[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 18, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46181-46199]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17683]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XB140]


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to a Geophysical Survey in the Arctic 
Ocean

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

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given 
that NMFS has issued an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to 
the

[[Page 46182]]

University of Alaska Geophysics Institute (UAGI) to incidentally 
harass, by Level B harassment, marine mammals during geophysical 
surveys in the Arctic Ocean. This project is funded by the National 
Science Foundation (NSF).

DATES: This Authorization is effective for one year, from August 11, 
2021 through August 10, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim Corcoran, Office of Protected 
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application 
and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in 
this document, may be obtained online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act. In case of problems accessing these 
documents please call the contact listed above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The MMPA prohibits the ``take'' of marine mammals, with certain 
exceptions. sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 
et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to 
allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of 
small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a 
specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified 
geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations 
are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a 
proposed incidental take authorization may be provided to the public 
for review.
    Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or 
stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses 
(where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods 
of taking and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse 
impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying 
particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar 
significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for 
taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as 
``mitigation''); and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and 
reporting of the takings.
    The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above 
are included in the relevant sections below.

Summary of Request

    On February 12, 2021, NMFS received a request from UAGI for an IHA 
to take marine mammals incidental to a geophysical survey in the Arctic 
Ocean. The application was deemed adequate and complete on April 6, 
2021. UAGI's request is for take of 13 species of marine mammals, by 
Level B harassment only. No Level A harassment is anticipated. Neither 
UAGI nor NMFS expects serious injury or mortality to result from this 
activity. Therefore, an IHA is appropriate.

Description of Proposed Activity

Overview

    Researchers at UAGI, with funding from NSF, plan to conduct a 
seismic survey from the Research Vessel (R/V) Sikuliaq in the Arctic 
Ocean to document the structure and stratigraphy of the Chukchi 
Borderland and adjacent Canada basin (see Figure 1). The proposed 
activity is planned to take place in late summer 2021 (August/
September) with a total of 30 days of data acquisition. The survey will 
include both high-energy and low-energy components. High-energy ocean 
bottom seismometer (OBS) refraction surveys will use a 6-airgun, 3,120 
cubic inch (in\3\) array and consist of ~12 percent of total survey 
effort (henceforth referred to as high-energy survey). Low-energy 
multi-channel seismic (MCS) reflection surveys will use a 2-airgun 
array with a total discharge volume of 1040 in\3\ and consist of ~88 
percent of total survey effort (henceforth referred to as low-energy 
survey).

Dates and Duration

    The activity will occur between August and September, 2021. The 
activity is planned to occur for 45 days total, with ~30 days dedicated 
to seismic data acquisition (with 24-hours a day operations), ~8 days 
devoted to transit and 7 days used for equipment deployment and 
recovery.

Specific Geographic Region

    The surveys will occur within ~73.5-81.0[deg] N, ~139.5-168[deg] W 
(>=300 kilometer (km) north of Utqia[gdot]vik). Representative survey 
track lines can be seen in Figure 1. Some deviation in track lines, 
including the order of survey operations, could be necessary for 
reasons such as science drivers, poor data quality, inclement weather, 
or mechanical issues with the research vessel and/or equipment. Thus, 
the track lines could occur anywhere within the coordinates noted above 
and within the study area. Four percent of the surveys will occur 
within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) with the remaining part 
of the survey occurring beyond the EEZ. The activity will take place in 
depths ranging from 200-4,000 meters (m). The R/V Sikuliaq would likely 
leave from and return to Nome, AK.
    The low-energy survey activity will begin ~300 km from the Alaska 
coastline (North of Utqiagvik) and extend ~800 km north from the 
initial survey site (i.e., the survey would occur ~300-1,100 km from 
the Alaska coastline). The high-energy survey activity will only occur 
~530 km from the coastline and occur only in the northeastern part of 
the survey area (See Figure 1). Eighty percent of the total survey will 
occur in deep waters (>1,000 m) with the remainder of the survey 
occurring in intermediate depth waters (100-1,000m); no surveying will 
occur in waters <100 m deep. All high-energy surveys (680 km total) 
will occur in deep waters, while 67 percent of low-energy surveys will 
occur in deep waters (3,981 km). The remainder of low-energy surveys 
(1,189 km or 23 percent) will occur in intermediate depth waters.
    A detailed description of the planned geophysical survey project is 
provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (86 FR 
28787; May 28, 2021). Since that time, no changes have been made to the 
planned survey activities. Therefore, a detailed description is not 
provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for the 
description of the specified activity.
    Mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in 
detail later in this document (please see Mitigation and Monitoring and 
Reporting).
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 46183]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN18AU21.169

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

Comments and Responses

    A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to UAGI was published in 
the Federal Register on May 28, 2021 (86 FR 28787). That notice 
described, in detail, UAGI's proposed activity, the marine mammal 
species that may be affected by the activity, and the anticipated 
effects on marine mammals. NMFS received a letter from the Alaska 
Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC), which was the only comment received 
for this project. The letter noted that AEWC does not oppose UAGI's 
project but expressed concern regarding NMFS' decision not to subject 
the associated monitoring plan to independent peer review prior to 
making a decision regarding the requested IHA. In noting its concern, 
AEWC asserted that NMFS does not have discretion regarding whether to 
subject monitoring plans to peer review, stating that NMFS' discretion 
extends only to how it engages peer review. While NMFS agrees with 
AEWC's statement in cases where the proposed activity may affect the 
availability of a species or stock of marine mammals for taking for 
subsistence purposes, NMFS' determined the proposed activity will not 
affect the availability of any species or stock of marine mammals for 
taking for subsistence purposes. Therefore,

[[Page 46184]]

peer review of the monitoring plan is not required.
    NMFS' conclusion that UAGI's survey activity will not affect the 
availability of a species or stock of marine mammal for taking for 
subsistence purposes was based on the fact that the activity is a 
significant distance from shore and well beyond traditional hunting 
areas. The take UAGI requested will occur incidental to activities 
conducted well beyond 200 km from any hunting area or buffer. The 
survey will occur no closer than 300 km from the Alaska coastline, with 
the high-energy portion of the project occurring no closer than 530 km 
from the coastline. The maximum estimated harassment zone for the 
survey is 2.4 km and 4.65 km for the low-energy and high-energy survey 
portions, respectively. Therefore, any take from these activities will 
not directly interfere with the hunt. Furthermore, there is no 
information supporting a conclusion that any behavioral disturbance of 
bowhead whales occurring at such great distance from traditional 
hunting areas (300-500 km) would affect their subsequent behavior in a 
manner that would interfere with subsistence uses should those whales 
later interact with hunters. As stated above, based on the foregoing 
information, NMFS determined that the activity would not affect the 
availability of any species or stock for taking for subsistence 
purposes and, therefore, that peer review of the monitoring plan was 
not warranted. No changes have been made from the proposed IHA to the 
final IHA in response to comments.

