but because of ecological or physiological requirements, 
many marine animals may need to remain in areas where they are exposed 
to chronic stimuli (Richardson, et al., 1995).
    Numerous studies have shown that pulsed sounds from airguns are 
often readily detectable in the water at distances of many kilometers. 
Several studies have also shown that marine mammals at distances of 
more than a few kilometers from operating seismic vessels often show no 
apparent response. That is often true even in cases when the pulsed 
sounds must be readily audible to the animals based on measured 
received levels and the hearing sensitivity of the marine mammal group. 
Although various baleen whales and toothed whales, and (less 
frequently) pinnipeds have been shown to react behaviorally to airgun 
pulses under some conditions, at other times marine mammals of all 
three types have shown no overt reactions (Stone, 2003; Stone and 
Tasker, 2006; Moulton et al. 2005, 2006) and (MacLean and Koski, 2005; 
Bain and Williams, 2006 for Dall's porpoises).
    Weir (2008) observed marine mammal responses to seismic pulses from 
a 24 airgun array firing a total volume of either 5,085 in\3\ or 3,147 
in\3\ in Angolan waters between August 2004 and May 2005. Weir (2008) 
recorded a total of 207 sightings of humpback whales (n = 66), sperm 
whales (n = 124), and Atlantic spotted dolphins (n = 17) and reported 
that there were no significant differences in encounter rates 
(sightings/hour) for humpback and sperm whales according to the airgun 
array's operational status (i.e., active versus silent).

Masking

    The term masking refers to the inability of a subject to recognize 
the occurrence of an acoustic stimulus as a result of the interference 
of another acoustic stimulus (Clark et al., 2009). Masking, or auditory 
interference, generally occurs when sounds in the environment are 
louder than, and of a similar frequency as, auditory signals an animal 
is trying to receive. Masking is a phenomenon that affects animals that 
are trying to receive acoustic information about their environment, 
including sounds from other members of their species, predators, prey, 
and sounds that allow them to orient in their environment. Masking 
these acoustic signals can disturb the behavior of individual animals, 
groups of animals, or entire populations.
    Marine mammals use acoustic signals for a variety of purposes, 
which differ among species, but include communication between 
individuals, navigation, foraging, reproduction, avoiding predators, 
and learning about their environment (Erbe and Farmer, 2000; Tyack, 
2000). Introduced underwater sound may, through masking, reduce the 
effective communication distance of a marine mammal species if the 
frequency of the source is close to that used as a signal by the marine 
mammal, and if the anthropogenic sound is present for a significant 
fraction of the time (Richardson et al., 1995).
    We expect that the masking effects of pulsed sounds (even from 
large arrays of airguns) on marine mammal calls and other natural 
sounds will be limited, although there are very few specific data on 
this. Because of the intermittent nature and low duty cycle of seismic 
airgun pulses, animals can emit and receive sounds in the relatively 
quiet intervals between pulses. However, in some situations, 
reverberation occurs for much or the entire interval between pulses 
(e.g., Simard et al., 2005; Clark and Gagnon, 2006) which could mask 
calls. Some baleen and toothed whales continue calling in the presence 
of seismic pulses, and that some researchers have heard these calls 
between the seismic pulses (e.g.,

[[Page 44557]]

Richardson et al., 1986; McDonald et al., 1995; Greene et al., 1999; 
Nieukirk et al., 2004; Smultea et al., 2004; Holst et al., 2005a, 
2005b, 2006; and Dunn and Hernandez, 2009). However, Clark and Gagnon 
(2006) reported that fin whales in the northeast Pacific Ocean went 
silent for an extended period starting soon after the onset of a 
seismic survey in the area. Similarly, there has been one report that 
sperm whales ceased calling when exposed to pulses from a very distant 
seismic ship (Bowles et al., 1994). However, more recent studies have 
found that they continued calling in the presence of seismic pulses 
(Madsen et al., 2002; Tyack et al., 2003; Smultea et al., 2004; Holst 
et al., 2006; and Jochens et al., 2008). Several studies have reported 
hearing dolphins and porpoises calling while airguns were operating 
(e.g., Gordon et al., 2004; Smultea et al., 2004; Holst et al., 2005a, 
b; and Potter et al., 2007). The sounds important to small odontocetes 
are predominantly at much higher frequencies than are the dominant 
components of airgun sounds, thus limiting the potential for masking.
    Marine mammals are thought to be able to compensate for masking by 
adjusting their acoustic behavior through shifting call frequencies, 
increasing call volume, and increasing vocalization rates. For example 
in one study, blue whales increased call rates when exposed to noise 
from seismic surveys in the St. Lawrence Estuary (Di Iorio and Clark, 
2010). The North Atlantic right whales exposed to high shipping noise 
increased call frequency (Parks et al., 2007), while some humpback 
whales respond to low-frequency active sonar playbacks by increasing 
song length (Miller et al., 2000).
    Additionally, beluga whales change their vocalizations in the 
presence of high background noise possibly to avoid masking calls (Au 
et al., 1985; Lesage et al., 1999; Scheifele et al., 2005). Although 
some degree of masking is inevitable when high levels of manmade 
broadband sounds are present in the sea, marine mammals have evolved 
systems and behavior that function to reduce the impacts of masking. 
Structured signals, such as the echolocation click sequences of small 
toothed whales, may be readily detected even in the presence of strong 
background noise because their frequency content and temporal features 
usually differ strongly from those of the background noise (Au and 
Moore, 1988, 1990). The components of background noise that are similar 
in frequency to the sound signal in question primarily determine the 
degree of masking of that signal.
    Redundancy and context can also facilitate detection of weak 
signals. These phenomena may help marine mammals detect weak sounds in 
the presence of natural or manmade noise. Most masking studies in 
marine mammals present the test signal and the masking noise from the 
same direction. The sound localization abilities of marine mammals 
suggest that, if signal and noise come from different directions, 
masking would not be as severe as the usual types of masking studies 
might suggest (Richardson et al., 1995). The dominant background noise 
may be highly directional if it comes from a particular anthropogenic 
source such as a ship or industrial site. Directional hearing may 
significantly reduce the masking effects of these sounds by improving 
the effective signal-to-noise ratio. In the cases of higher frequency 
hearing by the bottlenose dolphin, beluga whale, and killer whale, 
empirical evidence confirms that masking depends strongly on the 
relative directions of arrival of sound signals and the masking noise 
(Penner et al., 1986; Dubrovskiy, 1990; Bain et al., 1993; Bain and 
Dahlheim, 1994).
    Toothed whales and probably other marine mammals as well, have 
additional capabilities besides directional hearing that can facilitate 
detection of sounds in the presence of background noise. There is 
evidence that some toothed whales can shift the dominant frequencies of 
their echolocation signals from a frequency range with a lot of ambient 
noise toward frequencies with less noise (Au et al., 1974, 1985; Moore 
and Pawloski, 1990; Thomas and Turl, 1990; Romanenko and Kitain, 1992; 
Lesage et al., 1999). A few marine mammal species increase the source 
levels or alter the frequency of their calls in the presence of 
elevated sound levels (Dahlheim, 1987; Au, 1993; Lesage et al., 1993, 
1999; Terhune, 1999; Foote et al., 2004; Parks et al., 2007, 2009; Di 
Iorio and Clark, 2010; Holt et al., 2009).
    These data demonstrating adaptations for reduced masking pertain 
mainly to the very high frequency echolocation signals of toothed 
whales. There is less information about the existence of corresponding 
mechanisms at moderate or low frequencies or in other types of marine 
mammals. For example, Zaitseva et al. (1980) found that, for the 
bottlenose dolphin, the angular separation between a sound source and a 
masking noise source had little effect on the degree of masking when 
the sound frequency was 18 kHz, in contrast to the pronounced effect at 
higher frequencies. Studies have noted directional hearing at 
frequencies as low as 0.5-2 kHz in several marine mammals, including 
killer whales (Richardson et al., 1995a). This ability may be useful in 
reducing masking at these frequencies. In summary, high levels of sound 
generated by anthropogenic activities may act to mask the detection of 
weaker biologically important sounds by some marine mammals. This 
masking may be more prominent for lower frequencies. For higher 
frequencies, such as that used in echolocation by toothed whales, 
several mechanisms are available that may allow them to reduce the 
effects of such masking.

Behavioral Disturbance

    Marine mammals may behaviorally react to sound when exposed to 
anthropogenic noise. Disturbance includes a variety of effects, 
including subtle to conspicuous changes in behavior, movement, and 
displacement. Reactions to sound, if any, depend on species, state of 
maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, time of 
day, and many other factors (Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et al., 
2004; Southall et al., 2007; Weilgart, 2007). These behavioral 
reactions are often shown as: Changing durations of surfacing and 
dives, number of blows per surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed; 
reduced/increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain 
behavioral activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible startle 
response or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw 
clapping); avoidance of areas where noise sources are located; and/or 
flight responses (e.g., pinnipeds flushing into the water from haul-
outs or rookeries). If a marine mammal does react briefly to an 
underwater sound by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, 
the impacts of the change are unlikely to be significant to the 
individual, let alone the stock or population. However, if a sound 
source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding 
area for a prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations 
could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007).
    The biological significance of many of these behavioral 
disturbances is difficult to predict, especially if the detected 
disturbances appear minor. However, one could expect the consequences 
of behavioral modification to be biologically significant if the change 
affects growth, survival, and/or reproduction. Some of these 
significant behavioral modifications include:

[[Page 44558]]

     Change in diving/surfacing patterns (such as those thought 
to be causing beaked whale stranding due to exposure to military mid-
frequency tactical sonar);
     Habitat abandonment due to loss of desirable acoustic 
environment; and
     Cessation of feeding or social interaction.
    The onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise 
depends on both external factors (characteristics of noise sources and 
their paths) and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, 
experience, demography) and is also difficult to predict (Richardson et 
al., 1995; Southall et al., 2007). Given the many uncertainties in 
predicting the quantity and types of impacts of noise on marine 
mammals, it is common practice to estimate how many mammals would be 
present within a particular distance of industrial activities and/or 
exposed to a particular level of industrial sound. In most cases, this 
approach likely overestimates the numbers of marine mammals that could 
potentially be affected in some biologically-important manner.
    The sound criteria used to estimate how many marine mammals might 
be disturbed to some biologically-important degree by a seismic program 
are based primarily on behavioral observations of a few species. 
Scientists have conducted detailed studies on humpback, gray, bowhead 
(Balaena mysticetus), and sperm whales. There are less detailed data 
available for some other species of baleen whales and small toothed 
whales, but for many species there are no data on responses to marine 
seismic surveys.
    Baleen Whales--Baleen whales generally tend to avoid operating 
airguns, but avoidance radii are quite variable (reviewed in Richardson 
et al., 1995). Whales are often reported to show no overt reactions to 
pulses from large arrays of airguns at distances beyond a few 
kilometers, even though the airgun pulses remain well above ambient 
noise levels out to much longer distances. However, baleen whales 
exposed to strong noise pulses from airguns often react by deviating 
from their normal migration route and/or interrupting their feeding and 
moving away from the area. In the cases of migrating gray and bowhead 
whales, the observed changes in behavior appeared to be of little or no 
biological consequence to the animals (Richardson et al., 1995). They 
avoided the sound source by displacing their migration route to varying 
degrees, but within the natural boundaries of the migration corridors.
    Studies of gray, bowhead, and humpback whales have shown that 
seismic pulses with received levels of 160 to 170 dB re: 1 [micro]Pa 
seem to cause obvious avoidance behavior in a substantial fraction of 
the animals exposed (Malme et al., 1986, 1988; Richardson et al., 
1995). In many areas, seismic pulses from large arrays of airguns 
diminish to those levels at distances ranging from four to 15 km (2.5 
to 9.3 mi) from the source. A substantial proportion of the baleen 
whales within those distances may show avoidance or other strong 
behavioral reactions to the airgun array. Subtle behavioral changes 
sometimes become evident at somewhat lower received levels, and studies 
summarized in the Foundation's EA have shown that some species of 
baleen whales, notably bowhead and humpback whales, at times show 
strong avoidance at received levels lower than 160-170 dB re: 1 
[micro]Pa.
    Researchers have studied the responses of humpback whales to 
seismic surveys during migration, feeding during the summer months, 
breeding while offshore from Angola, and wintering offshore from 
Brazil. McCauley et al. (1998, 2000a) studied the responses of humpback 
whales off western Australia to a full-scale seismic survey with a 16-
airgun array (2,678-in\3\) and to a single, 20-in\3\ airgun with source 
level of 227 dB re: 1 [micro]Pa (p-p). In the 1998 study, the 
researchers documented that avoidance reactions began at five to eight 
km (3.1 to 4.9 mi) from the array, and that those reactions kept most 
pods approximately three to four km (1.9 to 2.5 mi) from the operating 
seismic boat. In the 2000 study, McCauley et al. noted localized 
displacement during migration of four to five km (2.5 to 3.1 mi) by 
traveling pods and seven to 12 km (4.3 to 7.5 mi) by more sensitive 
resting pods of cow-calf pairs. Avoidance distances with respect to the 
single airgun were smaller but consistent with the results from the 
full array in terms of the received sound levels. The mean received 
level for initial avoidance of an approaching airgun was 140 dB re: 1 
[micro]Pa for humpback pods containing females, and at the mean closest 
point of approach distance, the received level was 143 dB re: 1 
[micro]Pa. The initial avoidance response generally occurred at 
distances of five to eight km (3.1 to 4.9 mi) from the airgun array and 
2 km (1.2 mi) from the single airgun. However, some individual humpback 
whales, especially males, approached within distances of 100 to 400 m 
(328 to 1,312 ft), where the maximum received level was 179 dB re: 1 
[micro]Pa.
    Data collected by observers during several of Lamont-Doherty's 
seismic surveys in the northwest Atlantic Ocean showed that sighting 
rates of humpback whales were significantly greater during non-seismic 
periods compared with periods when a full array was operating (Moulton 
and Holst, 2010). In addition, humpback whales were more likely to swim 
away and less likely to swim towards a vessel during seismic versus 
non-seismic periods (Moulton and Holst, 2010).
    Humpback whales on their summer feeding grounds in southeast Alaska 
did not exhibit persistent avoidance when exposed to seismic pulses 
from a 1.64-L (100-in\3\) airgun (Malme et al., 1985). Some humpbacks 
seemed ``startled'' at received levels of 150 to 169 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa. 
Malme et al. (1985) concluded that there was no clear evidence of 
avoidance, despite the possibility of subtle effects, at received 
levels up to 172 re: 1 [mu]Pa. However, Moulton and Holst (2010) 
reported that humpback whales monitored during seismic surveys in the 
northwest Atlantic had lower sighting rates and were most often seen 
swimming away from the vessel during seismic periods compared with 
periods when airguns were silent.
    Other studies have suggested that south Atlantic humpback whales 
wintering off Brazil may be displaced or even strand upon exposure to 
seismic surveys (Engel et al., 2004). However, the evidence for this 
was circumstantial and subject to alternative explanations (IAGC, 
2004). Also, the evidence was not consistent with subsequent results 
from the same area of Brazil (Parente et al., 2006), or with direct 
studies of humpbacks exposed to seismic surveys in other areas and 
seasons. After allowance for data from subsequent years, there was ``no 
observable direct correlation'' between strandings and seismic surveys 
(IWC, 2007: 236).
    A few studies have documented reactions of migrating and feeding 
(but not wintering) gray whales to seismic surveys. Malme et al. (1986, 
1988) studied the responses of feeding eastern Pacific gray whales to 
pulses from a single 100-in\3\ airgun off St. Lawrence Island in the 
northern Bering Sea. They estimated, based on small sample sizes, that 
50 percent of feeding gray whales stopped feeding at an average 
received pressure level of 173 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa on an (approximate) root 
mean square basis, and that 10 percent of feeding whales interrupted 
feeding at received levels of 163 dB re: 1 [micro]Pa. Those findings 
were generally consistent with the results of experiments conducted on 
larger numbers of gray whales that were migrating along the California 
coast

[[Page 44559]]

