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


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XD256


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

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

[[Page 60812]]

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

Summary of Request

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

Description of the Specified Activity

Overview

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

Dates and Duration

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

Specified Geographic Region

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

Detailed Description of the Specified Activity

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

[[Page 60813]]

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

[[Page 60814]]

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

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

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

Comments and Responses

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

[[Page 60815]]

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

[[Page 60816]]

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

[[Page 60817]]

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

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

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

[[Page 60818]]

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

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

[[Page 60819]]

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

[[Page 60820]]

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

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

Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals

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

[[Page 60821]]

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

Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat

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

Mitigation

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

[[Page 60822]]



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

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

[[Page 60823]]

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

Mitigation Conclusions

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

Monitoring and Reporting

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

[[Page 60824]]

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

Monitoring

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

Vessel-Based Visual Monitoring

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

PSO Data and Documentation

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

[[Page 60825]]

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

Reporting

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

Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment

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

[[Page 60826]]



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

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

[[Page 60827]]

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

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

[[Page 60828]]

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

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

[[Page 60829]]

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

Encouraging and Coordinating Research

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

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

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

Analysis and Determinations

Negligible Impact

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

[[Page 60830]]

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

Small Numbers

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

[[Page 60831]]

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

Endangered Species Act

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

National Environmental Policy Act

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

Authorization

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

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