Changes From the Proposed IHA to Final IHA

    Following the public comment period, NMFS identified an error in 
the calculation of bowhead whale density. The density value for bowhead 
whales described in the notice of proposed IHA (86 FR 28787; May 28, 
2021) (0.0124) was itself correct, but represents the number of 
individuals per 100 km\2\ rather than individuals per 1 km\2\, as was 
assumed for the proposed IHA. NMFS has corrected this error and, as a 
result, the authorized Level B harassment take number is reduced from 
339 to 3.
    Additionally, NMFS identified errors made when calculating the 
total take numbers proposed for authorization for all species due to 
use of incorrect estimated Level A harassment ensonified areas and 
double counting of estimated exposures within Level A harassment zones 
(i.e., estimated exposures were double counted as both Level B 
harassment takes and as independently estimated exposures within the 
Level A harassment zones, which were also tallied as takes by Level B 
harassment). These errors have been corrected, and the revised 
authorized take numbers are shown in Table 7. All revised take numbers 
are lower than those proposed for authorization (86 FR 28787; May 28, 
2021). Please refer to the Estimated Take section for further detail 
regarding this change.
    Lastly, we note a mistake in the proposed IHA that has since been 
corrected. One section of the proposed IHA (4(f)(iv)) described the 
shutdown mitigation measure for bowhead whales to be at any distance 
while the proposed FR notice and the rest of the proposed IHA stated 
this distance to be at 1,500 m. This has since been corrected for the 
final IHA and the shutdown area and the exclusion zone will be at 1,500 
m bowhead whales. Additionally, the requirement for bigeye binoculars 
has been removed as they are not available on board the R/V Sikuliaq.

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities

    Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information 
regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and 
behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. 
Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be 
found in NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments) and more general information about these species 
(e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS' 
website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species). Additional 
information may be found in the Aerial Survey of Arctic Marine Mammals 
(ASAMM) reports, which are available online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/marine-mammal-protection/aerial-surveys-arctic-marine-mammals.
    Table 1 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and 
authorized for this action, and summarizes information related to the 
population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and 
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological removal (PBR), 
where known. For taxonomy, we follow Committee on Taxonomy from the 
Society for Marine Mammalogy (2021). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the 
maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may 
be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to 
reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in 
NMFS's SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR 
and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are 
included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and 
other threats.
    Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document 
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or 
the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. 
NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total 
estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that 
comprise that stock. For most species, stock abundance estimates are 
based on sightings within the U.S. EEZ; however, for some species, this 
geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. Survey abundance 
estimates may be used for other species. Survey abundance (as compared 
to stock or species abundance) is the total number of individuals 
estimated within the survey area, which may or may not align completely 
with a stock's geographic range as defined in the SARs. These surveys 
may also extend beyond U.S. waters. In this case, the survey area 
outside of the U.S. EEZ does not necessarily overlap with the ranges 
for stocks managed by NMFS. However, we assume that individuals of 
these species that may be encountered during the survey would be part 
of those stocks. Additionally, six species listed in Table 1 indicate 
Unknown abundance estimates. This may be due to outdated data and 
population estimates or data is not representative of the entire stock.
    All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS' U.S. Alaska 
and Pacific SARs (e.g., Muto et al., 2021, Carretta et al., 2021). All 
values presented in Table 1 are the most recent available at the time 
of publication and are available in the 2020 SARs (Muto et al., 2021, 
Carretta et al., 2021) (available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports).
    In addition, the Pacific walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens) and 
the Polar bear (Ursus maritimus) may be found in the Arctic. However, 
Pacific walruses and Polar bears are managed by the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service and are not considered further in this document.

[[Page 46185]]



                                              Table 1--Marine Mammals Expected To Occur in the Survey Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         ESA/ MMPA status;   Stock abundance (CV,
             Common name                  Scientific name               Stock             strategic (Y/N)      Nmin, most recent       PBR     Annual M/
                                                                                                \1\          abundance survey) \2\               SI \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Eschrichtiidae:
    Gray whale......................  Eschrichtius robustus..  Eastern N Pacific......  -, -, N             26,960 (0.05, 25,849,         801        131
                                                                                                             2016).
Family Balaenidae:
    Bowhead whale...................  Balaena mysticetus.....  Western Arctic.........  E, D, Y             16,820................        161         56
                                                                                                            (0.052,16,100, 2011)..
Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals):
    Fin whale.......................  Balaenoptera physalus..  Northeast Pacific \4\ *  E, D, Y             Unknown...............        UND        0.6
    Humpback whale..................  Megaptera novaeangliae.  Western N Pacific *....  E, D, Y             1,107 (0.3, 865, 2006)          3        2.8
    Minke whale.....................  Balaenoptera             Alaska \4\ *...........  -, -, N             Unknown...............        UND          0
                                       acutorostrata.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae:
    Beluga whale....................  Delphinapterus leucas..  Beaufort Sea \4\.......  -, -, N             39,258 (0.229, N/A.           UND        104
                                                                                                             1992).
                                                               Eastern Chukchi........  -, -, N             13,305 (0.51, 8,875,          178         55
                                                                                                             2017).
    Killer whale....................  Orcinus orca...........  Alaska resident........  -, -, N             2,347 c (N/A, 2347,            24          1
                                                                                                             2012).
    Narwhal.........................  Monodon Monoceros......  Unidentified \4\ *.....  -, -, N             Unknown...............        UND          0
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
    Harbor Porpoise.................  Phocoena phocoena......  Bering Sea \4\ *.......  -, -, Y             Unknown...............        UND        0.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
    Bearded Seal....................  Erignathus barbatus....  Beringia \4\ *.........  T, D, Y             Unknown...............        UND      6,709
    Ribbon Seal.....................  Histriophoca fasciata..  Unidentified *.........  -, -, N             184,687 (see SAR,           9,785        163
                                                                                                             163,086, 2013).
    Ringed Seal.....................  Pusa hispida...........  Arctic.................  T, D, Y             Unknown...............      5,100      6,459
    Spotted Seal....................  Phoca largha...........  Bering.................  -, -, N             461,625 (see SAR,          25,394      5,254
                                                                                                             423,237, 2013).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Stocks marked with an asterisk are addressed in further detail in the text below.
\1\ Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed
  under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality
  exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed
  under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\2\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of
  stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. For most stocks of killer whales, the abundance values represent direct counts of individually
  identifiable animals; therefore there is only a single abundance estimate with no associated CV. For certain stocks of pinnipeds, abundance estimates
  are based upon observations of animals (often pups) ashore multiplied by some correction factor derived from knowledge of the species' (or similar
  species') life history to arrive at a best abundance estimate; therefore, there is no associated CV. In these cases, the minimum abundance may
  represent actual counts of all animals ashore.
\3\ These values, found in NMFS' 2020 SARs (Muto et al., 2021, Carretta et al., 2021), represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious
  injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, ship strike).
\4\ Abundance estimates for these stocks are not considered current. PBR is therefore considered undetermined for these stocks, as there is no current
  minimum abundance estimate for use in calculation. We nevertheless present the most recent abundance estimates, as these present the best available
  information for use in this document.

    As indicated above, all 13 species (with 14 managed stocks) in 
Table 1 could temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to 
the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur, and we have 
authorized it. All species that could potentially occur in the survey 
areas are included in Table 4 of the IHA application.
    A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by the 
geophysical survey, including brief introductions to the species and 
relevant stocks as well as available information regarding population 
trends and threats, and information regarding local occurrence, were 
provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (86 FR 
28787; May 28, 2021); since that time, we are not aware of any changes 
in the status of these species or stocks; therefore, detailed 
descriptions are not provided here. Please refer to that Federal 
Register notice for these descriptions. Please also refer to NMFS' 
website (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/) for generalized species 
accounts.