(Malme et al., 1984; Malme and Miles, 1985), and western Pacific gray 
whales feeding off Sakhalin Island, Russia (Wursig et al., 1999; Gailey 
et al., 2007; Johnson et al., 2007; Yazvenko et al., 2007a, 2007b), 
along with data on gray whales off British Columbia (Bain and Williams, 
2006).
    Observers have seen various species of Balaenoptera (blue, sei, 
fin, and minke whales) in areas ensonified by airgun pulses (Stone, 
2003; MacLean and Haley, 2004; Stone and Tasker, 2006), and have 
localized calls from blue and fin whales in areas with airgun 
operations (e.g., McDonald et al., 1995; Dunn and Hernandez, 2009; 
Castellote et al., 2010). Sightings by observers on seismic vessels off 
the United Kingdom from 1997 to 2000 suggest that, during times of good 
sightability, sighting rates for mysticetes (mainly fin and sei whales) 
were similar when large arrays of airguns were shooting vs. silent 
(Stone, 2003; Stone and Tasker, 2006). However, these whales tended to 
exhibit localized avoidance, remaining significantly further (on 
average) from the airgun array during seismic operations compared with 
non-seismic periods (Stone and Tasker, 2006). Castellote et al. (2010) 
observed localized avoidance by fin whales during seismic airgun events 
in the western Mediterranean Sea and adjacent Atlantic waters from 
2006-2009 and reported that singing fin whales moved away from an 
operating airgun array for a time period that extended beyond the 
duration of the airgun activity.
    Ship-based monitoring studies of baleen whales (including blue, 
fin, sei, minke, and whales) in the northwest Atlantic found that 
overall, this group had lower sighting rates during seismic versus non-
seismic periods (Moulton and Holst, 2010). Baleen whales as a group 
were also seen significantly farther from the vessel during seismic 
compared with non-seismic periods, and they were more often seen to be 
swimming away from the operating seismic vessel (Moulton and Holst, 
2010). Blue and minke whales were initially sighted significantly 
farther from the vessel during seismic operations compared to non-
seismic periods; the same trend was observed for fin whales (Moulton 
and Holst, 2010). Minke whales were most often observed to be swimming 
away from the vessel when seismic operations were underway (Moulton and 
Holst, 2010).
    Data on short-term reactions by cetaceans to impulsive noises are 
not necessarily indicative of long-term or biologically significant 
effects. It is not known whether impulsive sounds affect reproductive 
rate or distribution and habitat use in subsequent days or years. 
However, gray whales have continued to migrate annually along the west 
coast of North America with substantial increases in the population 
over recent years, despite intermittent seismic exploration (and much 
ship traffic) in that area for decades (Appendix A in Malme et al., 
1984; Richardson et al., 1995; Allen and Angliss, 2013). The western 
Pacific gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) population did not appear 
affected by a seismic survey in its feeding ground during a previous 
year (Johnson et al., 2007). Similarly, bowhead whales have continued 
to travel to the eastern Beaufort Sea each summer, and their numbers 
have increased notably, despite seismic exploration in their summer and 
autumn range for many years (Richardson et al., 1987; Allen and 
Angliss, 2013). The history of coexistence between seismic surveys and 
baleen whales suggests that brief exposures to sound pulses from any 
single seismic survey are unlikely to result in prolonged effects.
    Toothed Whales--There is little systematic information available 
about reactions of toothed whales to noise pulses. There are few 
studies on toothed whales similar to the more extensive baleen whale/
seismic pulse work summarized earlier in this notice. However, there 
are recent systematic studies on sperm whales (e.g., Gordon et al., 
2006; Madsen et al., 2006; Winsor and Mate, 2006; Jochens et al., 2008; 
Miller et al., 2009). There is an increasing amount of information 
about responses of various odontocetes to seismic surveys based on 
monitoring studies (e.g., Stone, 2003; Smultea et al., 2004; Moulton 
and Miller, 2005; Bain and Williams, 2006; Holst et al., 2006; Stone 
and Tasker, 2006; Potter et al., 2007; Hauser et al., 2008; Holst and 
Smultea, 2008; Weir, 2008; Barkaszi et al., 2009; Richardson et al., 
2009; Moulton and Holst, 2010).
    Seismic operators and protected species observers (observers) on 
seismic vessels regularly see dolphins and other small toothed whales 
near operating airgun arrays, but in general there is a tendency for 
most delphinids to show some avoidance of operating seismic vessels 
(e.g., Goold, 1996a,b,c; Calambokidis and Osmek, 1998; Stone, 2003; 
Moulton and Miller, 2005; Holst et al., 2006; Stone and Tasker, 2006; 
Weir, 2008; Richardson et al., 2009; Barkaszi et al., 2009; Moulton and 
Holst, 2010). Some dolphins seem to be attracted to the seismic vessel 
and floats, and some ride the bow wave of the seismic vessel even when 
large arrays of airguns are firing (e.g., Moulton and Miller, 2005). 
Nonetheless, small toothed whales more often tend to head away, or to 
maintain a somewhat greater distance from the vessel, when a large 
array of airguns is operating than when it is silent (e.g., Stone and 
Tasker, 2006; Weir, 2008, Barry et al., 2010; Moulton and Holst, 2010). 
In most cases, the avoidance radii for delphinids appear to be small, 
on the order of one km or less, and some individuals show no apparent 
avoidance.
    Captive bottlenose dolphins and beluga whales (Delphinapterus 
leucas) exhibited changes in behavior when exposed to strong pulsed 
sounds similar in duration to those typically used in seismic surveys 
(Finneran et al., 2000, 2002, 2005). However, the animals tolerated 
high received levels of sound before exhibiting aversive behaviors.
    Results for porpoises depend on species. The limited available data 
suggest that harbor porpoises show stronger avoidance of seismic 
operations than do Dall's porpoises (Stone, 2003; MacLean and Koski, 
2005; Bain and Williams, 2006; Stone and Tasker, 2006). Dall's 
porpoises seem relatively tolerant of airgun operations (MacLean and 
Koski, 2005; Bain and Williams, 2006), although they too have been 
observed to avoid large arrays of operating airguns (Calambokidis and 
Osmek, 1998; Bain and Williams, 2006). This apparent difference in 
responsiveness of these two porpoise species is consistent with their 
relative responsiveness to boat traffic and some other acoustic sources 
(Richardson et al., 1995; Southall et al., 2007).
    Most studies of sperm whales exposed to airgun sounds indicate that 
the whale shows considerable tolerance of airgun pulses (e.g., Stone, 
2003; Moulton et al., 2005, 2006a; Stone and Tasker, 2006; Weir, 2008). 
In most cases the whales do not show strong avoidance, and they 
continue to call. However, controlled exposure experiments in the Gulf 
of Mexico indicate that foraging behavior was altered upon exposure to 
airgun sound (Jochens et al., 2008; Miller et al., 2009; Tyack, 2009).
    There are almost no specific data on the behavioral reactions of 
beaked whales to seismic surveys. However, some northern bottlenose 
whales remained in the general area and continued to produce high-
frequency clicks when exposed to sound pulses from distant seismic 
surveys (Gosselin and Lawson, 2004; Laurinolli and Cochrane, 2005; 
Simard et al., 2005). Most beaked whales tend to avoid approaching 
vessels of other types (e.g., Wursig et al., 1998). They may also dive 
for an extended period when approached by a vessel (e.g., Kasuya,

[[Page 44560]]

1986), although it is uncertain how much longer such dives may be as 
compared to dives by undisturbed beaked whales, which also are often 
quite long (Baird et al., 2006; Tyack et al., 2006). Based on a single 
observation, Aguilar-Soto et al. (2006) suggested that foraging 
efficiency of Cuvier's beaked whales may be reduced by close approach 
of vessels. In any event, it is likely that most beaked whales would 
also show strong avoidance of an approaching seismic vessel, although 
this has not been documented explicitly. In fact, Moulton and Holst 
(2010) reported 15 sightings of beaked whales during seismic studies in 
the northwest Atlantic; seven of those sightings were made at times 
when at least one airgun was operating. There was little evidence to 
indicate that beaked whale behavior was affected by airgun operations; 
sighting rates and distances were similar during seismic and non-
seismic periods (Moulton and Holst, 2010).
    Pinnipeds are not likely to show a strong avoidance reaction to the 
airgun sources proposed for use. Visual monitoring from seismic vessels 
has shown only slight (if any) avoidance of airguns by pinnipeds and 
only slight (if any) changes in behavior. Monitoring work in the 
Alaskan Beaufort Sea during 1996-2001 provided considerable information 
regarding the behavior of Arctic ice seals exposed to seismic pulses 
(Harris et al., 2001; Moulton and Lawson, 2002). These seismic projects 
usually involved arrays of 6 to 16 airguns with total volumes of 560 to 
1,500 in\3\. The combined results suggest that some seals avoid the 
immediate area around seismic vessels. In most survey years, ringed 
seal sightings tended to be farther away from the seismic vessel when 
the airguns were operating than when they were not (Moulton and Lawson, 
2002). However, these avoidance movements were relatively small, on the 
order of 100 m (328 ft) to a few hundreds of meters, and many seals 
remained within 100-200 m (328-656 ft) of the trackline as the 
operating airgun array passed by. Seal sighting rates at the water 
surface were lower during airgun array operations than during no-airgun 
periods in each survey year except 1997. Similarly, seals are often 
very tolerant of pulsed sounds from seal-scaring devices (Mate and 
Harvey, 1987; Jefferson and Curry, 1994; Richardson et al., 1995). 
However, initial telemetry work suggests that avoidance and other 
behavioral reactions by two other species of seals to small airgun 
sources may at times be stronger than evident to date from visual 
studies of pinniped reactions to airguns (Thompson et al., 1998).

Hearing Impairment

    Exposure to high intensity sound for a sufficient duration may 
result in auditory effects such as a noise-induced threshold shift--an 
increase in the auditory threshold after exposure to noise (Finneran et 
al., 2005). Factors that influence the amount of threshold shift 
include the amplitude, duration, frequency content, temporal pattern, 
and energy distribution of noise exposure. The magnitude of hearing 
threshold shift normally decreases over time following cessation of the 
noise exposure. The amount of threshold shift just after exposure is 
the initial threshold shift. If the threshold shift eventually returns 
to zero (i.e., the threshold returns to the pre-exposure value), it is 
a temporary threshold shift (Southall et al., 2007).
    Researchers have studied temporary threshold shift in certain 
captive odontocetes and pinnipeds exposed to strong sounds (reviewed in 
Southall et al., 2007). However, there has been no specific 
documentation of temporary threshold shift let alone permanent hearing 
damage, (i.e., permanent threshold shift, in free-ranging marine 
mammals exposed to sequences of airgun pulses during realistic field 
conditions).
    Threshold Shift (noise-induced loss of hearing)--When animals 
exhibit reduced hearing sensitivity (i.e., sounds must be louder for an 
animal to detect them) following exposure to an intense sound or sound 
for long duration, it is referred to as a noise-induced threshold shift 
(TS). An animal can experience temporary threshold shift (TTS) or 
permanent threshold shift (PTS). TTS can last from minutes or hours to 
days (i.e., there is complete recovery), can occur in specific 
frequency ranges (i.e., an animal might only have a temporary loss of 
hearing sensitivity between the frequencies of 1 and 10 kHz), and can 
be of varying amounts (for example, an animal's hearing sensitivity 
might be reduced initially by only 6 dB or reduced by 30 dB). PTS is 
permanent, but some recovery is possible. PTS can also occur in a 
specific frequency range and amount as mentioned above for TTS.
    The following physiological mechanisms are thought to play a role 
in inducing auditory TS: Effects to sensory hair cells in the inner ear 
that reduce their sensitivity, modification of the chemical environment 
within the sensory cells, residual muscular activity in the middle ear, 
displacement of certain inner ear membranes, increased blood flow, and 
post-stimulatory reduction in both efferent and sensory neural output 
(Southall et al., 2007). The amplitude, duration, frequency, temporal 
pattern, and energy distribution of sound exposure all can affect the 
amount of associated TS and the frequency range in which it occurs. As 
amplitude and duration of sound exposure increase, so, generally, does 
the amount of TS, along with the recovery time. For intermittent 
sounds, less TS could occur than compared to a continuous exposure with 
the same energy (some recovery could occur between intermittent 
exposures depending on the duty cycle between sounds) (Kryter et al., 
1966; Ward, 1997). For example, one short but loud (higher SPL) sound 
exposure may induce the same impairment as one longer but softer sound, 
which in turn may cause more impairment than a series of several 
intermittent softer sounds with the same total energy (Ward, 1997). 
Additionally, though TTS is temporary, prolonged exposure to sounds 
strong enough to elicit TTS, or shorter-term exposure to sound levels 
well above the TTS threshold, can cause PTS, at least in terrestrial 
mammals (Kryter, 1985). Although in the case of the seismic survey, 
animals are not expected to be exposed to levels high enough or 
durations long enough to result in PTS.
    PTS is considered auditory injury (Southall et al., 2007). 
Irreparable damage to the inner or outer cochlear hair cells may cause 
PTS; however, other mechanisms are also involved, such as exceeding the 
elastic limits of certain tissues and membranes in the middle and inner 
ears and resultant changes in the chemical composition of the inner ear 
fluids (Southall et al., 2007).
    Although the published body of scientific literature contains 
numerous theoretical studies and discussion papers on hearing 
impairments that can occur with exposure to a loud sound, only a few 
studies provide empirical information on the levels at which noise-
induced loss in hearing sensitivity occurs in nonhuman animals. For 
marine mammals, published data are limited to the captive bottlenose 
dolphin, beluga, harbor porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise 
(Finneran et al., 2000, 2002b, 2003, 2005a, 2007, 2010a, 2010b; 
Finneran and Schlundt, 2010; Lucke et al., 2009; Mooney et al., 2009a, 
2009b; Popov et al., 2011a, 2011b; Kastelein et al., 2012a; Schlundt et 
al., 2000; Nachtigall et al., 2003, 2004). For pinnipeds in water, data 
are limited to measurements of TTS in harbor seals, an elephant seal, 
and

[[Page 44561]]

California sea lions (Kastak et al., 1999, 2005; Kastelein et al., 
2012b).
    Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with 
conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes 
such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree 
(elevation of threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery time), and 
frequency range of TTS, and the context in which it is experienced, TTS 
can have effects on marine mammals ranging from discountable to serious 
(similar to those discussed in auditory masking, below). For example, a 
marine mammal may be able to readily compensate for a brief, relatively 
small amount of TTS in a non-critical frequency range that occurs 
during a time where ambient noise is lower and there are not as many 
competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger amount and longer 
duration of TTS sustained during time when communication is critical 
for successful mother/calf interactions could have more serious 
impacts. Also, depending on the degree and frequency range, the effects 
of PTS on an animal could range in severity, although it is considered 
generally more serious because it is a permanent condition. Of note, 
reduced hearing sensitivity as a simple function of aging has been 
observed in marine mammals, as well as humans and other taxa (Southall 
et al., 2007), so we can infer that strategies exist for coping with 
this condition to some degree, though likely not without cost.
    Given the higher level of sound necessary to cause PTS as compared 
with TTS, it is considerably less likely that PTS would occur during 
the proposed seismic survey. Marine mammals generally avoid the 
immediate area around operating seismic vessels.
    Non-auditory Physical Effects: Non-auditory physical effects might 
occur in marine mammals exposed to strong underwater pulsed sound. 
Possible types of non-auditory physiological effects or injuries that 
theoretically might occur in mammals close to a strong sound source 
include stress, neurological effects, bubble formation, and other types 
of organ or tissue damage. Some marine mammal species (i.e., beaked 
whales) may be especially susceptible to injury and/or stranding when 
exposed to strong pulsed sounds.
    Classic stress responses begin when an animal's central nervous 
system perceives a potential threat to its homeostasis. That perception 
triggers stress responses regardless of whether a stimulus actually 
threatens the animal; the mere perception of a threat is sufficient to 
trigger a stress response (Moberg, 2000; Sapolsky et al., 2005; Seyle, 
1950). Once an animal's central nervous system perceives a threat, it 
mounts a biological response or defense that consists of a combination 
of the four general biological defense responses: Behavioral responses; 
autonomic nervous system responses; neuroendocrine responses; or immune 
responses.
    In the case of many stressors, an animal's first and most 
economical (in terms of biotic costs) response is behavioral avoidance 
of the potential stressor or avoidance of continued exposure to a 
stressor. An animal's second line of defense to stressors involves the 
sympathetic part of the autonomic nervous system and the classical 
``fight or flight'' response, which includes the cardiovascular system, 
the gastrointestinal system, the exocrine glands, and the adrenal 
medulla to produce changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and 
gastrointestinal activity that humans commonly associate with 
``stress.'' These responses have a relatively short duration and may or 
may not have significant long-term effects on an animal's welfare.
    An animal's third line of defense to stressors involves its 
neuroendocrine or sympathetic nervous systems; the system that has 
received the most study has been the hypothalmus-pituitary-adrenal 
system (also known as the HPA axis in mammals or the hypothalamus-
pituitary-interrenal axis in fish and some reptiles). Unlike stress 
responses associated with the autonomic nervous system, the pituitary 
hormones regulate virtually all neuroendocrine functions affected by 
stress--including immune competence, reproduction, metabolism, and 
behavior. Stress-induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones 
have been implicated in failed reproduction (Moberg, 1987; Rivier, 
1995), altered metabolism (Elasser et al., 2000), reduced immune 
competence (Blecha, 2000), and behavioral disturbance. Increases in the 
circulation of glucocorticosteroids (cortisol, corticosterone, and 
aldosterone in marine mammals; see Romano et al., 2004) have been 
equated with stress for many years.
    The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does 
not normally place an animal at risk) and distress is the biotic cost 
of the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen 
stores that are quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In 
such circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose a 
risk to the animal's welfare. However, when an animal does not have 
sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress 
response, energy resources must be diverted from other biotic 
functions, which impair those functions that experience the diversion. 
For example, when mounting a stress response diverts energy away from 
growth in young animals, those animals may experience stunted growth. 
When mounting a stress response diverts energy from a fetus, an 
animal's reproductive success and fitness will suffer. In these cases, 
the animals will have entered a pre-pathological or pathological state 
which is called ``distress'' (sensu Seyle, 1950) or ``allostatic 
loading'' (sensu McEwen and Wingfield, 2003). This pathological state 
will last until the animal replenishes its biotic reserves sufficient 
to restore normal function. Note that these examples involved a long-
term (days or weeks) stress response exposure to stimuli.
    Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal 
behavior, and the costs of stress responses have also been documented 
fairly well through controlled experiment; because this physiology 
exists in every vertebrate that has been studied, it is not surprising 
that stress responses and their costs have been documented in both 
laboratory and free-living animals (for examples see, Holberton et al., 
1996; Hood et al., 1998; Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et al., 2004; 
Lankford et al., 2005; Reneerkens et al., 2002; Thompson and Hamer, 
2000). Although no information has been collected on the physiological 
responses of marine mammals to anthropogenic sound exposure, studies of 
other marine animals and terrestrial animals would lead us to expect 
some marine mammals to experience physiological stress responses and, 
perhaps, physiological responses that would be classified as 
``distress'' upon exposure to anthropogenic sounds.
    For example, Jansen (1998) reported on the relationship between 
acoustic exposures and physiological responses that are indicative of 
stress responses in humans (e.g., elevated respiration and increased 
heart rates). Jones (1998) reported on reductions in human performance 
when faced with acute, repetitive exposures to acoustic disturbance. 
Trimper et al. (1998) reported on the physiological stress responses of 
osprey to low-level aircraft noise while Krausman et al. (2004) 
reported on the auditory and physiology stress responses of endangered 
Sonoran pronghorn to military overflights. Smith et al. (2004a, 2004b) 
identified noise-induced physiological transient stress responses in 
hearing-specialist fish (i.e., goldfish) that accompanied short- and 
long-term hearing losses. Welch and

[[Page 44562]]

Welch (1970) reported physiological and behavioral stress responses 
that accompanied damage to the inner ears of fish and several mammals.
    Hearing is one of the primary senses marine mammals use to gather 
information about their environment and communicate with conspecifics. 
Although empirical information on the relationship between sensory 
impairment (TTS, PTS, and acoustic masking) on marine mammals remains 
limited, we assume that reducing a marine mammal's ability to gather 
information about its environment and communicate with other members of 
its species would induce stress, based on data that terrestrial animals 
exhibit those responses under similar conditions (NRC, 2003) and 
because marine mammals use hearing as their primary sensory mechanism. 
Therefore, we assume that acoustic exposures sufficient to trigger 
onset PTS or TTS would be accompanied by physiological stress 
responses. More importantly, marine mammals might experience stress 
responses at received levels lower than those necessary to trigger 
onset TTS. Based on empirical studies of the time required to recover 
from stress responses (Moberg, 2000), we also assume that stress 
responses could persist beyond the time interval required for animals 
to recover from TTS and might result in pathological and pre-
pathological states that would be as significant as behavioral 
responses to TTS.
    Resonance effects (Gentry, 2002) and direct noise-induced bubble 
formations (Crum et al., 2005) are implausible in the case of exposure 
to an impulsive broadband source like an airgun array. If seismic 
surveys disrupt diving patterns of deep-diving species, this might 
result in bubble formation and a form of the bends, as speculated to 
occur in beaked whales exposed to sonar. However, there is no specific 
evidence of this upon exposure to airgun pulses.
    In general, there are few data about the potential for strong, 
anthropogenic underwater sounds to cause non-auditory physical effects 
in marine mammals. Such effects, if they occur at all, would presumably 
be limited to short distances and to activities that extend over a 
prolonged period. The available data do not allow identification of a 
specific exposure level above which non-auditory effects can be 
expected (Southall et al., 2007) or any meaningful quantitative 
predictions of the numbers (if any) of marine mammals that might be 
affected in those ways. There is no definitive evidence that any of 
these effects occur even for marine mammals in close proximity to large 
arrays of airguns. In addition, marine mammals that show behavioral 
avoidance of seismic vessels are especially unlikely to incur non-
auditory impairment or other physical effects.

Stranding and Mortality

    When a living or dead marine mammal swims or floats onto shore and 
becomes ``beached'' or incapable of returning to sea, the event is a 
``stranding'' (Geraci et al., 1999; Perrin and Geraci, 2002; Geraci and 
Lounsbury, 2005; NMFS, 2007). The legal definition for a stranding 
under the MMPA is that ``(A) a marine mammal is dead and is (i) on a 
beach or shore of the United States; or (ii) in waters under the 
jurisdiction of the United States (including any navigable waters); or 
(B) a marine mammal is alive and is (i) on a beach or shore of the 
United States and is unable to return to the water; (ii) on a beach or 
shore of the United States and, although able to return to the water, 
is in need of apparent medical attention; or (iii) in the waters under 
the jurisdiction of the United States (including any navigable waters), 
but is unable to return to its natural habitat under its own power or 
without assistance''.
    Marine mammals strand for a variety of reasons, such as infectious 
agents, biotoxicosis, starvation, fishery interaction, ship strike, 
unusual oceanographic or weather events, sound exposure, or 
combinations of these stressors sustained concurrently or in series. 
However, the cause or causes of most strandings are unknown (Geraci et 
al., 1976; Eaton, 1979; Odell et al., 1980; Best, 1982). Numerous 
studies suggest that the physiology, behavior, habitat relationships, 
age, or condition of cetaceans may cause them to strand or might pre-
dispose them to strand when exposed to another phenomenon. These 
suggestions are consistent with the conclusions of numerous other 
studies that have demonstrated that combinations of dissimilar 
stressors commonly combine to kill an animal or dramatically reduce its 
fitness, even though one exposure without the other does not produce 
the same result (Chroussos, 2000; Creel, 2005; DeVries et al., 2003; 
Fair and Becker, 2000; Foley et al., 2001; Moberg, 2000; Relyea, 2005a; 
2005b, Romero, 2004; Sih et al., 2004).

Potential Effects of Other Acoustic Devices

Multibeam Echosounder
    Lamont-Doherty would operate the Kongsberg EM 122 multibeam 
echosounder from the source vessel during the planned study. Sounds 
from the multibeam echosounder are very short pulses, occurring for two 
to 15 ms once every five to 20 s, depending on water depth. Most of the 
energy in the sound pulses emitted by this echosounder is at 
frequencies near 12 kHz, and the maximum source level is 242 dB re: 1 
[mu]Pa. The beam is narrow (1 to 2[deg]) in fore-aft extent and wide 
(150[deg]) in the cross-track extent. Each ping consists of eight (in 
water greater than 1,000 m deep) or four (less than 1,000 m deep) 
successive fan-shaped transmissions (segments) at different cross-track 
angles. Any given mammal at depth near the trackline would be in the 
main beam for only one or two of the segments. Also, marine mammals 
that encounter the Kongsberg EM 122 are unlikely to be subjected to 
repeated pulses because of the narrow fore-aft width of the beam and 
will receive only limited amounts of pulse energy because of the short 
pulses. Animals close to the vessel (where the beam is narrowest) are 
especially unlikely to be ensonified for more than one 2- to 15-ms 
pulse (or two pulses if in the overlap area). Similarly, Kremser et al. 
(2005) noted that the probability of a cetacean swimming through the 
area of exposure when an echosounder emits a pulse is small. The animal 
would have to pass the transducer at close range and be swimming at 
speeds similar to the vessel in order to receive the multiple pulses 
that might result in sufficient exposure to cause temporary threshold 
shift.
    We have considered the potential for behavioral responses such as 
stranding and indirect injury or mortality from Lamont-Doherty's use of 
the multibeam echosounder. In 2013, an International Scientific Review 
Panel (ISRP) investigated a 2008 mass stranding of approximately 100 
melon-headed whales in a Madagascar lagoon system (Southall et al., 
2013) associated with the use of a high-frequency mapping system. The 
report indicated that the use of a 12-kHz multibeam echosounder was the 
most plausible and likely initial behavioral trigger of the mass 
stranding event. This was the first time that a relatively high-
frequency mapping sonar system had been associated with a stranding 
event. However, the report also notes that there were several site- and 
situation-specific secondary factors that may have contributed to the

[[Page 44563]]

avoidance responses that lead to the eventual entrapment and mortality 
of the whales within the Loza Lagoon system (e.g., the survey vessel 
transiting in a north-south direction on the shelf break parallel to 
the shore may have trapped the animals between the sound source and the 
shore driving them towards the Loza Lagoon). They concluded that for 
odontocete cetaceans that hear well in the 10-50 kHz range, where 
ambient noise is typically quite low, high-power active sonars 
operating in this range may be more easily audible and have potential 
effects over larger areas than low frequency systems that have more 
typically been considered in terms of anthropogenic noise impacts 
(Southall, et al., 2013). However, the risk may be very low given the 
extensive use of these systems worldwide on a daily basis and the lack 
of direct evidence of such responses previously reported (Southall, et 
al., 2013).
    Navy sonars linked to avoidance reactions and stranding of 
cetaceans: (1) Generally have longer pulse duration than the Kongsberg 
EM 122; and (2) are often directed close to horizontally versus more 
downward for the echosounder. The area of possible influence of the 
echosounder is much smaller--a narrow band below the source vessel. 
Also, the duration of exposure for a given marine mammal can be much 
longer for naval sonar. During Lamont-Doherty's operations, the 
individual pulses will be very short, and a given mammal would not 
receive many of the downward-directed pulses as the vessel passes by 
the animal. The following section outlines possible effects of an 
echosounder on marine mammals.
    Masking--Marine mammal communications would not be masked 
appreciably by the echosounder's signals given the low duty cycle of 
the echosounder and the brief period when an individual mammal is 
likely to be within its beam. Furthermore, in the case of baleen 
whales, the echosounder's signals (12 kHz) do not overlap with the 
predominant frequencies in the calls, which would avoid any significant 
masking.
    Behavioral Responses--Behavioral reactions of free-ranging marine 
mammals to sonars, echosounders, and other sound sources appear to vary 
by species and circumstance. Observed reactions have included silencing 
and dispersal by sperm whales (Watkins et al., 1985), increased 
vocalizations and no dispersal by pilot whales (Rendell and Gordon, 
1999), and strandings by beaked whales. During exposure to a 21 to 25 
kHz ``whale-finding'' sonar with a source level of 215 dB re: 1 
[micro]Pa, gray whales reacted by orienting slightly away from the 
source and being deflected from their course by approximately 200 m 
(Frankel, 2005). When a 38-kHz echosounder and a 150-kHz acoustic 
Doppler current profiler were transmitting during studies in the 
eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, baleen whales showed no significant 
responses, while spotted and spinner dolphins were detected slightly 
more often and beaked whales less often during visual surveys 
(Gerrodette and Pettis, 2005).
    Captive bottlenose dolphins and a beluga whale exhibited changes in 
behavior when exposed to 1-s tonal signals at frequencies similar to 
those emitted by Lamont-Doherty's echosounder, and to shorter broadband 
pulsed signals. Behavioral changes typically involved what appeared to 
be deliberate attempts to avoid the sound exposure (Schlundt et al., 
2000; Finneran et al., 2002; Finneran and Schlundt, 2004). The 
relevance of those data to free-ranging odontocetes is uncertain, and 
in any case, the test sounds were quite different in duration as 
compared with those from an echosounder.
    Hearing Impairment and Other Physical Effects--Given recent 
stranding events that have been associated with the operation of naval 
sonar, there is concern that mid-frequency sonar sounds can cause 
serious impacts to marine mammals (see above). However, the echosounder 
proposed for use by the Langseth is quite different than sonar used for 
navy operations. The echosounder's pulse duration is very short 
relative to the naval sonar. Also, at any given location, an individual 
marine mammal would be in the echosounder's beam for much less time 
given the generally downward orientation of the beam and its narrow 
fore-aft beamwidth; navy sonar often uses near-horizontally-directed 
sound. Those factors would all reduce the sound energy received from 
the echosounder relative to that from naval sonar.

Sub-bottom Profiler

    Lamont-Doherty would also operate a sub-bottom profiler from the 
source vessel during the proposed survey. The profiler's sounds are 
very short pulses, occurring for one to four ms once every second. Most 
of the energy in the sound pulses emitted by the profiler is at 3.5 
kHz, and the beam is directed downward. The sub-bottom profiler on the 
Langseth has a maximum source level of 222 dB re: 1 [micro]Pa. Kremser 
et al. (2005) noted that the probability of a cetacean swimming through 
the area of exposure when a bottom profiler emits a pulse is small--
even for a profiler more powerful than that on the Langseth--if the 
animal was in the area, it would have to pass the transducer at close 
range and in order to be subjected to sound levels that could cause 
temporary threshold shift.
    Masking--Marine mammal communications would not be masked 
appreciably by the profiler's signals given the directionality of the 
signal and the brief period when an individual mammal is likely to be 
within its beam. Furthermore, in the case of most baleen whales, the 
profiler's signals do not overlap with the predominant frequencies in 
the calls, which would avoid significant masking.
    Behavioral Responses--Responses to the profiler are likely to be 
similar to the other pulsed sources discussed earlier if received at 
the same levels. However, the pulsed signals from the profiler are 
considerably weaker than those from the echosounder.
    Hearing Impairment and Other Physical Effects--It is unlikely that 
the profiler produces pulse levels strong enough to cause hearing 
impairment or other physical injuries even in an animal that is 
(briefly) in a position near the source. The profiler operates 
simultaneously with other higher-power acoustic sources. Many marine 
mammals would move away in response to the approaching higher-power 
sources or the vessel itself before the mammals would be close enough 
for there to be any possibility of effects from the less intense sounds 
from the profiler.

Potential Effects of Vessel Movement and Collisions

    Vessel movement in the vicinity of marine mammals has the potential 
to result in either a behavioral response or a direct physical 
interaction. We discuss both scenarios here.