Unusual Mortality Events (UME)

    A UME is defined under the MMPA as ``a stranding that is 
unexpected; involves a significant die-off of any marine mammal 
population; and demands immediate response.'' For more information on 
UMEs, please visit: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-unusual-mortality-events. Currently recognized 
UMEs in Alaska involving species under NMFS' jurisdiction include those 
affecting ice seals in the Bering and Chukchi Seas, and gray whales. 
Since June 1, 2018, elevated strandings for bearded, ringed and spotted 
seals have occurred in the Bering and Chukchi seas in Alaska, with 
causes undetermined. As of August 5, 2021, there have been 357 recorded 
seal strandings. For more information, please visit: 
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/alaska/marine-life-distress/2018-2020-ice-seal-unusual-mortality-event-alaska.
    Since January 1, 2019, elevated gray whale strandings have occurred 
along the west coast of North America from Mexico through Alaska. As of 
August 5, 2021, there have been a total of 487 whales reported in the 
event, with approximately 225 dead whales in Mexico, 244 whales in the 
United States (including 108 in Alaska), and 18 whales in British 
Columbia, Canada. For the United States, the historical 18-year 5-month 
average (Jan-May) is 14.8 whales for this same time-period.

[[Page 46186]]

Several dead whales have been emaciated with moderate to heavy whale 
lice (cyamid) loads. Necropsies have been conducted on a subset of 
whales with additional findings of vessel strike in three whales and 
entanglement in one whale. In Mexico, 50-55 percent of the free-ranging 
whales observed in the lagoons in winter have been reported as 
``skinny'' compared to the annual average of 10-12 percent ``skinny'' 
whales normally seen. The cause of the UME is as yet undetermined. For 
more information, please visit: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2019-2020-gray-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-west-coast-and.

Marine Mammal Hearing

    Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals 
underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious 
effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to 
sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine 
mammals are able to hear. Current data indicate that not all marine 
mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., Richardson et 
al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect 
this, Southall et al., (2007) recommended that marine mammals be 
divided into functional hearing groups based on directly measured or 
estimated hearing ranges on the basis of available behavioral response 
data, audiograms derived using auditory evoked potential techniques, 
anatomical modeling, and other data. Note that no direct measurements 
of hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes 
(i.e., low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS' 2018 Revision to 
its Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound 
on Marine Mammal Hearing (Technical Guidance) (NMFS, 2018) described 
generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups. 
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65 
decibel (dB) threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with 
the exception for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the 
lower bound was deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower 
bound from Southall et al., (2007) retained. Marine mammal hearing 
groups and their associated hearing ranges are provided in Table 2.

                  Table 2--Marine Mammal Hearing Groups
                              [NMFS, 2018]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Hearing group                 Generalized hearing range *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans        7 Hz to 35 kHz.
 (baleen whales).
Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans        150 Hz to 160 kHz.
 (dolphins, toothed whales, beaked
 whales, bottlenose whales).
High-frequency (HF) cetaceans       275 Hz to 160 kHz.
 (true porpoises, Kogia, river
 dolphins, cephalorhynchid,
 Lagenorhynchus cruciger & L.
 australis).
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater)  50 Hz to 86 kHz.
 (true seals).
Otariid pinnipeds (OW)              60 Hz to 39 kHz.
 (underwater) (sea lions and fur
 seals).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a
  composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual
  species' hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized
  hearing range chosen based on ~65 dB threshold from normalized
  composite audiogram, with the exception for lower limits for LF
  cetaceans (Southall et al., 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation).

    The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et 
al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have 
consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing 
compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range 
(Hemil[auml] et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 
2013).
    For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency 
ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information. 
Thirteen marine mammal species (nine cetacean and four pinniped (all 
phocid) species) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with the 
survey activities. Please refer to Table 1. Of the cetacean species 
that may be present, five are classified as low-frequency cetaceans 
(i.e., all mysticete species), three are classified as mid-frequency 
cetaceans (i.e., all delphinid species), and one is classified as high-
frequency cetacean (i.e., harbor porpoise).

Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their 
Habitat

    Detailed descriptions of the potential effects of similar specified 
activities have been provided in other recent Federal Register notices, 
including for survey activities using the same methodology and over a 
similar amount of time, and affecting similar species (e.g., 83 FR 
29212, June 22, 2018; 84 FR 14200, April 9, 2019; 85 FR 19580, April 7, 
2020). Section VII of UAGI's application provides a comprehensive 
discussion of the potential effects of the survey. We have reviewed 
UAGI's application and believe it is accurate and complete. No 
significant new information is available. The effects of underwater 
noise from UAGI's geophysical survey have the potential to result in 
behavioral harassment of marine mammals in the vicinity of the action 
area. The Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (86 FR 28787; 
May 28, 2021) included a discussion of the effects of anthropogenic 
noise on marine mammals, therefore that information is not repeated 
here; please to the aforementioned notice for that information.
    The Estimated Take section includes a quantitative analysis of the 
number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. 
The Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section considers the 
potential effects of the specified activity, the Estimated Take 
section, and the Mitigation section, to draw conclusions regarding the 
likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive success or 
survivorship of individuals and how those impacts on individuals are 
likely to impact marine mammal species or stocks.

Description of Active Acoustic Sound Sources

    The notice of proposed IHA provided a brief technical background on 
sound, on the characteristics of certain sound types, and on metrics 
used in this proposal inasmuch as the information is relevant to the 
specified activity and to a discussion of the potential effects of the 
specified activity on marine mammals found later in this document. 
Please see that document (86 FR 28787; May 28, 2021) for additional 
information. For general information on sound and its interaction with 
the marine environment, please see, e.g., Au and Hastings (2008); 
Richardson et al. (1995); Urick (1983).

[[Page 46187]]

Estimated Take

    This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes 
for authorization through this IHA, which informed both NMFS' 
consideration of ``small numbers'' and the negligible impact 
determination.
    Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these 
activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent 
here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as any act of 
pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to injure a 
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal 
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, 
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 
feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
    Authorized takes will be by Level B harassment, as use of seismic 
airguns may result, either directly or as a result of TTS, in 
disruption of behavioral patterns of marine mammals. The mitigation and 
related monitoring measures are expected to minimize the severity of 
such taking to the extent practicable. Moreover, based on the nature of 
the activity and the anticipated effectiveness of the mitigation 
measures (i.e., implementation of extended shutdown distances for 
certain species)--discussed in detail below in the Mitigation section--
Level A harassment is neither anticipated nor authorized.
    As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or authorized 
for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated.
    Generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic 
thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science 
indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some 
degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water 
that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or 
occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) 
and the number of days of activities. We note that while these basic 
factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial 
prediction of takes, additional information that can qualitatively 
inform take estimates is also sometimes available (e.g., previous 
monitoring results or average group size). Below, we describe the 
factors considered here in more detail and present the take estimate.

Acoustic Thresholds

    NMFS recommends the use of acoustic thresholds that identify the 
received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals 
would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to 
Level B harassment) or to incur Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS) of some 
degree (equated to Level A harassment).
    Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources--Though significantly 
driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from 
anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by 
other factors related to the source (e.g., frequency, predictability, 
duty cycle), the environment (e.g., bathymetry), the receiving animals 
(hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral context), and 
the distance between the sound source and the animal, and can be 
difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2012). 
NMFS uses a generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to 
estimate the onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS predicts that marine 
mammals may be behaviorally harassed (i.e., Level B harassment) when 
exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above received levels 160 dB 
re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for the impulsive sources (i.e., seismic airguns) 
evaluated here.
    Level A harassment for non-explosive sources--NMFS' Technical 
Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 
Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0) (Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies dual 
criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five 
different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a 
result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources 
(impulsive or non-impulsive). UAGI's seismic survey includes the use of 
impulsive sources (seismic airgun).
    These thresholds are provided in Table 3 below. The references, 
analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are 
described in NMFS 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at 
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.