Behavioral Responses to Vessel Movement

    There are limited data concerning marine mammal behavioral 
responses to vessel traffic and vessel noise, and a lack of consensus 
among scientists with respect to what these responses mean or whether 
they result in short-term or long-term adverse effects. In those cases 
where there is a busy shipping lane or where there is a large amount of 
vessel traffic, marine mammals may experience acoustic masking 
(Hildebrand, 2005) if they are present in the area (e.g., killer whales 
in Puget Sound; Foote et al., 2004; Holt et al., 2008). In cases where 
vessels actively approach marine mammals (e.g., whale watching or 
dolphin watching boats),

[[Page 44564]]

scientists have documented that animals exhibit altered behavior such 
as increased swimming speed, erratic movement, and active avoidance 
behavior (Bursk, 1983; Acevedo, 1991; Baker and MacGibbon, 1991; Trites 
and Bain, 2000; Williams et al., 2002; Constantine et al., 2003), 
reduced blow interval (Ritcher et al., 2003), disruption of normal 
social behaviors (Lusseau, 2003; 2006), and the shift of behavioral 
activities which may increase energetic costs (Constantine et al., 
2003; 2004). A detailed review of marine mammal reactions to ships and 
boats is available in Richardson et al. (1995). For each of the marine 
mammal taxonomy groups, Richardson et al. (1995) provides the following 
assessment regarding reactions to vessel traffic:
    Toothed whales: ``In summary, toothed whales sometimes show no 
avoidance reaction to vessels, or even approach them. However, 
avoidance can occur, especially in response to vessels of types used to 
chase or hunt the animals. This may cause temporary displacement, but 
we know of no clear evidence that toothed whales have abandoned 
significant parts of their range because of vessel traffic.''
    Baleen whales: ``When baleen whales receive low-level sounds from 
distant or stationary vessels, the sounds often seem to be ignored. 
Some whales approach the sources of these sounds. When vessels approach 
whales slowly and non-aggressively, whales often exhibit slow and 
inconspicuous avoidance maneuvers. In response to strong or rapidly 
changing vessel noise, baleen whales often interrupt their normal 
behavior and swim rapidly away. Avoidance is especially strong when a 
boat heads directly toward the whale.''
    Behavioral responses to stimuli are complex and influenced to 
varying degrees by a number of factors, such as species, behavioral 
contexts, geographical regions, source characteristics (moving or 
stationary, speed, direction, etc.), prior experience of the animal and 
physical status of the animal. For example, studies have shown that 
beluga whales' reactions varied when exposed to vessel noise and 
traffic. In some cases, naive beluga whales exhibited rapid swimming 
from ice-breaking vessels up to 80 km (49.7 mi) away, and showed 
changes in surfacing, breathing, diving, and group composition in the 
Canadian high Arctic where vessel traffic is rare (Finley et al., 
1990). In other cases, beluga whales were more tolerant of vessels, but 
responded differentially to certain vessels and operating 
characteristics by reducing their calling rates (especially older 
animals) in the St. Lawrence River where vessel traffic is common 
(Blane and Jaakson, 1994). In Bristol Bay, Alaska, beluga whales 
continued to feed when surrounded by fishing vessels and resisted 
dispersal even when purposefully harassed (Fish and Vania, 1971).
    In reviewing more than 25 years of whale observation data, Watkins 
(1986) concluded that whale reactions to vessel traffic were ``modified 
by their previous experience and current activity: Habituation often 
occurred rapidly, attention to other stimuli or preoccupation with 
other activities sometimes overcame their interest or wariness of 
stimuli.'' Watkins noticed that over the years of exposure to ships in 
the Cape Cod area, minke whales changed from frequent positive interest 
(e.g., approaching vessels) to generally uninterested reactions; fin 
whales changed from mostly negative (e.g., avoidance) to uninterested 
reactions; right whales apparently continued the same variety of 
responses (negative, uninterested, and positive responses) with little 
change; and humpbacks dramatically changed from mixed responses that 
were often negative to reactions that were often strongly positive. 
Watkins (1986) summarized that ``whales near shore, even in regions 
with low vessel traffic, generally have become less wary of boats and 
their noises, and they have appeared to be less easily disturbed than 
previously. In particular locations with intense shipping and repeated 
approaches by boats (such as the whale-watching areas of Stellwagen 
Bank), more and more whales had positive reactions to familiar vessels, 
and they also occasionally approached other boats and yachts in the 
same ways.''

Vessel Strike

    Ship strikes of cetaceans can cause major wounds, which may lead to 
the death of the animal. An animal at the surface could be struck 
directly by a vessel, a surfacing animal could hit the bottom of a 
vessel, or an animal just below the surface could be cut by a vessel's 
propeller. The severity of injuries typically depends on the size and 
speed of the vessel (Knowlton and Kraus, 2001; Laist et al., 2001; 
Vanderlaan and Taggart, 2007).
    The most vulnerable marine mammals are those that spend extended 
periods of time at the surface in order to restore oxygen levels within 
their tissues after deep dives (e.g., the sperm whale). In addition, 
some baleen whales, such as the North Atlantic right whale, seem 
generally unresponsive to vessel sound, making them more susceptible to 
vessel collisions (Nowacek et al., 2004). These species are primarily 
large, slow moving whales. Smaller marine mammals (e.g., bottlenose 
dolphin) move quickly through the water column and are often seen 
riding the bow wave of large ships. Marine mammal responses to vessels 
may include avoidance and changes in dive pattern (NRC, 2003).
    An examination of all known ship strikes from all shipping sources 
(civilian and military) indicates vessel speed is a principal factor in 
whether a vessel strike results in death (Knowlton and Kraus, 2001; 
Laist et al., 2001; Jensen and Silber, 2003; Vanderlaan and Taggart, 
2007). In assessing records with known vessel speeds, Laist et al. 
(2001) found a direct relationship between the occurrence of a whale 
strike and the speed of the vessel involved in the collision. The 
authors concluded that most deaths occurred when a vessel was traveling 
in excess of 24.1 km/h (14.9 mph; 13 kts).

Entanglement

    Entanglement can occur if wildlife becomes immobilized in survey 
lines, cables, nets, or other equipment that is moving through the 
water column. The proposed seismic survey would require towing 
approximately 8.0 km (4.9 mi) of equipment and cables. This large size 
for the array carries the risk of entanglement for marine mammals. 
Wildlife, especially slow moving individuals, such as large whales, 
have a low probability of entanglement due to slow speed of the survey 
vessel and onboard monitoring efforts. Lamont-Doherty has no recorded 
cases of entanglement of marine mammals during their conduct of over 10 
years of seismic surveys (NSF, 2011).

Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat

    The primary potential impacts to marine mammal habitat and other 
marine species are associated with elevated sound levels produced by 
airguns. This section describes the potential impacts to marine mammal 
habitat from the specified activity.

Anticipated Effects on the Seafloor

    The seismometers would occupy approximately 450 square meters 
(4,843.7 square miles) of seafloor habitat and may disturb benthic 
invertebrates. However, due to the natural sinking of the anchors from 
their own weight into the seafloor and natural sedimentation processes, 
these impacts would be localized and short-term. We do not expect any 
long-term habitat impacts.

[[Page 44565]]

Anticipated Effects on Fish

    We consider the effects of the survey on marine mammal prey (i.e., 
fish and invertebrates), as a component of marine mammal habitat in the 
following subsections. There are three types of potential effects of 
exposure to seismic surveys: (1) Pathological, (2) physiological, and 
(3) behavioral. Pathological effects involve lethal and temporary or 
permanent sub-lethal injury. Physiological effects involve temporary 
and permanent primary and secondary stress responses, such as changes 
in levels of enzymes and proteins. Behavioral effects refer to 
temporary and (if they occur) permanent changes in exhibited behavior 
(e.g., startle and avoidance behavior). The three categories are 
interrelated in complex ways. For example, it is possible that certain 
physiological and behavioral changes could potentially lead to an 
ultimate pathological effect on individuals (i.e., mortality).
    The available information on the impacts of seismic surveys on 
marine fish is from studies of individuals or portions of a population. 
There have been no studies at the population scale. The studies of 
individual fish have often been on caged fish that were exposed to 
airgun pulses in situations not representative of an actual seismic 
survey. Thus, available information provides limited insight on 
possible real-world effects at the ocean or population scale.
    Hastings and Popper (2005), Popper (2009), and Popper and Hastings 
(2009) provided recent critical reviews of the known effects of sound 
on fish. The following sections provide a general synopsis of the 
available information on the effects of exposure to seismic and other 
anthropogenic sound as relevant to fish. The information comprises 
results from scientific studies of varying degrees of rigor plus some 
anecdotal information. Some of the data sources may have serious 
shortcomings in methods, analysis, interpretation, and reproducibility 
that must be considered when interpreting their results (see Hastings 
and Popper, 2005). Potential adverse effects of the program's sound 
sources on marine fish are noted.
    Pathological Effects--The potential for pathological damage to 
hearing structures in fish depends on the energy level of the received 
sound and the physiology and hearing capability of the species in 
question. For a given sound to result in hearing loss, the sound must 
exceed, by some substantial amount, the hearing threshold of the fish 
for that sound (Popper, 2005). The consequences of temporary or 
permanent hearing loss in individual fish on a fish population are 
unknown; however, they likely depend on the number of individuals 
affected and whether critical behaviors involving sound (e.g., predator 
avoidance, prey capture, orientation and navigation, reproduction, 
etc.) are adversely affected.
    There are few data about the mechanisms and characteristics of 
damage impacting fish that by exposure to seismic survey sounds. Peer-
reviewed scientific literature has presented few data on this subject. 
We are aware of only two papers with proper experimental methods, 
controls, and careful pathological investigation that implicate sounds 
produced by actual seismic survey airguns in causing adverse anatomical 
effects. One such study indicated anatomical damage, and the second 
indicated temporary threshold shift in fish hearing. The anatomical 
case is McCauley et al. (2003), who found that exposure to airgun sound 
caused observable anatomical damage to the auditory maculae of pink 
snapper (Pagrus auratus). This damage in the ears had not been repaired 
in fish sacrificed and examined almost two months after exposure. On 
the other hand, Popper et al. (2005) documented only temporary 
threshold shift (as determined by auditory brainstem response) in two 
of three fish species from the Mackenzie River Delta. This study found 
that broad whitefish (Coregonus nasus) exposed to five airgun shots 
were not significantly different from those of controls. During both 
studies, the repetitive exposure to sound was greater than would have 
occurred during a typical seismic survey. However, the substantial low-
frequency energy produced by the airguns (less than 400 Hz in the study 
by McCauley et al. (2003) and less than approximately 200 Hz in Popper 
et al. (2005)) likely did not propagate to the fish because the water 
in the study areas was very shallow (approximately 9 m in the former 
case and less than 2 m in the latter). Water depth sets a lower limit 
on the lowest sound frequency that will propagate (i.e., the cutoff 
frequency) at about one-quarter wavelength (Urick, 1983; Rogers and 
Cox, 1988).
    Wardle et al. (2001) suggested that in water, acute injury and 
death of organisms exposed to seismic energy depends primarily on two 
features of the sound source: (1) The received peak pressure and (2) 
the time required for the pressure to rise and decay. Generally, as 
received pressure increases, the period for the pressure to rise and 
decay decreases, and the chance of acute pathological effects 
increases. According to Buchanan et al. (2004), for the types of 
seismic airguns and arrays involved with the proposed program, the 
pathological (mortality) zone for fish would be expected to be within a 
few meters of the seismic source. Numerous other studies provide 
examples of no fish mortality upon exposure to seismic sources (Falk 
and Lawrence, 1973; Holliday et al., 1987; La Bella et al., 1996; 
Santulli et al., 1999; McCauley et al., 2000a,b, 2003; Bjarti, 2002; 
Thomsen, 2002; Hassel et al., 2003; Popper et al., 2005; Boeger et al., 
2006).
    The National Park Service conducted an experiment of the effects of 
a single 700 in\3\ airgun in Lake Meade, Nevada (USGS, 1999) to 
understand the effects of a marine reflection survey of the Lake Meade 
fault system (Paulson et al., 1993, in USGS, 1999). The researchers 
suspended the airgun 3.5 m (11.5 ft) above a school of threadfin shad 
in Lake Meade and fired three successive times at a 30 second interval. 
Neither surface inspection nor diver observations of the water column 
and bottom found any dead fish.
    For a proposed seismic survey in Southern California, USGS (1999) 
conducted a review of the literature on the effects of airguns on fish 
and fisheries. They reported a 1991 study of the Bay Area Fault system 
from the continental shelf to the Sacramento River, using a 10 airgun 
(5,828 in\3\) array. Brezzina and Associates, hired by USGS to monitor 
the effects of the surveys, concluded that airgun operations were not 
responsible for the death of any of the fish carcasses observed, and 
the airgun profiling did not appear to alter the feeding behavior of 
sea lions, seals, or pelicans observed feeding during the seismic 
surveys.
    Some studies have reported, some equivocally, that mortality of 
fish, fish eggs, or larvae can occur close to seismic sources 
(Kostyuchenko, 1973; Dalen and Knutsen, 1986; Booman et al., 1996; 
Dalen et al., 1996). Some of the reports claimed seismic effects from 
treatments quite different from actual seismic survey sounds or even 
reasonable surrogates. However, Payne et al. (2009) reported no 
statistical differences in mortality/morbidity between control and 
exposed groups of capelin eggs or monkfish larvae. Saetre and Ona 
(1996) applied a worst-case scenario, mathematical model to investigate 
the effects of seismic energy on fish eggs and larvae. They concluded 
that mortality rates caused by exposure to seismic surveys are so low, 
as compared to natural mortality rates, that the impact of seismic 
surveying on

[[Page 44566]]

recruitment to a fish stock must be regarded as insignificant.
    Physiological Effects--Physiological effects refer to cellular and/
or biochemical responses of fish to acoustic stress. Such stress 
potentially could affect fish populations by increasing mortality or 
reducing reproductive success. Primary and secondary stress responses 
of fish after exposure to seismic survey sound appear to be temporary 
in all studies done to date (Sverdrup et al., 1994; Santulli et al., 
1999; McCauley et al., 2000a,b). The periods necessary for the 
biochemical changes to return to normal are variable and depend on 
numerous aspects of the biology of the species and of the sound 
stimulus.
    Behavioral Effects--Behavioral effects include changes in the 
distribution, migration, mating, and catchability of fish populations. 
Studies investigating the possible effects of sound (including seismic 
survey sound) on fish behavior have been conducted on both uncaged and 
caged individuals (e.g., Chapman and Hawkins, 1969; Pearson et al., 
1992; Santulli et al., 1999; Wardle et al., 2001; Hassel et al., 2003). 
Typically, in these studies fish exhibited a sharp startle response at 
the onset of a sound followed by habituation and a return to normal 
behavior after the sound ceased.
    The Minerals Management Service (MMS, 2005) assessed the effects of 
a proposed seismic survey in Cook Inlet, Alaska. The seismic survey 
proposed using three vessels, each towing two, four-airgun arrays 
ranging from 1,500 to 2,500 in\3\. The Minerals Management Service 
noted that the impact to fish populations in the survey area and 
adjacent waters would likely be very low and temporary and also 
concluded that seismic surveys may displace the pelagic fishes from the 
area temporarily when airguns are in use. However, fishes displaced and 
avoiding the airgun noise are likely to backfill the survey area in 
minutes to hours after cessation of seismic testing. Fishes not 
dispersing from the airgun noise (e.g., demersal species) may startle 
and move short distances to avoid airgun emissions.
    In general, any adverse effects on fish behavior or fisheries 
attributable to seismic testing may depend on the species in question 
and the nature of the fishery (season, duration, fishing method). They 
may also depend on the age of the fish, its motivational state, its 
size, and numerous other factors that are difficult, if not impossible, 
to quantify at this point, given such limited data on effects of 
airguns on fish, particularly under realistic at-sea conditions 
(Lokkeborg et al., 2012; Fewtrell and McCauley, 2012). We would expect 
prey species to return to their pre-exposure behavior once seismic 
firing ceased (Lokkeborg et al., 2012; Fewtrell and McCauley, 2012).