                     Table 3--Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Permanent Threshold Shift
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    PTS onset acoustic thresholds * (received level)
             Hearing group             -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Impulsive                          Non-impulsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans..........  Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219;     Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
                                         dB; LE,LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans..........  Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB;  Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
                                         LE,MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans.........  Cell 5 Lpk,flat: 202 dB;   Cell 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
                                         LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW).................  Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB;  Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
(Underwater)..........................   LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW)................  Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB;  Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
(Underwater)..........................   LE,OW,24h: 203 dB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for
  calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level
  thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should also be considered.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 [mu]Pa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has
  a reference value of 1[mu]Pa\2\s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National
  Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as incorporating
  frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ``flat'' is
  being included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized
  hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the
  designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and
  that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be
  exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it
  is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be
  exceeded.


[[Page 46188]]

Ensonified Area

    Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the 
activity that will feed into identifying the area ensonified above the 
acoustic thresholds, which include source levels and acoustic 
propagation modeling.
    The acoustic propagation modeling methodologies are described in 
greater detail in Appendix A of UAGI's IHA application. The survey will 
primarily acquire data using the 2-airgun array with a total discharge 
volume of 1,040 in\3\ and an approximately 15-second shot interval. 
During approximately 12 percent of the planned survey tracklines, the 
6-airgun, 3,120 in\3\ array will be used with a 60-second shot 
interval. All tracklines will be surveyed with a maximum tow depth of 9 
m. The modeling assumed an airgun firing pressure of 2,540 psi. 
Propagation modeling for UAGI's application follows the approach used 
by the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (L-DEO) for other, similar IHA 
applications. L-DEO uses ray tracing for the direct wave traveling from 
the array to the receiver and its associated source ghost (reflection 
at the air-water interface in the vicinity of the array), in a 
constant-velocity half-space (infinite homogeneous ocean layer, 
unbounded by a seafloor). To validate the model results, L-DEO measured 
propagation of pulses from a 36-airgun array at a tow depth of 6 m in 
the Gulf of Mexico, for deep water (~1,600 m), intermediate water depth 
on the slope (~600-1,100 m), and shallow water (~50 m) (Tolstoy et al., 
2009; Diebold et al., 2010).
    L-DEO collected a MCS data set from R/V Marcus G. Langseth (with 
the same 36-airgun array referenced above) on an 8 km streamer in 2012 
on the shelf of the Cascadia Margin off of Washington in water up to 
200 m deep that allowed Crone et al. (2014) to analyze the hydrophone 
streamer (>1,100 individual shots). These empirical data were then 
analyzed to determine in situ sound levels for shallow and upper 
intermediate water depths. These data suggest that modeled radii were 
2-3 times larger than the measured radii in shallow water. Similarly, 
data collected by Crone et al. (2017) during a survey off New Jersey in 
2014 and 2015 confirmed that in situ measurements collected by R/V 
Langseth hydrophone streamer were 2-3 times smaller than the predicted 
radii.
    L-DEO model results are used to determine the assumed radial 
distance to the 160-dB rms threshold for these arrays in deep water 
(>1,000 m) (down to a maximum water depth of 2,000 m) (see Table 4). 
Water depths in the project area may be up to 4,000 m, but marine 
mammals in the region are generally not anticipated to dive below 2,000 
m (Costa and Williams, 1999). The radii for intermediate water depths 
(100-1,000 m) are derived from the deep-water ones by applying a 
correction factor (multiplication) of 1.5. No survey effort will occur 
in water depths <100 m.
    The area expected to be ensonified was determined by entering the 
planned survey lines into a GIS and then ``buffering'' the lines by the 
applicable 160-dB distance (see Appendix B in IHA application). The 
resulting ensonified areas were then increased by 25 percent to allow 
for any necessary additional operations, such as re-surveying segments 
where data quality was insufficient. This approach assumes that no 
marine mammals would move away or toward the trackline in response to 
increasing sound levels before the levels reach the threshold as R/V 
Sikuliaq approaches.

         Table 4--Predicted Radial Distances to Isopleths Corresponding to Level B Harassment Threshold
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Level B
                      Source and volume                         Tow depth (m)    Water depth    harassment zone
                                                                                     (m)              (m)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 airgun array; 3,120 in\3\..................................               9          >1,000          \1\ 4,640
                                                                                    100-1,000          \3\ 6,960
2 airgun array; 1,040 in\3\..................................               9          >1,000          \1\ 1,604
                                                                                    100-1,000          \2\ 2,406
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Distance based on L-DEO model results.
\2\ Based on L-DEO model results with 1.5x correction factor applied.

    Predicted distances to Level A harassment isopleths, which vary 
based on marine mammal hearing groups, were calculated based on L-DEO 
modeling performed using the NUCLEUS source modeling software program 
and the NMFS User Spreadsheet, described below. The acoustic thresholds 
for impulsive sounds (e.g., airguns) contained in the Technical 
Guidance were presented as dual metric acoustic thresholds using both 
the cumulative sound exposure level) SELcum and peak sound 
pressure metrics (NMFS 2018). As dual metrics, NMFS considers onset of 
PTS (Level A harassment) to have occurred when either one of the two 
metrics is exceeded (i.e., metric resulting in the largest isopleth). 
The SELcum metric considers both level and duration of 
exposure, as well as auditory weighting functions by marine mammal 
hearing group. In recognition of the fact that the requirement to 
calculate Level A harassment ensonified areas could be more technically 
challenging to predict due to the duration component and the use of 
weighting functions in the new SELcum thresholds, NMFS 
developed an optional User Spreadsheet that includes tools to help 
predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with marine 
mammal density or occurrence to facilitate the estimation of take 
numbers.
    The values for SELcum and peak Sound Pressure Level 
(SPL) were derived from calculating the modified far-field signature. 
The farfield signature is often used as a theoretical representation of 
the source level. To compute the farfield signature, the source level 
is estimated at a large distance below the array (e.g., 9 km), and this 
level is back projected mathematically to a notional distance of 1 m 
from the array's geometrical center. However, when the source is an 
array of multiple airguns separated in space, the source level from the 
theoretical farfield signature is not necessarily the best measurement 
of the source level that is physically achieved at the source (Tolstoy 
et al., 2009). Near the source (at short ranges, distances <1 km), the 
pulses of sound pressure from each individual airgun in the source 
array do not stack constructively, as they do for the theoretical 
farfield signature. The pulses from the different airguns spread out in 
time such that the source levels observed or modeled are the result of 
the summation of pulses from a few airguns, not the full array (Tolstoy 
et al., 2009). At larger distances, away from