Anticipated Effects on Invertebrates

    The existing body of information on the impacts of seismic survey 
sound on marine invertebrates is very limited. However, there is some 
unpublished and very limited evidence of the potential for adverse 
effects on invertebrates, thereby justifying further discussion and 
analysis of this issue. The three types of potential effects of 
exposure to seismic surveys on marine invertebrates are pathological, 
physiological, and behavioral. Based on the physical structure of their 
sensory organs, marine invertebrates appear to be specialized to 
respond to particle displacement components of an impinging sound field 
and not to the pressure component (Popper et al., 2001).
    The only information available on the impacts of seismic surveys on 
marine invertebrates involves studies of individuals; there have been 
no studies at the population scale. Thus, available information 
provides limited insight on possible real-world effects at the regional 
or ocean scale.
    Moriyasu et al. (2004) and Payne et al. (2008) provide literature 
reviews of the effects of seismic and other underwater sound on 
invertebrates. The following sections provide a synopsis of available 
information on the effects of exposure to seismic survey sound on 
species of decapod crustaceans and cephalopods, the two taxonomic 
groups of invertebrates on which most such studies have been conducted. 
The available information is from studies with variable degrees of 
scientific soundness and from anecdotal information. A more detailed 
review of the literature on the effects of seismic survey sound on 
invertebrates is in Appendix E of the 2011 PEIS (NSF/USGS, 2011).
    Pathological Effects--In water, lethal and sub-lethal injury to 
organisms exposed to seismic survey sound appears to depend on at least 
two features of the sound source: (1) The received peak pressure; and 
(2) the time required for the pressure to rise and decay. Generally, as 
received pressure increases, the period for the pressure to rise and 
decay decreases, and the chance of acute pathological effects 
increases. For the type of airgun array planned for the proposed 
program, the pathological (mortality) zone for crustaceans and 
cephalopods is expected to be within a few meters of the seismic 
source, at most; however, very few specific data are available on 
levels of seismic signals that might damage these animals. This premise 
is based on the peak pressure and rise/decay time characteristics of 
seismic airgun arrays currently in use around the world.
    Some studies have suggested that seismic survey sound has a limited 
pathological impact on early developmental stages of crustaceans 
(Pearson et al., 1994; Christian et al., 2003; DFO, 2004). However, the 
impacts appear to be either temporary or insignificant compared to what 
occurs under natural conditions. Controlled field experiments on adult 
crustaceans (Christian et al., 2003, 2004; DFO, 2004) and adult 
cephalopods (McCauley et al., 2000a,b) exposed to seismic survey sound 
have not resulted in any significant pathological impacts on the 
animals. It has been suggested that exposure to commercial seismic 
survey activities has injured giant squid (Guerra et al., 2004), but 
the article provides little evidence to support this claim.
    Tenera Environmental (2011) reported that Norris and Mohl (1983, 
summarized in Mariyasu et al., 2004) observed lethal effects in squid 
(Loligo vulgaris) at levels of 246 to 252 dB after 3 to 11 minutes. 
Another laboratory study observed abnormalities in larval scallops 
after exposure to low frequency noise in tanks (de Soto et al., 2013).
    Andre et al. (2011) exposed four cephalopod species (Loligo 
vulgaris, Sepia officinalis, Octopus vulgaris, and Ilex coindetii) to 
two hours of continuous sound from 50 to 400 Hz at 157  5 
dB re: 1 [mu]Pa. They reported lesions to the sensory hair cells of the 
statocysts of the exposed animals that increased in severity with time, 
suggesting that cephalopods are particularly sensitive to low-frequency 
sound. The received sound pressure level was 157 5 dB re: 1 
[micro]Pa, with peak levels at 175 dB re 1 [micro]Pa. As in the 
McCauley et al. (2003) paper on sensory hair cell damage in pink 
snapper as a result of exposure to seismic sound, the cephalopods were 
subjected to higher sound levels than they would be under natural 
conditions, and they were unable to swim away from the sound source.
    Physiological Effects--Physiological effects refer mainly to 
biochemical responses by marine invertebrates to acoustic stress. Such 
stress potentially could affect invertebrate populations by increasing 
mortality or reducing reproductive success. Studies have noted primary 
and secondary stress responses (i.e., changes in haemolymph levels of 
enzymes, proteins, etc.) of

[[Page 44567]]

crustaceans occurring several days or months after exposure to seismic 
survey sounds (Payne et al., 2007). The authors noted that crustaceans 
exhibited no behavioral impacts (Christian et al., 2003, 2004; DFO, 
2004). The periods necessary for these biochemical changes to return to 
normal are variable and depend on numerous aspects of the biology of 
the species and of the sound stimulus.
    Behavioral Effects--There is increasing interest in assessing the 
possible direct and indirect effects of seismic and other sounds on 
invertebrate behavior, particularly in relation to the consequences for 
fisheries. Changes in behavior could potentially affect such aspects as 
reproductive success, distribution, susceptibility to predation, and 
catchability by fisheries. Studies investigating the possible 
behavioral effects of exposure to seismic survey sound on crustaceans 
and cephalopods have been conducted on both uncaged and caged animals. 
In some cases, invertebrates exhibited startle responses (e.g., squid 
in McCauley et al., 2000). In other cases, the authors observed no 
behavioral impacts (e.g., crustaceans in Christian et al., 2003, 2004; 
DFO, 2004). There have been anecdotal reports of reduced catch rates of 
shrimp shortly after exposure to seismic surveys; however, other 
studies have not observed any significant changes in shrimp catch rate 
(Andriguetto-Filho et al., 2005). Similarly, Parry and Gason (2006) did 
not find any evidence that lobster catch rates were affected by seismic 
surveys. Any adverse effects on crustacean and cephalopod behavior or 
fisheries attributable to seismic survey sound depend on the species in 
question and the nature of the fishery (season, duration, fishing 
method).
    In examining impacts to fish and invertebrates as prey species for 
marine mammals, we expect fish to exhibit a range of behaviors 
including no reaction or habituation (Pe[ntilde]a et al., 2013) to 
startle responses and/or avoidance (Fewtrell & McCauley, 2012). We 
expect that the seismic survey would have no more than a temporary and 
minimal adverse effect on any fish or invertebrate species. Although 
there is a potential for injury to fish or marine life in close 
proximity to the vessel, we expect that the impacts of the seismic 
survey on fish and other marine life specifically related to acoustic 
activities would be temporary in nature, negligible, and would not 
result in substantial impact to these species or to their role in the 
ecosystem. Based on the preceding discussion, we do not anticipate that 
the proposed activity would have any habitat-related effects that could 
cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine 
mammals or their populations.

Proposed Mitigation

    In order to issue an incidental take authorization under section 
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, we must set forth the permissible methods of 
taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the 
least practicable adverse impact on such species or stock and its 
habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and 
areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species 
or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (where relevant).
    Lamont-Doherty has reviewed the following source documents and has 
incorporated a suite of proposed mitigation measures into their project 
description.
    (1) Protocols used during previous Foundation and Observatory-
funded seismic research cruises as approved by us and detailed in the 
Foundation's 2011 PEIS and 2014 EA;
    (2) Previous incidental harassment authorizations applications and 
authorizations that we have approved and authorized; and
    (3) Recommended best practices in Richardson et al. (1995), Pierson 
et al. (1998), and Weir and Dolman, (2007).
    To reduce the potential for disturbance from acoustic stimuli 
associated with the activities, Lamont-Doherty, and/or its designees 
have proposed to implement the following mitigation measures for marine 
mammals:
    (1) Vessel-based visual mitigation monitoring;
    (2) Proposed exclusion zones;
    (3) Power down procedures;
    (4) Shutdown procedures;
    (5) Ramp-up procedures; and
    (6) Speed and course alterations.
    We reviewed Lamont-Doherty's proposed mitigation measures and have 
proposed additional measures to effect the least practicable adverse 
impact on marine mammals. They are:
    (1) Expanded shutdown procedures for North Atlantic right whales;
    (2) Expanded exclusion zones in shallow water based on lower 
thresholds;
    (3) Requirements on the directionality of the survey's tracklines.

Vessel-Based Visual Mitigation Monitoring

    Lamont-Doherty would position observers aboard the seismic source 
vessel to watch for marine mammals near the vessel during daytime 
airgun operations and during any start-ups at night. Protected species 
observers would also watch for marine mammals near the seismic vessel 
for at least 30 minutes prior to the start of airgun operations after 
an extended shutdown (i.e., greater than approximately eight minutes 
for this proposed cruise). When feasible, the observers would conduct 
observations during daytime periods when the seismic system is not 
operating for comparison of sighting rates and behavior with and 
without airgun operations and between acquisition periods. Based on the 
observations, the Langseth would power down or shutdown the airguns 
when marine mammals are observed within or about to enter a designated 
180-dB exclusion zone (with buffer).
    During seismic operations, at least four protected species 
observers would be aboard the Langseth. Lamont-Doherty would appoint 
the observers with our concurrence and they would conduct observations 
during ongoing daytime operations and nighttime ramp-ups of the airgun 
array. During the majority of seismic operations, two observers would 
be on duty from the observation tower to monitor marine mammals near 
the seismic vessel. Using two observers would increase the 
effectiveness of detecting animals near the source vessel. However, 
during mealtimes and bathroom breaks, it is sometimes difficult to have 
two observers on effort, but at least one observer would be on watch 
during bathroom breaks and mealtimes. Observers would be on duty in 
shifts of no longer than four hours in duration.
    Two observers on the Langseth would also be on visual watch during 
all nighttime ramp-ups of the seismic airguns. A third observer would 
monitor the passive acoustic monitoring equipment 24 hours a day to 
detect vocalizing marine mammals present in the action area. In 
summary, a typical daytime cruise would have scheduled two observers 
(visual) on duty from the observation tower, and an observer (acoustic) 
on the passive acoustic monitoring system. Before the start of the 
seismic survey, Lamont-Doherty would instruct the vessel's crew to 
assist in detecting marine mammals and implementing mitigation 
requirements.
    The Langseth is a suitable platform for marine mammal observations. 
When stationed on the observation platform, the eye level would be 
approximately 21.5 m (70.5 ft) above sea level, and the observer would 
have a good view around the entire vessel. During daytime, the 
observers would scan the area around the vessel systematically with 
reticle binoculars (e.g., 7 x 50

[[Page 44568]]

Fujinon), Big-eye binoculars (25 x 150), and with the naked eye. During 
darkness, night vision devices would be available (ITT F500 Series 
Generation 3 binocular-image intensifier or equivalent), when required. 
Laser range-finding binoculars (Leica LRF 1200 laser rangefinder or 
equivalent) would be available to assist with distance estimation. They 
are useful in training observers to estimate distances visually, but 
are generally not useful in measuring distances to animals directly. 
The user measures distances to animals with the reticles in the 
binoculars.
    When the observers see marine mammals within or about to enter the 
designated exclusion zone, the Langseth would immediately power down or 
shutdown the airguns. The observer(s) would continue to maintain watch 
to determine when the animal(s) are outside the exclusion zone by 
visual confirmation. Airgun operations would not resume until the 
observer has confirmed that the animal has left the zone, or if 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, 
pygmy sperm, dwarf sperm, killer, and beaked whales).
    Proposed Exclusion Zones: Lamont-Doherty would use safety radii to 
designate exclusion zones and to estimate take for marine mammals. 
Table 3 shows the distances at which they predicted the received sound 
levels (180 dB with buffer, 180 dB, and 160 dB) from the airgun arrays 
and a single airgun.

 Table 3--Modeled Distances to Which Sound Levels Greater Than or Equal to 160 and 177 dB re: 1 [micro]Pa Could
         Be Received During the Proposed Survey in the Atlantic Ocean, September Through October, 2014.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Predicted RMS distances \1\ (m)
                                                    Water depth  -----------------------------------------------
   Source and volume (in\3\)      Tow depth (m)         (m)         180 dB with
                                                                      buffer          180 dB          160 dB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single bolt airgun (40 in\3\)..  6 or 9                    < 100             121              86             938
                                                       100-1,000             100             100             582
                                                         > 1,000             100             100             388
18-Airgun array (3,300 in\3\)..  6                         < 100       1,630 \2\       1,097 \2\      15,280 \2\
                                                       100-1,000         675 \3\         675 \3\       5,640 \3\
                                                         > 1,000             450             450           3,760
36-Airgun array (6,600 in\3\)..  9                         < 100       2,880 \4\       2,060 \4\      22,600 \4\
                                                       100-1,000           1,391           1,391           8,670
                                                         > 1,000             927             927           5,780
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Predicted distances based on Table 1 of the Foundation's application. The Foundation calculated the 180-dB
  zone with 3-dB buffer based on our proposed recommendation to expand the 180-dB exclusion zones in shallow
  water.
\2\ Predicted distances based on empirically-derived measurements in the Gulf of Mexico for an 18-airgun array.
\3\ Intermediate Depth: Predicted distances based on model results with a correction factor (1.5) between deep
  and intermediate water depths.
\4\ Predicted distances based on empirically-derived measurements in the Gulf of Mexico with scaling factor
  applied to account for differences in tow depth.

    The 180-dB level shutdown criteria are applicable to cetaceans as 
specified by NMFS (2000). Lamont-Doherty used these levels to establish 
their original exclusion zones. For this survey, we will require 
Lamont-Doherty to enlarge the radius of 180-dB exclusion zones for each 
airgun array configuration in shallow water by a factor of 3-dB, which 
results in an exclusion zone that is 25 percent larger.
    If the protected species visual observer detects marine mammal(s) 
within or about to enter the appropriate exclusion zone, the Langseth 
crew would immediately power down the airgun array, or perform a 
shutdown if necessary (see Shut-down Procedures).
    Power Down Procedures--A power down involves decreasing the number 
of airguns in use such that the radius of the 180-dB exclusion zone 
(with buffer) is smaller to the extent that marine mammals are no 
longer within or about to enter the exclusion zone. A power down of the 
airgun array can also occur when the vessel is moving from one seismic 
line to another. During a power down for mitigation, the Langseth would 
operate one airgun (40 in\3\). The continued operation of one airgun 
would alert marine mammals to the presence of the seismic vessel in the 
area. A shutdown occurs when the Langseth suspends all airgun activity.
    If the observer detects a marine mammal outside the exclusion zone 
and the animal is likely to enter the zone, the crew would power down 
the airguns to reduce the size of the 180-dB exclusion zone (with 
buffer) before the animal enters that zone. Likewise, if a mammal is 
already within the zone after detection, the crew would power-down the 
airguns immediately. During a power down of the airgun array, the crew 
would operate a single 40-in\3\ airgun which has a smaller exclusion 
zone. If the observer detects a marine mammal within or near the 
smaller exclusion zone around the airgun (Table 3), the crew would shut 
down the single airgun (see next section).
    Resuming Airgun Operations After a Power Down--Following a power-
down, the Langseth crew would not resume full airgun activity until the 
marine mammal has cleared the 180-dB exclusion zone (with buffer) (see 
Table 3). The observers would consider the animal to have cleared the 
exclusion zone if:
     The observer has visually observed the animal leave the 
exclusion zone; or
     An observer has not sighted the animal within the 
exclusion zone for 15 minutes for species with shorter dive durations 
(i.e., small odontocetes or pinnipeds), or 30 minutes for species with 
longer dive durations (i.e., mysticetes and large odontocetes, 
including sperm, pygmy sperm, dwarf sperm, and beaked whales); or
    The Langseth crew would resume operating the airguns at full power 
after 15 minutes of sighting any species with short dive durations 
(i.e., small odontocetes or pinnipeds). Likewise, the crew would resume 
airgun operations at full power after 30 minutes of sighting any 
species with longer dive durations (i.e., mysticetes and large 
odontocetes, including sperm, pygmy sperm, dwarf sperm, and beaked 
whales).
    We estimate that the Langseth would transit outside the original 
180-dB exclusion zone after an 8-minute wait period. This period is 
based on the 180-dB exclusion zone for the airgun subarray towed at a 
depth of 12 m (39.4

[[Page 44569]]

ft) in relation to the average speed of the Langseth while operating 
the airguns (8.5 km/h; 5.3 mph). Because the vessel has transited away 
from the vicinity of the original sighting during the 8-minute period, 
implementing ramp-up procedures for the full array after an extended 
power down (i.e., transiting for an additional 35 minutes from the 
location of initial sighting) would not meaningfully increase the 
effectiveness of observing marine mammals approaching or entering the 
exclusion zone for the full source level and would not further minimize 
the potential for take. The Langseth's observers are continually 
monitoring the exclusion zone for the full source level while the 
mitigation airgun is firing. On average, observers can observe to the 
horizon (10 km; 6.2 mi) from the height of the Langseth's observation 
deck and should be able to say with a reasonable degree of confidence 
whether a marine mammal would be encountered within this distance 
before resuming airgun operations at full power.
    Shutdown Procedures--The Langseth crew would shut down the 
operating airgun(s) if they see a marine mammal within or approaching 
the exclusion zone for the single airgun. The crew would implement a 
shutdown:
    (1) If an animal enters the exclusion zone of the single airgun 
after the crew has initiated a power down; or
    (2) If an observer sees the animal is initially within the 
exclusion zone of the single airgun when more than one airgun 
(typically the full airgun array) is operating.
    Considering the conservation status for north Atlantic right 
whales, the Langseth crew would shut down the airgun(s) immediately in 
the unlikely event that observers detect this species, regardless of 
the distance from the vessel. The Langseth would only begin ramp-up 
would only if observers have not seen the north Atlantic right whale 
for 30 minutes.
    Resuming Airgun Operations After a Shutdown--Following a shutdown 
in excess of eight minutes, the Langseth crew would initiate a ramp-up 
with the smallest airgun in the array (40-in\3\). The crew would turn 
on additional airguns in a sequence such that the source level of the 
array would increase in steps not exceeding 6 dB per five-minute period 
over a total duration of approximately 30 minutes. During ramp-up, the 
observers would monitor the exclusion zone, and if he/she sees a marine 
mammal, the Langseth crew would implement a power down or shutdown as 
though the full airgun array were operational.
    During periods of active seismic operations, there are occasions 
when the Langseth crew would need to temporarily shut down the airguns 
due to equipment failure or for maintenance. In this case, if the 
airguns are inactive longer than eight minutes, the crew would follow 
ramp-up procedures for a shutdown described earlier and the observers 
would monitor the full exclusion zone and would implement a power down 
or shutdown if necessary.
    If the full exclusion zone is not visible to the observer for at 
least 30 minutes prior to the start of operations in either daylight or 
nighttime, the Langseth crew would not commence ramp-up unless at least 
one airgun (40-in\3\ or similar) has been operating during the 
interruption of seismic survey operations. Given these provisions, it 
is likely that the vessel's crew would not ramp up the airgun array 
from a complete shutdown at night or in thick fog, because the outer 
part of the zone for that array would not be visible during those 
conditions.
    If one airgun has operated during a power down period, ramp-up to 
full power would be permissible at night or in poor visibility, on the 
assumption that marine mammals would be alerted to the approaching 
seismic vessel by the sounds from the single airgun and could move 
away. The vessel's crew would not initiate a ramp-up of the airguns if 
an observer sees the marine mammal within or near the applicable 
exclusion zones during the day or close to the vessel at night.
    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 and thus avoid any potential injury or 
impairment of their hearing abilities. Lamont-Doherty would follow a 
ramp-up procedure when the airgun array begins operating after an 8-
minute period without airgun operations or when shut down has exceeded 
that period. Lamont-Doherty has used similar waiting periods 
(approximately eight to 10 minutes) during previous seismic surveys.
    Ramp-up would begin with the smallest airgun in the array (40 
in\3\). The crew would add airguns in a sequence such that the source 
level of the array would increase in steps not exceeding six dB per 
five minute period over a total duration of approximately 30 to 35 
minutes. During ramp-up, the observers would monitor the exclusion 
zone, and if marine mammals are sighted, the Observatory would 
implement a power-down or shut-down as though the full airgun array 
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, Lamont-Doherty would not commence the ramp-up unless at 
least one airgun (40 in\3\ or similar) has been operating during the 
interruption of seismic survey operations. Given these provisions, it 
is likely that the crew would not ramp up the airgun array 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 during a power-down period, 
ramp-up to full power would be permissible at night or in poor 
visibility, on the assumption that marine mammals would be alerted to 
the approaching seismic vessel by the sounds from the single airgun and 
could move away. Lamont-Doherty would not initiate a ramp-up of the 
airguns if a marine mammal is sighted within or near the applicable 
exclusion zones.

Speed and Course Alterations

    If during seismic data collection, Lamont-Doherty detects marine 
mammals outside the exclusion zone and, based on the animal's position 
and direction of travel, is likely to enter the exclusion zone, the 
Langseth would change speed and/or direction if this does not 
compromise operational safety. Due to the limited maneuverability of 
the primary survey vessel, altering speed and/or course can result in 
an extended period of time to realign onto the transect. However, if 
the animal(s) appear likely to enter the exclusion zone, the Langseth 
would undertake further mitigation actions, including a power down or 
shut down of the airguns.

Directionality of Survey Tracklines

    In order to avoid the potential entrapment of marine mammals within 
inshore areas, we proposed to require Lamont-Doherty to plan to conduct 
the seismic surveys (especially when near land) from the coast 
(inshore) and proceed towards the sea (offshore).

Mitigation Conclusions

    We have evaluated Lamont-Doherty's proposed mitigation measures in 
the context of ensuring that we prescribe the means of effecting the 
least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and 
stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included 
consideration of the

[[Page 44570]]

following factors in relation to one another:
     The manner in which, and the degree to which, the 
successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize 
adverse impacts to marine mammals;
     The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to 
minimize adverse impacts as planned; and
     The practicability of the measure for applicant 
implementation.
    Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by us 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 here:
    1. Avoidance or 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 airgun 
operations that we expect 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 times (total number or number at 
biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed 
to airgun operations that we expect 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 airgun 
operations that we expect 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 the evaluation of Lamont Doherty's proposed measures, as 
well as other measures considered by us, we have preliminarily 
determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of 
effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or 
stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, 
mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.

Proposed Monitoring

    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 
Authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the 
necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased 
knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on 
populations of marine mammals that we expect to be present in the 
proposed action area.
    Lamont-Doherty submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan in section 
XIII of the Authorization application. We or Lamont-Doherty may modify 
or supplement the plan based on comments or new information received 
from the public during the public comment period.
    Monitoring measures prescribed by us 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 during other times and locations, 
in order to generate more data to contribute to the analyses mentioned 
later;
    2. An increase in our understanding of how many marine mammals 
would be affected by seismic airguns and other active acoustic sources 
and the likelihood of associating those exposures with specific adverse 
effects, such as behavioral harassment, temporary or permanent 
threshold shift;
    3. An increase in our understanding of how marine mammals respond 
to stimuli that we expect to result in take and how those 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:
    a. Behavioral observations in the presence of stimuli compared to 
observations in the absence of stimuli (i.e., we need to be able to 
accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other 
pertinent information);
    b. Physiological measurements in the presence of stimuli compared 
to observations in the absence of stimuli (i.e., we need to be able to 
accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other 
pertinent information);
    c. Distribution and/or abundance comparisons in times or areas with 
concentrated stimuli versus times or areas without stimuli;
    4. An increased knowledge of the affected species; and
    5. An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of certain 
mitigation and monitoring measures.

Proposed Monitoring Measures

    Lamont-Doherty proposes to sponsor marine mammal monitoring during 
the present project to supplement the mitigation measures that require 
real-time monitoring, and to satisfy the monitoring requirements of the 
Authorization. Lamont-Doherty understands that we would review the 
monitoring plan and may require refinements to the plan.
    Lamont-Doherty planned the monitoring work as a self-contained 
project independent of any other related monitoring projects that may 
occur in the same regions at the same time. Further, Lamont-Doherty is 
prepared to discuss coordination of its monitoring program with any 
other related work that might be conducted by other groups working 
insofar as it is practical for them.

Vessel-Based Passive Acoustic Monitoring

    Passive acoustic monitoring would complement the visual mitigation 
monitoring program, when practicable. Visual monitoring typically is 
not effective during periods of poor visibility or at night, and even 
with good visibility, is unable to detect marine mammals when they are 
below the surface or beyond visual range. Passive acoustical monitoring 
can improve detection, identification, and localization of cetaceans 
when used in conjunction with visual observations. The passive acoustic 
monitoring would serve to alert visual observers (if on duty) when 
vocalizing cetaceans are detected. It is only useful when marine 
mammals call, but it can be effective either by day or by night, and 
does not depend on good visibility. The acoustic observer would monitor 
the system in real time so that he/she can advise the visual observers 
if they acoustic detect cetaceans.
    The passive acoustic monitoring system consists of hardware (i.e., 
hydrophones) and software. The ``wet end'' of the system consists of a 
towed hydrophone array connected to the vessel by a tow cable. The tow 
cable is

[[Page 44571]]

250 m (820.2 ft) long and the hydrophones are fitted in the last 10 m 
(32.8 ft) of cable. A depth gauge, attached to the free end of the 
cable, which is typically towed at depths less than 20 m (65.6 ft). The 
Langseth crew would deploy the array from a winch located on the back 
deck. A deck cable would connect the tow cable to the electronics unit 
in the main computer lab where the acoustic station, signal 
conditioning, and processing system would be located. The Pamguard 
software amplifies, digitizes, and then processes the acoustic signals 
received by the hydrophones. The system can detect marine mammal 
vocalizations at frequencies up to 250 kHz.
    One acoustic observer, an expert bioacoustician with primary 
responsibility for the passive acoustic monitoring system would be 
aboard the Langseth in addition to the four visual observers. The 
acoustic observer would monitor the towed hydrophones 24 hours per day 
during airgun operations and during most periods when the Langseth is 
underway while the airguns are not operating. However, passive acoustic 
monitoring may not be possible if damage occurs to both the primary and 
back-up hydrophone arrays during operations. The primary passive 
acoustic monitoring streamer on the Langseth is a digital hydrophone 
streamer. Should the digital streamer fail, back-up systems should 
include an analog spare streamer and a hull-mounted hydrophone.
    One acoustic observer would monitor the acoustic detection system 
by listening to the signals from two channels via headphones and/or 
speakers and watching the real-time spectrographic display for 
frequency ranges produced by cetaceans. The observer monitoring the 
acoustical data would be on shift for one to six hours at a time. The 
other observers would rotate as an acoustic observer, although the 
expert acoustician would be on passive acoustic monitoring duty more 
frequently.
    When the acoustic observer detects a vocalization while visual 
observations are in progress, the acoustic observer on duty would 
contact the visual observer immediately, to alert him/her to the 
presence of cetaceans (if they have not already been seen), so that the 
vessel's crew can initiate a power down or shutdown, if required. The 
observer would enter the information regarding the call into a 
database. Data entry would include an acoustic encounter identification 
number, whether it was linked with a visual sighting, date, time when 
first and last heard and whenever any additional information was 
recorded, position and water depth when first detected, bearing if 
determinable, species or species group (e.g., unidentified dolphin, 
sperm whale), types and nature of sounds heard (e.g., clicks, 
continuous, sporadic, whistles, creaks, burst pulses, strength of 
signal, etc.), and any other notable information. Acousticians record 
the acoustic detection for further analysis.

Observer Data and Documentation

    Observers would record data to estimate the numbers of marine 
mammals exposed to various received sound levels and to document 
apparent disturbance reactions or lack thereof. They would use the data 
to estimate numbers of animals potentially `taken' by harassment (as 
defined in the MMPA). They will also provide information needed to 
order a power down or shut down of the airguns when a marine mammal is 
within or near the exclusion zone.
    When an observer makes a sighting, they will record the following 
information:
    1. Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable), 
behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, heading (if 
consistent), bearing and distance from seismic vessel, sighting cue, 
apparent reaction to the airguns or vessel (e.g., none, avoidance, 
approach, paralleling, etc.), and behavioral pace.
    2. Time, location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel, sea 
state, visibility, and sun glare.
    The observer will record the data listed under (2) 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.
    Observers will record all observations and power downs or shutdowns 
in a standardized format and will enter data into an electronic 
database. The observers will verify the accuracy of the data entry by 
computerized data validity checks during data entry and by subsequent 
manual checking of the database. These procedures will allow the 
preparation of initial summaries of data 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:
    1. The basis for real-time mitigation (airgun power down or 
shutdown).
    2. Information needed to estimate the number of marine mammals 
potentially taken by harassment, which Lamont-Doherty must report to 
the Office of Protected Resources.
    3. Data on the occurrence, distribution, and activities of marine 
mammals and turtles in the area where Lamont-Doherty would conduct the 
seismic study.
    4. Information to compare the distance and distribution of marine 
mammals and turtles relative to the source vessel at times with and 
without seismic activity.
    5. Data on the behavior and movement patterns of marine mammals 
detected during non-active and active seismic operations.

Proposed Reporting

    Lamont-Doherty would submit a report to us and to the Foundation 
within 90 days after the end of the cruise. The report would describe 
the operations conducted and sightings of marine mammals and turtles 
near the operations. The report would provide full documentation of 
methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring. The 
90-day report would summarize the dates and locations of seismic 
operations, and all marine mammal sightings (dates, times, locations, 
activities, associated seismic survey activities). The report would 
also include estimates of the number and nature of exposures that could 
result in ``takes'' of marine mammals by harassment or in other ways.
    In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly 
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner not permitted by the 
authorization (if issued), such as an injury, serious injury, or 
mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or entanglement), 
the Observatory shall immediately cease the specified activities and 
immediately report the take to the Incidental Take Program Supervisor, 
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 
at 301-427-8401 and/or by email to [email protected] and 
[email protected] and the Southeast Regional Stranding Coordinator at 
(305) 361-4586. 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;

[[Page 44572]]

     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).
    Lamont-Doherty shall not resume its activities until we are able to 
review the circumstances of the prohibited take. We shall work with 
Lamont-Doherty to determine what is necessary to minimize the 
likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. 
Lamont-Doherty may not resume their activities until notified by us via 
letter, email, or telephone.
    In the event that Lamont-Doherty discovers an injured or dead 
marine mammal, and the lead visual observer 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 as we describe in 
the next paragraph), Lamont-Doherty will immediately report the 
incident to the Incidental Take Program Supervisor, Permits and 
Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-
8401 and/or by email to [email protected] and [email protected] 
and the Southeast Regional Stranding Coordinator at (305) 361-4586. The 
report must include the same information identified in the paragraph 
above this section. Activities may continue while we review the 
circumstances of the incident. We would work with Lamont-Doherty to 
determine whether modifications in the activities are appropriate.
    In the event that Lamont-Doherty discovers an injured or dead 
marine mammal, and the lead visual observer determines that the injury 
or death is not associated with or related to the authorized activities 
(e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced 
decomposition, or scavenger damage), Lamont-Doherty would report the 
incident to the Incidental Take Program Supervisor, Permits and 
Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-
8401 and/or by email to [email protected] and [email protected] 
and the Southeast Regional Stranding Coordinator at (305) 361-4586, 
within 24 hours of the discovery. Activities may continue while NMFS 
reviews the circumstances of the incident. Lamont-Doherty would provide 
photographs or video footage (if available) or other documentation of 
the stranded animal sighting to us.

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].
    Acoustic stimuli (i.e., increased underwater sound) generated 
during the operation of the airgun sub-arrays may have the potential to 
result in the behavioral disturbance of some marine mammals. Thus, we 
propose to authorize take by Level B harassment resulting from the 
operation of the sound sources for the proposed seismic survey based 
upon the current acoustic exposure criteria shown in Table 4.