[[Page 46189]]

the source array center, sound pressure of all the airguns in the array 
stack coherently, but not within one time sample, resulting in smaller 
source levels (a few dB) than the source level derived from the 
farfield signature. Because the farfield signature does not take into 
account the large array effect near the source and is calculated as a 
point source, the modified farfield signature is a more appropriate 
measure of the sound source level for distributed sound sources, such 
as airgun arrays. The acoustic modeling methodology as used for 
estimating Level B harassment distances with a small grid step of 1 m 
in both the inline and depth directions. The propagation modeling takes 
into account all airgun interactions at short distances from the 
source, including interactions between subarrays, which are modeled 
using the NUCLEUS software to estimate the notional signature and 
MATLAB software to calculate the pressure signal at each mesh point of 
a grid.
    In order to more realistically incorporate the Technical Guidance's 
weighting functions over the seismic array's full acoustic band, 
unweighted spectrum data (modeled in 1 Hz bands) were used to make 
adjustments (dB) to the unweighted spectrum levels, by frequency, 
according to the weighting functions for each relevant marine mammal 
hearing group. These adjusted/weighted spectrum levels were then 
converted to pressures ([mu]Pa) in order to integrate them over the 
entire broadband spectrum, resulting in broadband weighted source 
levels by hearing group that could be directly incorporated within the 
User Spreadsheet (i.e., to override the Spreadsheet's more simple 
weighting factor adjustment). Using the User Spreadsheet's ``safe 
distance'' methodology for mobile sources (described by Sivle et al., 
2014) with the hearing group-specific weighted source levels, and 
inputs assuming spherical spreading propagation and source velocities 
and shot intervals specific to the planned survey, potential radial 
distances to auditory injury zones were then calculated for 
SELcum thresholds. For full detail of the modeling 
methodology used for estimating distance to Level A harassment peak 
pressure and cumulative SEL criteria, please see Appendix A of UAGI's 
application.
    Inputs to the User Spreadsheets in the form of estimated source 
levels are shown in Appendix A of UAGI's application. User Spreadsheets 
used by UAGI to estimate distances to Level A harassment isopleths for 
the airgun arrays are also provided in Appendix A of the application. 
Outputs from the User Spreadsheets in the form of estimated distances 
to Level A harassment isopleths for the survey are shown in Table 5. As 
described above, NMFS considers onset of PTS (Level A harassment) to 
have occurred when either one of the dual metrics (SELcum 
and Peak SPLflat) is exceeded (i.e., metric resulting in the 
largest isopleth).

        Table 5--Modeled Radial Distances (m) to Isopleths Corresponding to Level A Harassment Thresholds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Level A harassment zone (m)
        Source (volume)               Threshold     ------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       LF cetaceans     MF cetaceans     HF cetaceans    Phocids
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6-airgun array (3,120 in\3\)...  SELcum............               51                0                0         0
                                 Peak..............               30                7              212        34
2-airgun array (1,040 in\3\)...  SELcum............               17                0                0         0
                                 Peak..............               10                3               73        12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note that because of some of the assumptions included in the 
methods used (e.g., stationary receiver with no vertical or horizontal 
movement in response to the acoustic source), isopleths produced may be 
overestimates to some degree, which will ultimately result in some 
degree of overestimation of Level A harassment. However, these tools 
offer the best way to predict appropriate isopleths when more 
sophisticated modeling methods are not available. NMFS continues to 
develop ways to quantitatively refine these tools and will 
qualitatively address the output where appropriate. For mobile sources, 
such as this seismic survey, the User Spreadsheet predicts the closest 
distance at which a stationary animal would not incur PTS if the sound 
source traveled by the animal in a straight line at a constant speed.
    Auditory injury is unlikely to occur for mid-frequency and low-
frequency cetaceans given very small modeled zones of injury for those 
species (all estimated zones less than 10 m for mid-frequency 
cetaceans, up to a maximum of 51 m for low-frequency cetaceans and 34 m 
for phocid pinnipeds), in context of distributed source dynamics. 
Similarly, for high-frequency cetaceans, the maximum modeled injury 
zone for the low-energy array (88 percent of survey effort) is 73 m and 
auditory injury would be unlikely to occur during use of that array. 
The source level of the array is a theoretical definition assuming a 
point source and measurement in the far-field of the source 
(MacGillivray, 2006). As described by Caldwell and Dragoset (2000), an 
array is not a point source, but one that spans a small area. In the 
far-field, individual elements in arrays will effectively work as one 
source because individual pressure peaks will have coalesced into one 
relatively broad pulse. The array can then be considered a ``point 
source.'' For distances within the near-field, i.e., approximately 2-3 
times the array dimensions, pressure peaks from individual elements do 
not arrive simultaneously because the observation point is not 
equidistant from each element. The effect is destructive interference 
of the outputs of each element, so that peak pressures in the near-
field will be significantly lower than the output of the largest 
individual element. Here, the estimated Level A harassment isopleth 
distances would in all cases (other than for high-frequency cetaceans) 
be expected to be within the near-field of the array where the 
definition of source level breaks down. Therefore, actual locations 
within this distance of the array center where the sound level exceeds 
relevant harassment criteria would not necessarily exist.
    In consideration of the received sound levels in the near-field as 
described above, we expect the potential for Level A harassment of low- 
and mid-frequency cetaceans and phocid pinnipeds to be de minimis, even 
before the likely moderating effects of aversion and/or other 
compensatory behaviors (e.g., Nachtigall et al., 2018) are considered. 
A similar conclusion may be drawn for high-frequency cetaceans relative 
to use of the low-energy airgun

[[Page 46190]]

array. We do not believe that Level A harassment is a likely outcome 
for any low- or mid-frequency cetacean or phocid pinniped and are not 
authorizing any Level A harassment for these species. For high-
frequency cetaceans, the larger estimated Level A harassment zone 
associated with the high-energy array will be present for only 12 
percent of total survey effort, and given the expected rarity of 
occurrence for harbor porpoise, no incidents of Level A harassment are 
expected.

Marine Mammal Occurrence

    Information about the presence, density, and group dynamics of 
marine mammals that informs the take calculations was provided in our 
notice of proposed IHA (86 FR 28787; May 28, 2021). Information that 
has remained unchanged is not reprinted here. Density values are shown 
in Table 6.
    The bowhead whale density value described in the notice of proposed 
IHA (86 FR 28787; May 28, 2021) was correct; however, the incorrect 
units were used. The value reported in the notice of proposed IHA 
(0.0124 whales/km\2\) would correctly be stated as 0.0124 whales/100 
km\2\, and the corrected density is used here.