            Table 2--NMFS' Current Acoustic Exposure Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Criterion           Criterion definition        Threshold
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A Harassment (Injury).  Permanent Threshold   180 dB re 1 microPa-
                               Shift (PTS) (Any      m (cetaceans)/190
                               level above that      dB re 1 microPa-m
                               which is known to     (pinnipeds) root
                               cause TTS).           mean square (rms).
Level B Harassment..........  Behavioral            160 dB re 1 microPa-
                               Disruption (for       m (rms).
                               impulse noises).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our practice has been to apply the 160 dB re: 1 [micro]Pa received 
level threshold for underwater impulse sound levels to determine 
whether take by Level B harassment occurs. Southall et al. (2007) 
provides 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]). 
The 180-dB level shutdown criteria are applicable to cetaceans as 
specified by NMFS (2000). Lamont-Doherty used these levels to establish 
their original exclusion zones. For this survey, we will require 
Lamont-Doherty to enlarge the radius of 180-dB exclusion zones for each 
airgun array configuration in shallow water by a factor of 3-dB, which 
results in an exclusion zone that is 25 percent larger.
    The probability of vessel and marine mammal interactions (i.e., 
ship strike) occurring during the proposed survey is unlikely due to 
the Langseth's slow operational speed, which is typically 4.6 kts (8.5 
km/h; 5.3 mph). Outside of seismic operations, the Langseth's cruising 
speed would be approximately 11.5 mph (18.5 km/h; 10 kts) which is 
generally below the speed at which studies have noted reported 
increases of marine mammal injury or death (Laist et al., 2001). In 
addition, the Langseth has a number of other advantages for avoiding 
ship strikes as compared to most commercial merchant vessels, including 
the following: The Langseth's bridge offers good visibility to visually 
monitor for marine mammal presence; observers posted during operations 
scan the ocean for marine mammals and must report visual alerts of 
marine mammal presence to crew; and the observers receive extensive 
training that covers the fundamentals of visual observing for marine 
mammals and information about marine mammals and their identification 
at sea. Thus, we do not anticipate that take, by vessel strike, would 
result from the movement of the vessel.
    Lamont-Doherty did not estimate any additional take allowance for 
animals that could be affected by sound sources other than the airgun. 
NMFS does not expect that the sound levels produced by the echosounder, 
sub-bottom profiler, and ADCP would exceed by the sound levels produced 
by the airguns during concurrent operations of the sound sources. 
Because of the beam pattern and directionality of these sources, 
combined with their lower source levels, it is not likely that these 
sources would take marine mammals independently from the takes that 
Lamont-Doherty has estimated to result from airgun operations. At this 
time, we propose not to authorize additional takes for these sources 
for the action. We are currently evaluating the broader use of these 
types of sources to determine under what specific circumstances 
coverage for incidental take would or would not be advisable. We are 
working on guidance that would outline a consistent recommended 
approach for applicants to address the potential impacts of these types 
of sources.
    We considered the probability for entanglement of marine mammals to 
be low because of the vessel speed and the

[[Page 44573]]

monitoring efforts onboard the survey vessel. Lamont-Doherty has no 
recorded cases of entanglement of marine mammals during their conduct 
of over 10 years of seismic surveys. Therefore, we do not believe it is 
necessary to authorize additional takes for entanglement at this time.
    There is no evidence that planned activities could result in 
serious injury or mortality within the specified geographic area for 
the requested Authorization. The required mitigation and monitoring 
measures would minimize any potential risk for serious injury or 
mortality.
    The following sections describe Lamont-Doherty's methods to 
estimate take by incidental harassment. Lamont-Doherty based their 
estimates on the number of marine mammals that could be harassed by 
seismic operations with the airgun array during approximately 6,350 km 
(3,946 mi) of transect lines in the Atlantic Ocean.
    Ensonified Area Calculations: In order to estimate the potential 
number of marine mammals exposed to airgun sounds, Lamont-Doherty 
considers the total marine area within the 160-dB radius around the 
operating airguns. This ensonified area includes areas of overlapping 
transect lines. They determine the ensonified area by entering the 
planned survey lines into a MapInfo GIS, using the software to identify 
the relevant areas by ``drawing'' the applicable 160-dB buffer (see 
Table 3) around each seismic line, and then calculating the total area 
within the buffers.
    For this survey, Lamont-Doherty assumes that the Langseth will not 
need to repeat some tracklines, accommodate the turning of the vessel, 
address equipment malfunctions, or conduct equipment testing to 
complete the survey. They propose not to increase the proposed number 
of line-kilometers for the seismic operations by 25 percent to account 
for these contingency operations. The revised total ensonified area is 
approximately 41,170 km\2\ (15,896 mi\2\) a 36.4 percent reduction in 
the total ensonified area that Lamont-Doherty proposed in their 
application.
    Exposure Estimates: Lamont-Doherty calculates the numbers of 
different individuals potentially exposed to approximately 160 dB re: 1 
[micro]Pa by multiplying the expected species density estimates 
(number/km\2\) for that area in the absence of a seismic program times 
the estimated area of ensonification (i.e., 41,170 km\2\; 15,896 
mi\2\).
    Table 3 of their application presents their original estimates of 
the number of different individual marine mammals that could 
potentially experience exposures greater than or equal to 160 dB re: 1 
[mu]Pa during the seismic survey if no animals moved away from the 
survey vessel. Lamont-Doherty used the Strategic Environmental Research 
and Development Program's (SERDP) spatial decision support system 
(SDSS) Marine Animal Model Mapper tool (Read et al. 2009) to calculate 
cetacean densities within the survey area based on the U.S. Navy's 
``OPAREA Density Estimates'' (NODE) model (DoN, 2007). The NODE model 
derives density estimates using density surface modeling of the 
existing line-transect data, which uses sea surface temperature, 
chlorophyll a, depth, longitude, and latitude to allow extrapolation to 
areas/seasons where marine mammal survey data collection did not occur. 
Lamont-Doherty used the SERDP SDSS tool to obtain mean densities in a 
polygon the size of the seismic survey area for the cetacean species 
during the fall (September through November).
    For the proposed Authorization, we have reviewed Lamont-Doherty's 
take estimates presented in Table 3 of their application and have 
revised take calculations for some species based upon the best 
available density information from SERDP SDSS and other sources noted 
in the footnote section for Table 3. These include takes for North 
Atlantic right, fin, blue, Bryde's, and sei whales; and the Southern 
Migratory Coastal, Southern North Carolina Estuarine System, and 
Northern North Carolina Estuarine System stocks of bottlenose dolphins. 
Table 5 presents the revised estimates of the possible numbers of 
marine mammals exposed to sound levels greater than or equal to 160 dB 
re: 1 [mu]Pa during the proposed seismic survey.

 Table 4--Densities and Estimates of the Possible Numbers of Marine Mammals Exposed to Sound Levels Greater Than
   or Equal to 160 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa During the Proposed Seismic Survey in the Atlantic Ocean, September Through
                                                  October 2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Modeled number
                                   Density      of individuals                    Percent of
           Species               estimate \1\     exposed to     Proposed take    species or    Population trend
                               (/1000   sound levels    authorization     stock \3\           \4\
                                    sq km)       >=160 dB \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Atlantic right whale...  Entire area--                 0           \5\ 5            1.10  Increasing.
                                0.1 \5\.
Humpback whale...............  0.73, 0.56,                  38              38            4.62  Increasing.
                                1.06.
Minke whale..................  0.03, 0.02,                   1               1           0.005  No data.
                                0.04.
Sei whale....................  Entire area--                 0          \5\ 21            5.88  No data.
                                0.489 \5\.
Fin whale....................  Entire area--                 1          \5\ 11            0.31  No data.
                                0.26 \5\.
Blue whale...................  Entire area--                 0           \5\ 2            0.45  No data.
                                0.036 \5\.
Bryde's whale................  Entire area--                 0          \5\ 18            0.16  No data.
                                0.429 \5\.
Sperm whale..................  0.03, 0.68,                  91              91            5.71  No data.
                                3.23.
Dwarf sperm whale............  0.64, 0.49,                  33              33            0.87  No data.
                                0.93.
Pygmy sperm whale............  0.64, 0.49,                  33              33            0.87  No data.
                                0.93.
Cuvier's beaked whale........  0.01, 0.14,                  17              17            0.24  No data.
                                0.58.
Blainville's beaked whale....  0.01, 0.14,                  17              17            0.24  No data.
                                0.58.
Gervais' beaked whale........  0.01, 0.14,                  17              17            0.24  No data.
                                0.58.
True's beaked whale..........  0.01, 0.14,                  17              17            0.24  No data.
                                0.58.
Rough-toothed dolphin........  0.30, 0.23,                  16              16            5.90  No data.
                                0.44.
Bottlenose dolphin (Offshore)  70.4, 331, 49.4           3,383           3,383            4.36  No data.
Bottlenose dolphin (SMC).....  70.4, 0, 0.....             685             685            7.05  No data.
Bottlenose dolphin (SNCES)...  70.4, 0, 0.....           \6\ 1               1            0.53  No data.
Bottlenose dolphin (NNCES)...  70.4, 0, 0.....           \6\ 1               1            0.11  No data.
Pantropical spotted dolphin..  14, 10.7, 20.4.             737             737           22.11  No data.
Atlantic spotted dolphin.....  216.5, 99.7,              4,632           4,632           10.36  No data.
                                77.4.

[[Page 44574]]

 
Spinner dolphin..............  0, 0, 0........               0               0               0  No data.
Striped dolphin..............  0, 0.4, 3.53...              98              98            0.18  No data.
Clymene dolphin..............  6.7, 5.12, 9.73             352             352            5.78  No data.
Short-beaked common dolphin..  5.8, 138.7,               1,343           1,343            0.77  No data.
                                26.4.
Atlantic white-sided dolphin.  0, 0, 0........               0               0               0  No data.
Fraser's dolphin.............  0, 0, 0........               0               0               0  No data.
Risso's dolphin..............  1.18, 4.28,                  88              88            0.48  No data.
                                2.15.
Melon-headed whale...........  0, 0, 0........               0               0               0  No data.
False killer whale...........  0, 0, 0........               0               0               0  No data.
Pygmy killer whale...........  0, 0, 0........               0               0               0  No data.
Killer whale.................  0, 0, 0........               0               0               0  No data.
Long-finned pilot whale......  3.74, 58.9,                 799             799            3.01  No data.
                                19.1.
Short-finned pilot whale.....  3.74, 58.9,                 799             799            3.71  No data.
                                19.1.
Harbor porpoise..............  0, 0, 0........               0               0               0  No data.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Except where noted, densities are the mean values for the shallow (<100 m), intermediate (100-1,000 m), and
  deep (>1,000 m) water stratum in the survey area calculated from the SERDP SDSS NODES summer model (Read et
  al., 2009) as presented in Table 3 of Lamont-Doherty's application.
\2\ Modeled take in this table corresponds to the total modeled take over all depth ranges shown in Table 3 of
  Lamont-Doherty's application. See Table 3 of their application for their original take estimates by shallow,
  intermediate, and deep strata. See the addendum to their application for revised take estimates based on
  modifications to the tracklines to reduce the total ensonified area by 36.4 percent (i.e., 41,170 km\2\;
  15,896 mi\2\).
\3\ Table 1 in this notice lists the stock species abundance estimates used in calculating the percentage of
  species/stock.
\4\ Population trend information from Waring et al., 2013. No data = Insufficient data to determine population
  trend.
\5\ Density data derived from the Navy's NMSDD. Increases for group size based on pers. com. with Dr. Caroline
  Good (2014) and Mr. McLellan (2014) on large whale presence offshore NC.
\6\ Modeled estimate includes the area that is less than 3 km from shore ensonified to greater than or equal to
  160 dB (10 km\2\ total).

Encouraging and Coordinating Research

    Lamont-Doherty would coordinate the planned marine mammal 
monitoring program associated with the seismic survey in the Atlantic 
Ocean with applicable U.S. agencies.

Analysis and Preliminary Determinations

Negligible Impact

    As explained previously, we have defined the term ``negligible 
impact'' to mean ``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). The lack of likely 
adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., 
population level effects) forms the basis of a negligible impact 
finding. Thus, 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.), 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, 
and the number of estimated mortalities, effects on habitat, and the 
status of the species.
    In making a negligible impact determination, we consider:
     The number of anticipated injuries, serious injuries, or 
mortalities;
     The number, nature, and intensity, and duration of Level B 
harassment; and
     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);
     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);
     Impacts on habitat affecting rates of recruitment/
survival; and
     The effectiveness of monitoring and mitigation measures to 
reduce the number or severity of incidental take.
    For reasons stated previously in this document and based on the 
following factors, Lamont-Doherty's specified activities are not likely 
to cause long-term behavioral disturbance, permanent threshold shift, 
or other non-auditory injury, serious injury, or death. They include:
     The anticipated impacts of Lamont-Doherty's survey 
activities on marine mammals are temporary behavioral changes due to 
avoidance of the area.
     The likelihood that marine mammals approaching the survey 
area will likely be traveling through or opportunistically foraging 
within the vicinity. Marine mammals transiting within the vicinity of 
survey operations will be transient as no breeding, calving, pupping, 
or nursing areas, or haul-outs, overlap with the survey area.
     The low likelihood that North Atlantic right whales would 
be exposed to sound levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa 
due to the requirement that the Langseth crew must shutdown the 
airgun(s) immediately if observers detect this species, at any distance 
from the vessel.
     The likelihood that, given sufficient notice through 
relatively slow ship speed, we expect marine mammals to move away from 
a noise source that is annoying prior to its becoming potentially 
injurious;
     The availability of alternate areas of similar habitat 
value for marine mammals to temporarily vacate the

[[Page 44575]]

survey area during the operation of the airgun(s) to avoid acoustic 
harassment;
     Our expectation that the seismic survey would have no more 
than a temporary and minimal adverse effect on any fish or invertebrate 
species that serve as prey species for marine mammals, and the 
potential impacts to marine mammal habitat minimal;
     The relatively low potential for temporary or permanent 
hearing impairment and the likelihood that Lamont-Doherty would avoid 
this impact through the incorporation of the required monitoring and 
mitigation measures (including power-downs and shutdowns); and
     The likelihood that marine mammal detection ability by 
trained visual observers is high at close proximity to the vessel.
    NMFS does not anticipate that any injuries, serious injuries, or 
mortalities would occur as a result of the Observatory's proposed 
activities, and NMFS does not propose to authorize injury, serious 
injury, or mortality at this time. We anticipate only behavioral 
disturbance to occur primarily in the form of avoidance behavior to the 
sound source during the conduct of the survey activities. Further, the 
additional mitigation measure requiring Lamont-Doherty to increase the 
size of the Level A harassment exclusion zones in shallow water will 
effect the least practicable impact marine mammals.
    Table 5 in this document outlines the number of requested Level B 
harassment takes that we anticipate as a result of these activities. 
NMFS anticipates that 24 marine mammal species (7 mysticetes and 17 
odontocetes) would likely occur in the proposed action area. Of the 
marine mammal species under our jurisdiction that are known to occur or 
likely to occur in the study area, six of these species are listed as 
endangered under the ESA and depleted under the MMPA, including: The 
North Atlantic, blue, fin, humpback, sei, and sperm whales.
    Due to the nature, degree, and context of Level B (behavioral) 
harassment anticipated and described (see ``Potential Effects on Marine 
Mammals'' section in this notice), we do not expect the activity to 
impact rates of recruitment or survival for any affected species or 
stock. In addition, the seismic surveys would not take place in areas 
of significance for marine mammal feeding, resting, breeding, or 
calving and would not adversely impact marine mammal habitat, including 
the identified habitats for North Atlantic right whales and their 
calves.
    Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting, 
traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (i.e., 24 hour 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 we anticipate 
that the seismic operations would occur on consecutive days, the 
estimated duration of the survey would last no more than 30 days. 
Specifically, the airgun array moves continuously over 10s of 
kilometers daily, as do the animals, making it unlikely that the same 
animals would be continuously exposed over multiple consecutive days. 
Additionally, the seismic survey would increase 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, and some animals may only be exposed to and harassed by 
sound for less than a day.
    In summary, we expect marine mammals to avoid the survey area, 
thereby reducing the risk of exposure and impacts. We do not anticipate 
disruption to reproductive behavior and there is no anticipated effect 
on annual rates of recruitment or survival of affected marine mammals. 
Based on this notice's analysis of the likely effects of the specified 
activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into 
consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and 
mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that Lamont-Doherty's 
proposed seismic survey would have a negligible impact on the affected 
marine mammal species or stocks.

Small Numbers

    As mentioned previously, we estimate that Lamont-Doherty's 
activities could potentially affect, by Level B harassment only, 24 
species of marine mammals under our jurisdiction. For each species, 
these estimates constitute small numbers relative to the population 
size. We have provided the population estimates for the marine mammal 
species that may be taken by Level B harassment in Table 5 in this 
notice. 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, we find that Lamont-Doherty's proposed activity would take 
small numbers of marine mammals relative to the populations of the 
affected species or stocks.

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

    There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated 
by this action.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    There are six marine mammal species that may occur in the proposed 
survey area, several are listed as endangered under the Endangered 
Species Act, including the blue, fin, humpback, north Atlantic right, 
sei, and sperm whales. Under section 7 of the ESA, the Foundation has 
initiated formal consultation with NMFS on the proposed seismic survey. 
NMFS (i.e., National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected 
Resources, Permits and Conservation Division) will also consult 
internally with NMFS on the proposed issuance of an Authorization under 
section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA. NMFS and the Foundation will conclude 
the consultation prior to a determination on the issuance of the 
Authorization.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    The Foundation has prepared a draft EA titled ``Draft Environmental 
Assessment of a Marine Geophysical Survey by the R/V Marcus G. Langseth 
in the Atlantic Ocean off Cape Hatteras, September-October 2014'' which 
we have posted on our Web site concurrently with the publication of 
this notice. We will independently evaluate the Foundation's draft EA 
and determine whether or not to adopt it or prepare a separate NEPA 
analysis and incorporate relevant portions of the Foundation's draft EA 
by reference. We will review all comments submitted in response to this 
notice to complete the NEPA process prior to making a final decision on 
the Authorization request.