   Table 6--Density Values Used for Take Analysis, Calculated by UAGI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Density
                      Species                        (individuals/km\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowhead whale......................................             0.000124
Gray whale.........................................                    0
Fin whale..........................................                    0
Humpback whale.....................................                    0
Minke whale........................................                    0
Beluga whale.......................................               0.0255
Killer whale.......................................              Unknown
Narwhal............................................              Unknown
Harbor porpoise....................................              Unknown
Bearded seal.......................................               0.0332
Ribbon seal........................................               0.0677
Ringed seal........................................                0.376
Spotted seal.......................................               0.0007
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Take Calculation and Estimation

    Here we describe how the information provided above is brought 
together to produce a quantitative take estimate. In order to estimate 
the number of marine mammals predicted to be exposed to sound levels 
that would result in Level A or Level B harassment, radial distances 
from the airgun array to predicted isopleths corresponding to the Level 
A harassment and Level B harassment thresholds are calculated, as 
described above. Those radial distances are then used to calculate the 
area(s) around the airgun array predicted to be ensonified to sound 
levels that exceed the Level A and Level B harassment thresholds. The 
distance for the 160-dB threshold (based on L-DEO model results) was 
used to draw a buffer around every transect line in GIS to determine 
the total ensonified area in each depth category. Estimated incidents 
of exposure above Level A and Level B harassment criteria are presented 
in Table 7. As noted previously, UAGI has added 25 percent in the form 
of operational days, which is equivalent to adding 25 percent to the 
line-kilometers to be surveyed. This accounts for the possibility that 
additional operational days are required, and is included in the 
estimates of actual exposures.
    The number of individual marine mammals potentially exposed to 
airgun sounds with received levels >=160 dB re 1 [mu]Parms 
(Level B) was estimated following NSF's take calculation method by 
multiplying the estimated densities by the total area expected to be 
ensonified above the Level threshold. The total ensonified area was 
multiplied by 25 percent to account for any necessary additional 
operations, such as re-surveying segments where data quality was 
insufficient. This approach assumes that no marine mammals would move 
away or toward the trackline in response to increasing sound levels 
before the levels reach the threshold as R/V Sikuliaq approaches. This 
value was then multiplied by the estimated densities for each species 
to produce estimated Level B takes. Given the location of the survey 
being far north in the Arctic, we expect that the density values, and 
thus estimated take numbers, are conservative estimates of what is 
likely to be encountered during the survey.

                                Table 7--Estimated Taking by Level A and Level B Harassment, and Percentage of Population
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Estimated    Estimated    Authorized   Authorized
                   Species                                Stock \1\               Level B      Level A      Level B      Level A     Total    Percent of
                                                                                 harassment   harassment   harassment   harassment    take    stock \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowhead whale................................  Western Arctic.................            3            0            3            0        3         0.02
Humpback whale \2\...........................  WN Pacific.....................            0            0            2            0        2         0.01
Fin whale 2 4................................  NE Pacific.....................            0            0            2            0        2         0.18
Gray whale \2\...............................  EN Pacific.....................            0            0            2            0        2         0.01
Minke whale 2 4..............................  Alaska.........................            0            0            2            0        2         0.01
Beluga whale.................................  Beaufort Sea...................          696            1          697            0      697         1.33
                                               Eastern Chukchi................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  .......  ...........
Killer whale \2\.............................  Alaska Resident................            0            0            6            0        6         0.20
Narwhal 3 4..................................  Unidentified...................            0            0            2            0        2          n/a
Harbor porpoise 2 4..........................  Bering Sea.....................            0            0            2            0        2         0.04
Bearded seal \5\.............................  Beringia.......................          900            6          907            0      907         0.73
Ringed seal \5\..............................  Arctic.........................       10,198           70       10,269            0   10,269         5.99
Spotted seal.................................  Bering.........................           19            0           19            0       19         0.00
Ribbon seal..................................  Unidentified...................        1,836           13        1,849            0    1,849         1.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In most cases, where multiple stocks are being affected, for the purposes of calculating the percentage of the stock impacted, the take is being
  analyzed as if all authorized takes occurred within each stock. Where necessary, additional discussion is provided in the ``Small Numbers Analysis''
  section.
\2\ UAGI requests authorization of gray whale, humpback whale, fin whale, minke whale, killer whale, and harbor porpoise take equivalent to exposure of
  one group (Clarke et al., 2016; Clarke et al., 2017; Clarke et al., 2018; Clarke et al., 2019).
\3\ UAGI requests authorization of two takes of narwhals.
\4\ As noted in Table 1, there is no estimate of abundance available for these species. See ``Small Numbers Analysis'' section for further discussion.
\5\ Due to rounding, the total estimated Level B harassment does not equal the sum of Level A harassment and Level B harassment.


[[Page 46191]]

    Although gray whales, fin whales, humpback whales, minke whales, 
narwhals and harbor porpoises are not expected to occur this far north 
in the Arctic, we agree with NSF that there is possibility that this 
activity might encounter these species and thus a conservative number 
of takes has been authorized based on average group size from yearly 
Aerial Surveys of Arctic Marine Mammals (ASAMM) (Clark et al., 2016, 
2017, 2018, 2019). As described previously in the Changes from the 
Proposed IHA to Final IHA section, errors in take estimate calculations 
have been corrected from the notice of proposed IHA (84 FR 18787; May 
28, 2021) as shown in Table 7. These changes were made after 
identifying that the original estimated take numbers used the incorrect 
Level A harassment ensonified areas in addition to doubling the 
estimated exposures within the Level A harassment zone. These 
corrected, authorized take numbers presented here are either equal to 
or smaller than those proposed for authorization.

Mitigation

    In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, 
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the 
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on 
the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to 
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on 
the availability of the species or stock for taking for certain 
subsistence uses. NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental 
take authorizations to include information about the availability and 
feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and 
manner of conducting the activity or other means of effecting the least 
practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks and 
their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
    In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to 
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and 
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we 
carefully consider two primary factors:
    (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful 
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to 
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat, as 
well as subsistence uses. This considers the nature of the potential 
adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further 
considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if 
implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if 
implemented as planned), the likelihood of effective implementation 
(probability implemented as planned), and;
    (2) The practicability of the measures for applicant 
implementation, which may consider such things as cost and impact on 
operations.
    In order to satisfy the MMPA's least practicable adverse impact 
standard, NMFS has evaluated a suite of basic mitigation protocols for 
seismic surveys that are required regardless of the status of a stock. 
Additional or enhanced protections may be required for species whose 
stocks are in particularly poor health and/or are subject to some 
significant additional stressor that lessens that stock's ability to 
weather the effects of the specified activities without worsening its 
status. We reviewed seismic mitigation protocols required or 
recommended elsewhere (e.g., HESS, 1999; DOC, 2013; IBAMA, 2018; Kyhn 
et al., 2011; JNCC, 2017; DEWHA, 2008; BOEM, 2016; DFO, 2008; GHFS, 
2015; MMOA, 2016; Nowacek et al., 2013; Nowacek and Southall, 2016), 
recommendations received during public comment periods for previous 
actions, and the available scientific literature. We also considered 
recommendations given in a number of review articles (e.g., Weir and 
Dolman, 2007; Compton et al., 2008; Parsons et al., 2009; Wright and 
Cosentino, 2015; Stone, 2015b). This exhaustive review and 
consideration of public comments regarding previous, similar activities 
has led to development of the protocols included here.
    Due to the use of high- and low-energy airgun arrays used within 
this survey, two separate mitigation protocols are required for use 
throughout the activity depending on which array is in use (Table 8).

Vessel-Based Visual Mitigation Monitoring

    Visual monitoring requires the use of trained observers (herein 
referred to as visual Protected Species Observers (PSOs)) to scan the 
ocean surface for the presence of marine mammals. The area to be 
scanned visually includes primarily the exclusion zone (EZ), within 
which observation of certain marine mammals requires shutdown of the 
acoustic source, but also a buffer zone. The buffer zone means an area 
beyond the EZ to be monitored for the presence of marine mammals that 
may enter the EZ. During pre-clearance monitoring (i.e., before ramp-up 
begins), the buffer zone also acts as an extension of the EZ in that 
observations of marine mammals within the buffer zone would also 
prevent airgun operations from beginning (i.e., ramp-up). The standard 
EZ is 500 m from the edges of the airgun array for high-energy surveys 
and 100 m for low-energy surveys. For high-energy surveys, the buffer 
zone encompasses the area at and below the sea surface from the edge of 
the 0-500 m EZ, out to a radius of 1,000 m from the edges of the airgun 
array (500-1,000 m). For low-energy surveys, the buffer zone 
encompasses the area at and below the sea surface from the edge of the 
0-100 m EZ, out to a radius of 200 m from the edges of the airgun array 
(100-200 m).
    Visual monitoring of the EZ and buffer zones is intended to 
establish and, when visual conditions allow, maintain zones around the 
sound source that are clear of marine mammals, thereby reducing or 
eliminating the potential for injury and minimizing the potential for 
more severe behavioral reactions for animals occurring closer to the 
vessel. Visual monitoring of the buffer zone is intended to (1) provide 
additional protection to na[iuml]ve marine mammals that may be in the 
area during pre-clearance, and (2) during airgun use, aid in 
establishing and maintaining the EZ by alerting the visual observer and 
crew of marine mammals that are outside of, but may approach and enter, 
the EZ.
    UAGI must use dedicated, trained, NMFS-approved PSOs. The PSOs must 
have no tasks other than to conduct observational effort, record 
observational data, and communicate with and instruct relevant vessel 
crew with regard to the presence of marine mammals and mitigation 
requirements. PSO resumes shall be provided to NMFS for approval.
    At least one of the visual PSOs aboard the vessel must have a 
minimum of 90 days at-sea experience working in the roles, with no more 
than 18 months elapsed since the conclusion of the at-sea experience. 
One visual PSO with such experience shall be designated as the lead for 
the entire protected species observation team. The lead PSO shall serve 
as primary point of contact for the vessel operator and ensure all PSO 
requirements per the IHA are met. To the maximum extent practicable, 
the experienced PSOs should be scheduled to be on duty with those PSOs 
with appropriate training but who have not yet gained relevant 
experience.
    During survey operations (e.g., any day on which use of the 
acoustic source is planned to occur, and whenever the acoustic source 
is in the water, whether activated or not), a minimum of two visual 
PSOs must be on duty and conducting visual observations at all

[[Page 46192]]

times during daylight hours (i.e., from 30 minutes prior to sunrise 
through 30 minutes following sunset). Visual monitoring of the EZ and 
buffer zone must begin no less than 30 minutes prior to ramp-up and 
must continue until one hour after use of the acoustic source ceases or 
until 30 minutes past sunset. Visual PSOs shall coordinate to ensure 
360[deg] visual coverage around the vessel from the most appropriate 
observation posts, and shall conduct visual observations using 
binoculars and the naked eye while free from distractions and in a 
consistent, systematic, and diligent manner.
    PSOs shall establish and monitor the EZ and buffer zone. These 
zones shall be based upon the radial distance from the edges of the 
acoustic source (rather than being based on the center of the array or 
around the vessel itself). During use of the acoustic source (i.e., 
anytime airguns are active, including ramp-up), detections of marine 
mammals within the buffer zone (but outside the EZ) shall be 
communicated to the operator to prepare for the potential shutdown of 
the acoustic source.
    During use of the airgun (i.e., anytime the acoustic source is 
active, including ramp-up), detections of marine mammals within the 
buffer zone (but outside the EZ) should be communicated to the operator 
to prepare for the potential shutdown of the acoustic source. Visual 
PSOs will immediately communicate all observations to the on-duty 
acoustic PSO(s), including any determination by the PSO regarding 
species identification, distance, and bearing and the degree of 
confidence in the determination. Any observations of marine mammals by 
crew members shall be relayed to the PSO team. During good conditions 
(e.g., daylight hours; Beaufort sea state (BSS) 3 or less), visual PSOs 
shall conduct observations when the acoustic source is not operating 
for comparison of sighting rates and behavior with and without use of 
the acoustic source and between acquisition periods, to the maximum 
extent practicable.
    Visual PSOs may be on watch for a maximum of four consecutive hours 
followed by a break of at least one hour between watches and may 
conduct a maximum of 12 hours of observation per 24-hour period. 
Combined observational duties (visual and acoustic but not at same 
time) may not exceed 12 hours per 24-hour period for any individual 
PSO.

Establishment of Exclusion and Buffer Zones

    An EZ is a defined area within which occurrence of a marine mammal 
triggers mitigation action intended to reduce the potential for certain 
outcomes, e.g., auditory injury, disruption of behavioral patterns. The 
PSOs would establish a minimum EZ with a 500- or 100-m radius, during 
use of the high-energy and low-energy arrays, respectively, for all 
species except bowhead whales. The EZ would be based on radial distance 
from the edge of the airgun array (rather than being based on the 
center of the array or around the vessel itself).
    The EZs are intended to be precautionary in the sense that they 
would be expected to contain sound exceeding the injury criteria for 
all cetacean hearing groups, (based on the dual criteria of 
SELcum and peak SPL), while also providing a consistent, 
reasonably observable zone within which PSOs would typically be able to 
conduct effective observational effort. Additionally, the EZs are 
expected to minimize the likelihood that marine mammals will be exposed 
to levels likely to result in more severe behavioral responses. 
Although significantly greater distances may be observed from an 
elevated platform under good conditions, we believe that these 
distances are likely regularly attainable for PSOs using the naked eye 
during typical conditions.
    An extended EZ of 1,500/500 m must be implemented for all bowhead 
whales during high-energy and low-energy survey effort, respectively, 
because of their importance to subsistence hunters and protected 
status. No buffer of this extended EZ is required.

Pre-Clearance and Ramp-Up

    Ramp-up (sometimes referred to as ``soft start'') means the gradual 
and systematic increase of emitted sound levels from an airgun array. 
Ramp-up begins by first activating a single airgun of the smallest 
volume, followed by doubling the number of active elements in stages 
until the full complement of an array's airguns are active. Each stage 
should be approximately the same duration, and the total duration 
should not be less than approximately 20 minutes for high-energy airgun 
arrays. Ramp-up for the low-energy array, which includes only two 
elements, may be shorter. The intent of pre-clearance observation (30 
minutes) is to ensure no protected species are observed within the 
buffer zone prior to the beginning of ramp-up. During pre-clearance is 
the only time observations of protected species in the buffer zone 
would prevent operations (i.e., the beginning of ramp-up). The intent 
of ramp-up is to warn protected species of pending seismic operations 
and to allow sufficient time for those animals to leave the immediate 
vicinity. A ramp-up procedure, involving a step-wise increase in the 
number of airguns firing and total array volume until all operational 
airguns are activated and the full volume is achieved, is required at 
all times as part of the activation of the acoustic source. All 
operators must adhere to the following pre-clearance and ramp-up 
requirements:
     The operator must notify a designated PSO of the planned 
start of ramp-up as agreed upon with the lead PSO; the notification 
time should not be less than 60 minutes prior to the planned ramp-up in 
order to allow the PSOs time to monitor the EZ and buffer zone for 30 
minutes prior to the initiation of ramp-up (pre-clearance);
     Ramp-ups shall be scheduled so as to minimize the time 
spent with the source activated prior to reaching the designated run-
in;
     One of the PSOs conducting pre-clearance observations must 
be notified again immediately prior to initiating ramp-up procedures 
and the operator must receive confirmation from the PSO to proceed;
     Ramp-up may not be initiated if any marine mammal is 
within the applicable EZ or buffer zone. If a marine mammal is observed 
within the applicable EZ or the buffer zone during the 30 minute pre-
clearance period, ramp-up may not begin until the animal(s) has been 
observed exiting the zones or until an additional time period has 
elapsed with no further sightings (15 minutes for small odontocetes and 
pinnipeds, and 30 minutes for all mysticetes and all other odontocetes, 
including large delphinids, such as beluga whales and killer whales);
     Ramp-up shall begin by activating a single airgun of the 
smallest volume in the array and shall continue in stages by doubling 
the number of active elements at the commencement of each stage, with 
each stage of approximately the same duration. Duration shall not be 
less than 20 minutes for high-energy arrays. The operator must provide 
information to the PSO documenting that appropriate procedures were 
followed;
     PSOs must monitor the relevant EZ and buffer zone during 
ramp-up, and ramp-up must cease and the source must be shut down upon 
detection of a marine mammal within the applicable EZ. Once ramp-up has 
begun, detections of marine mammals within the buffer zone do not 
require shutdown, but such observation shall be communicated to the 
operator to prepare for the potential shutdown;
     Ramp-up may occur at times of poor visibility, including 
nighttime, if