Proposed Authorization

    As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes 
issuing an Authorization to Lamont-Doherty for conducting a seismic 
survey in the Atlantic Ocean offshore Cape Hatteras, NC September 15, 
2014 through October 31, 2014, provided they incorporate the previously 
mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements.

Draft Proposed Authorization

    This section contains the draft text for the proposed 
Authorization. NMFS proposes to include this language in the 
Authorization if issued.

[[Page 44576]]

Incidental Harassment Authorization

    We hereby authorize the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (Lamont-
Doherty), Columbia University, P.O. Box 1000, 61 Route 9W, Palisades, 
New York 10964-8000, under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)) and 50 CFR 216.107, to 
incidentally harass small numbers of marine mammals incidental to a 
marine geophysical survey conducted by the R/V Marcus G. Langseth 
(Langseth) marine geophysical survey in the Atlantic Ocean offshore 
Cape Hatteras, NC September through October, 2014.
1. Effective Dates
    This Authorization is valid from September 15 through October 31, 
2014.
2. Specified Geographic Region
    This Authorization is valid only for specified activities 
associated with the R/V Marcus G. Langseth's (Langseth) seismic 
operations as specified in Lamont-Doherty's Incidental Harassment 
Authorization (Authorization) application and environmental analysis in 
the following specified geographic area:
    a. In the Atlantic Ocean bounded by the following coordinates: in 
the Atlantic Ocean, approximately 17 to 422 kilometers (km) (10 to 262 
miles (mi)) off the coast of Cape Hatteras, NC between approximately 
32-37[deg] N and approximately 71.5-77[deg] W, as specified in Lamont-
Doherty's application and the National Science Foundation's EA.
3. Species Authorized and Level of Takes
    a. This authorization limits the incidental taking of marine 
mammals, by Level B harassment only, to the species listed in Table 5 
of this notice in the area described in Condition 2(a):
    i. During the seismic activities, if the Holder of this 
Authorization encounters any marine mammal species that are not listed 
in Condition 3 for authorized taking and are likely to be exposed to 
sound pressure levels greater than or equal to 160 decibels (dB) re: 1 
[mu]Pa, then the Holder must alter speed or course or shut-down the 
airguns to avoid take.
    b. This Authorization prohibits the taking by injury (Level A 
harassment), serious injury, or death of any of the species listed in 
Condition 3 or the taking of any kind of any other species of marine 
mammal. Thus, it may result in the modification, suspension or 
revocation of this Authorization.
    c. This Authorization limits the methods authorized for taking by 
Level B harassment to the following acoustic sources without an 
amendment to this Authorization:
    i. an airgun array with a total capacity of 6,600 in\3\ (or 
smaller);
    ii. a multi-beam echosounder;
    iii. a sub-bottom profiler; and
    iv. an acoustic Doppler current profiler.
4. Reporting Prohibited Take
    The Holder of this Authorization must report the taking of any 
marine mammal in a manner prohibited under this Authorization 
immediately to the Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
Fisheries Service, at 301-427-8401 and/or by email to 
[email protected] and [email protected].
5. Cooperation
    We require the Holder of this Authorization to cooperate with the 
Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, and 
any other Federal, state or local agency monitoring the impacts of the 
activity on marine mammals.
6. Mitigation and Monitoring Requirements
    We require the Holder of this Authorization to implement the 
following mitigation and monitoring requirements when conducting the 
specified activities to achieve the least practicable adverse impact on 
affected marine mammal species or stocks:
Visual Observers
    a. Utilize two, National Marine Fisheries Service-qualified, 
vessel-based Protected Species Visual Observers (visual observers) to 
watch for and monitor marine mammals near the seismic source vessel 
during daytime airgun operations (from civil twilight-dawn to civil 
twilight-dusk) and before and during start-ups of airguns day or night.
    i. At least one visual observer will be on watch during meal times 
and restroom breaks.
    ii. Observer shifts will last no longer than four hours at a time.
    iii. Visual observers will also conduct monitoring while the 
Langseth crew deploy and recover the airgun array and streamers from 
the water.
    iv. When feasible, visual observers will conduct observations 
during daytime periods when the seismic system is not operating for 
comparison of sighting rates and behavioral reactions during, between, 
and after airgun operations.
    v. The Langseth's vessel crew will also assist in detecting marine 
mammals, when practicable. Visual observers will have access to reticle 
binoculars (7x50 Fujinon), and big-eye binoculars (25x150).
Exclusion Zones
    b. Establish a 180-dB exclusion zone (with buffer) before starting 
the airgun subarray (6,600 in\3\ or smaller); and a 180-dB exclusion 
zone (with buffer) for the single airgun (40 in\3\). Observers will use 
the predicted radius distance for the 180-dB exclusion zone (with 
buffer).
Visual Monitoring at the Start of Airgun Operations
    c. Monitor the entire extent of the zones for at least 30 minutes 
(day or night) prior to the ramp-up of airgun operations after a 
shutdown.
    d. Delay airgun operations if the visual observer sees a cetacean 
within the 180-dB exclusion zone (with buffer) until the marine 
mammal(s) has left the area.
    i. If the visual observer sees a marine mammal that surfaces, then 
dives below the surface, the observer shall wait 30 minutes. If the 
observer sees no marine mammals during that time, he/she should assume 
that the animal has moved beyond the 180-dB exclusion zone (with 
buffer).
    ii. If for any reason the visual observer cannot see the full 180-
dB exclusion zone (with buffer) for the entire 30 minutes (i.e., rough 
seas, fog, darkness), or if marine mammals are near, approaching, or 
within zone, the Langseth may not resume airgun operations.
    iii. If one airgun is already running at a source level of at least 
180 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa, the Langseth may start the second gun-and 
subsequent airguns-without observing relevant exclusion zones for 30 
minutes, provided that the observers have not seen any marine mammals 
near the relevant exclusion zones (in accordance with Condition 6(b)).
Passive Acoustic Monitoring
    e. Utilize the passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) system, to the 
maximum extent practicable, to detect and allow some localization of 
marine mammals around the Langseth during all airgun operations and 
during most periods when airguns are not operating. One visual observer 
and/or bioacoustician will monitor the PAM at all times in shifts no 
longer than 6 hours. A bioacoustician shall design and set up the PAM 
system and be present to operate or oversee PAM, and available when 
technical issues occur during the survey.
    f. Do and record the following when an observer detects an animal 
by the PAM:

[[Page 44577]]

    i. notify the visual observer immediately of a vocalizing marine 
mammal so a power-down or shut-down can be initiated, if required;
    ii. enter the information regarding the vocalization into a 
database. The data to be entered include an acoustic encounter 
identification number, whether it was linked with a visual sighting, 
date, time when first and last heard and whenever any additional 
information was recorded, position, and water depth when first 
detected, bearing if determinable, species or species group (e.g., 
unidentified dolphin, sperm whale), types and nature of sounds heard 
(e.g., clicks, continuous, sporadic, whistles, creaks, burst pulses, 
strength of signal, etc.), and any other notable information.
Ramp-Up Procedures
    g. Implement a ``ramp-up'' procedure when starting the airguns at 
the beginning of seismic operations or anytime after the entire array 
has been shutdown, which means start the smallest gun first and add 
airguns in a sequence such that the source level of the array will 
increase in steps not exceeding approximately 6 dB per 5-minute period. 
During ramp-up, the observers will monitor the exclusion zone, and if 
marine mammals are sighted, a course/speed alteration, power-down, or 
shutdown will be implemented as though the full array were operational.
Recording Visual Detections
    h. Visual observers must record the following information when they 
have sighted a marine mammal:
    i. Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable), 
behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, heading (if 
consistent), bearing and distance from seismic vessel, sighting cue, 
apparent reaction to the airguns or vessel (e.g., none, avoidance, 
approach, paralleling, etc., and including responses to ramp-up), and 
behavioral pace; and
    ii. Time, location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel 
(including number of airguns operating and whether in state of ramp-up 
or shut-down), Beaufort sea state and wind force, visibility, and sun 
glare; and
    iii. The data listed under 6(f)(ii) 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.
Speed or Course Alteration
    i. Alter speed or course during seismic operations if a marine 
mammal, based on its position and relative motion, appears likely to 
enter the relevant exclusion zone. If speed or course alteration is not 
safe or practicable, or if after alteration the marine mammal still 
appears likely to enter the exclusion zone, the Holder of this 
Authorization will implement further mitigation measures, such as a 
shutdown.
Power-Down Procedures
    j. Power down the airguns if a visual observer detects a marine 
mammal within, approaching, or entering the relevant exclusion zones. A 
power-down means reducing the number of operating airguns to a single 
operating 40 in\3\ airgun. This would reduce the exclusion zone to the 
degree that the animal(s) is outside of it.
Resuming Airgun Operations After a Power-Down
    k. Following a power-down, if the marine mammal approaches the 
smaller designated exclusion zone, the airguns must then be completely 
shut-down. Airgun activity will not resume until the observer has 
visually observed the marine mammal(s) exiting the exclusion zone and 
is not likely to return, or has not been seen within the exclusion zone 
for 15 minutes for species with shorter dive durations (small 
odontocetes) or 30 minutes for species with longer dive durations 
(mysticetes and large odontocetes, including sperm, pygmy sperm, dwarf 
sperm, killer, and beaked whales).
    l. Following a power-down and subsequent animal departure, the 
Langseth may resume airgun operations at full power. Initiation 
requires that the observers can effectively monitor the full exclusion 
zones described in Condition 6(b). If the observer sees a marine mammal 
within or about to enter the relevant zones then the Langseth will 
implement a course/speed alteration, power-down, or shutdown.
Shutdown Procedures
    m. Shutdown the airgun(s) if a visual observer detects a marine 
mammal within, approaching, or entering the relevant exclusion zone. A 
shutdown means that the Langseth turns off all operating airguns.
    n. If a North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) is 
visually sighted, the airgun array will be shut-down regardless of the 
distance of the animal(s) to the sound source. The array will not 
resume firing until 30 minutes after the last documented whale visual 
sighting.
Resuming Airgun Operations After a Shutdown
    o. Following a shutdown, if the observer has visually confirmed 
that the animal has departed the 180-dB exclusion zone (with buffer) 
within a period of less than or equal to 8 minutes after the shutdown, 
then the Langseth may resume airgun operations at full power.
    p. Else, if the observer has not seen the animal depart the 180-dB 
exclusion zone (with buffer), the Langseth shall not resume airgun 
activity until 15 minutes has passed for species with shorter dive 
times (i.e., small odontocetes and pinnipeds) or 30 minutes has passed 
for species with longer dive durations (i.e., mysticetes and large 
odontocetes, including sperm, pygmy sperm, dwarf sperm, killer, and 
beaked whales). The Langseth will follow the ramp-up procedures 
described in Conditions 6(g).
Survey Operations
    q. The Langseth may continue marine geophysical surveys into night 
and low-light hours if the Holder of the Authorization initiates these 
segment(s) of the survey when the observers can view and effectively 
monitor the full relevant exclusion zones.
    r. This Authorization does not permit the Holder of this 
Authorization to initiate airgun array operations from a shut-down 
position at night or during low-light hours (such as in dense fog or 
heavy rain) when the visual observers cannot view and effectively 
monitor the full relevant exclusion zones.
    s. To the maximum extent practicable, the Holder of this 
Authorization should schedule seismic operations (i.e., shooting the 
airguns) during daylight hours.
    t. To the maximum extent practicable, plan to conduct seismic 
surveys (especially when near land) from the coast (inshore) and 
proceed towards the sea (offshore) in order to avoid trapping marine 
mammals in shallow water.
Mitigation Airgun
    u. The Langseth may operate a small-volume airgun (i.e., mitigation 
airgun) during turns and maintenance at approximately one shot per 
minute. The Langseth would not operate the small-volume airgun for 
longer than three hours in duration during turns. During turns or brief 
transits between seismic tracklines, one airgun would continue to 
operate.
7. Reporting Requirements
    This Authorization requires the Holder of this Authorization to:

[[Page 44578]]

    a. Submit a draft report on all activities and monitoring results 
to the Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service, within 90 days of the completion of the Langseth's cruise. 
This report must contain and summarize the following information:
    i. Dates, times, locations, heading, speed, weather, sea conditions 
(including Beaufort sea state and wind force), and associated 
activities during all seismic operations and marine mammal sightings;
    ii. Species, number, location, distance from the vessel, and 
behavior of any marine mammals, as well as associated seismic activity 
(number of shutdowns), observed throughout all monitoring activities.
    iii. An estimate of the number (by species) of marine mammals with 
known exposures to the seismic activity (based on visual observation) 
at received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa and/or 
180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa for cetaceans and a discussion of any specific 
behaviors those individuals exhibited.
    iv. An estimate of the number (by species) of marine mammals with 
estimated exposures (based on modeling results) to the seismic activity 
at received levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re: 1 [mu]Pa and/or 
180 dB re 1 [mu]Pa with a discussion of the nature of the probable 
consequences of that exposure on the individuals.
    v. A description of the implementation and effectiveness of the: 
(A) terms and conditions of the Biological Opinion's Incidental Take 
Statement; and (B) mitigation measures of the Incidental Harassment 
Authorization. For the Biological Opinion, the report will confirm the 
implementation of each Term and Condition, as well as any conservation 
recommendations, and describe their effectiveness, for minimizing the 
adverse effects of the action on Endangered Species Act listed marine 
mammals.
    b. Submit a final report to the Chief, Permits and Conservation 
Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service, within 30 days after receiving comments from us on the draft 
report. If we decide that the draft report needs no comments, we will 
consider the draft report to be the final report.
8. Reporting Prohibited Take
    In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly 
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner not permitted by the 
authorization (if issued), such as an injury, serious injury, or 
mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or entanglement), 
the Observatory shall immediately cease the specified activities and 
immediately report the take to the Incidental Take Program Supervisor, 
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 
at 301-427-8401 and/or by email to [email protected] and 
[email protected] and the Southeast Regional Stranding Coordinator at 
(305) 361-4586. 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).
    Lamont-Doherty shall not resume its activities until we are able to 
review the circumstances of the prohibited take. We shall work with 
Lamont-Doherty to determine what is necessary to minimize the 
likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. 
Lamont-Doherty may not resume their activities until notified by us via 
letter, email, or telephone.
9. Reporting an Injured or Dead Marine Mammal With an Unknown Cause of 
Death
    In the event that Lamont-Doherty discovers an injured or dead 
marine mammal, and the lead visual observer 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 as we describe in 
the next paragraph), Lamont-Doherty will immediately report the 
incident to the Incidental Take Program Supervisor, Permits and 
Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-
8401 and/or by email to [email protected] and [email protected] 
and the Southeast Regional Stranding Coordinator at (305) 361-4586. The 
report must include the same information identified in the paragraph 
above this section. Activities may continue while we review the 
circumstances of the incident. We would work with Lamont-Doherty to 
determine whether modifications in the activities are appropriate.
10. Reporting an Injured or Dead Marine Mammal Unrelated to the 
Activities
    In the event that Lamont-Doherty discovers an injured or dead 
marine mammal, and the lead visual observer determines that the injury 
or death is not associated with or related to the authorized activities 
(e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced 
decomposition, or scavenger damage), Lamont-Doherty would report the 
incident to the Incidental Take Program Supervisor, Permits and 
Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-
8401 and/or by email to [email protected] and [email protected] 
and the Southeast Regional Stranding Coordinator at (305) 361-4586, 
within 24 hours of the discovery. Lamont-Doherty would provide 
photographs or video footage (if available) or other documentation of 
the stranded animal sighting to NMFS.
11. Endangered Species Act Biological Opinion and Incidental Take 
Statement
    The Observatory is required to comply with the Terms and Conditions 
of the Incidental Take Statement corresponding to the Endangered 
Species Act Biological Opinion issued to the National Science 
Foundation and NMFS' Office of Protected Resources, Permits and 
Conservation Division. A copy of this Authorization and the Incidental 
Take Statement must be in the possession of all contractors and 
protected species observers operating under the authority of this 
Incidental Harassment Authorization.

Request for Public Comments

    We request comments on our analysis and the draft authorization 
proposed Authorization for Lamont-Doherty's activities. Please include 
any supporting data or literature citations with your comments to help 
inform our final decision on Lamont-Doherty's request for an Incidental 
Harassment Authorization.

    Dated: July 25, 2014.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-17998 Filed 7-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P