[[Page 46193]]

appropriate acoustic monitoring has occurred with no detections in the 
30 minutes prior to beginning ramp-up. Acoustic source activation may 
only occur at times of poor visibility where operational planning 
cannot reasonably avoid such circumstances;
     If the acoustic source is shut down for brief periods 
(i.e., less than 30 minutes) for reasons other than that described for 
shutdown (e.g., mechanical difficulty), it may be activated again 
without ramp-up if PSOs have maintained constant visual and/or acoustic 
observation and no visual or acoustic detections of marine mammals have 
occurred within the applicable EZ. For any longer shutdown, pre-
clearance observation and ramp-up are required. For any shutdown at 
night or in periods of poor visibility (e.g., BSS 4 or greater), ramp-
up is required, but if the shutdown period was brief and constant 
observation was maintained, pre-clearance watch of 30 minutes is not 
required; and
     Testing of the acoustic source involving all elements 
requires ramp-up. Testing limited to individual source elements or 
strings does not require ramp-up but does require pre-clearance of 30 
min.

Shutdown

    The shutdown of an airgun array requires the immediate de-
activation of all individual airgun elements of the array. Any PSO on 
duty will have the authority to delay the start of survey operations or 
to call for shutdown of the acoustic source if a marine mammal is 
detected within the applicable EZ. The operator must also establish and 
maintain clear lines of communication directly between PSOs on duty and 
crew controlling the acoustic source to ensure that shutdown commands 
are conveyed swiftly while allowing PSOs to maintain watch. When the 
airgun array is active (i.e., anytime one or more airguns is active, 
including during ramp-up) and a marine mammal appears within or enters 
the applicable EZ, the acoustic source will be shut down. When shutdown 
is called for by a PSO, the acoustic source will be immediately 
deactivated and any dispute resolved only following deactivation.
    Following a shutdown, airgun activity would not resume until the 
marine mammal has cleared the EZ. The animal would be considered to 
have cleared the EZ if it is visually observed to have departed the EZ, 
or it has not been seen within the EZ for 15 min in the case of small 
odontocetes and pinnipeds, or 30 min in the case of mysticetes and 
large odontocetes, including beluga whales and killer whales.
    Upon implementation of shutdown, the source may be reactivated 
after the marine mammal(s) has been observed exiting the applicable EZ 
(i.e., animal is not required to fully exit the buffer zone where 
applicable) or following 15 minutes for small odontocetes and 
pinnipeds, and 30 minutes for mysticetes and all other odontocetes, 
including beluga whales and killer whales, with no further observation 
of the marine mammal(s).
    UAGI must implement shutdown if a marine mammal species for which 
take was not authorized, or a species for which authorization was 
granted but the takes have been met, approaches the Level A or Level B 
harassment zones. UAGI must also implement shutdown if any of the 
following are observed at any distance:
     Any large whale (defined as any mysticete species) with a 
calf (defined as an animal less than two-thirds the body size of an 
adult observed to be in close association with an adult); and/or
     An aggregation of six or more large whales.

Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM)

    NMFS will not require the use of PAM for this activity. PAM would 
only be applicable to the small portion of the survey (12 percent) 
using the high-energy array and UAGI has indicated that it would not be 
practicable to carry the additional monitoring personnel required for 
implementation of towed PAM. Additionally, species of greatest interest 
in prescribing use of towed PAM (e.g., sperm whales, beaked whales) are 
not present in the planned survey area. Further details of this 
decision are described in the notice of proposed IHA (86 FR 28787; May 
28, 2021).

      Table 8--Mitigation Protocols for High- and Low-Energy Arrays
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitigation protocols
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources.....................  High-energy (6-       Low-energy (2-airgun
                               airgun array with     array with 1040
                               3120 in\3\ total      in\3\ total
                               discharge volume).    discharge volume).
Visual PSOs.................  Minimum of 2 NMFS-    Minimum of 2 NMFS-
                               approved PSOs on      approved PSOs on
                               duty during           duty during
                               daylight hours (30    daylight hours (30
                               minutes before        minutes before
                               sunrise through 30    sunrise through 30
                               minutes after         minutes after
                               sunset); Limit of 2   sunset); Limit of 2
                               consecutive hours     consecutive hours
                               on watch followed     on watch followed
                               by a break of at      by a break of at
                               least 1 hour;         least 1 hour;
                               Maximum of 12 hours   Maximum of 12 hours
                               on watch per 24-      on watch per 24-
                               hour period.          hour period.
Passive acoustic monitoring.  Not Required........  Not required.
Exclusion zones.............   500 m (all    100 m (all
                               marine mammals).      marine mammals).
                               1,500 m       500 m
                               (Bowhead whales).     (Bowhead whales).
Pre-start clearance.........  Required; 30-minute   Required; 30-minute
                               clearance period of   clearance period of
                               the following         the following
                               zones:                zones:
                               1,000 m       200 m (all
                               (all marine           marine mammals).
                               mammals).             500 m
                               1,500 m       (Bowhead whales).
                               (Bowhead whales).
                              Following detection   Following detection
                               within zone, animal   within zone, animal
                               must be observed      must be observed
                               exiting or            exiting or
                               additional period     additional period
                               of 15 or 30 minutes.  of 15 or 30
                                                     minutes.
Ramp-up.....................  Required; duration    Required; duration
                               >=20 minutes.         not more than 20
                                                     minutes.
Shutdown....................  Shutdown required     Shutdown required
                               for marine mammal     for marine mammal
                               detected within       detected within
                               defined EZs; Re-      defined EZs; Re-
                               start allowed         start allowed
                               following clearance   following clearance
                               period of 15 or 30    period of 15 or 30
                               minutes.              minutes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vessel Strike Avoidance

    1. Vessel operators and crews must maintain a vigilant watch for 
all protected species and slow down, stop their vessel, or alter 
course, as appropriate and regardless of vessel size, to avoid striking 
any protected species. A visual observer aboard the vessel must monitor 
a vessel strike avoidance zone around the vessel (distances stated 
below). Visual observers monitoring the vessel strike

[[Page 46194]]

avoidance zone may be third-party observers (i.e., PSOs) or crew 
members, but crew members responsible for these duties must be provided 
sufficient training to (1) distinguish marine mammals from other 
phenomena, and (2) broadly identify a marine mammal as a bowhead whale, 
other whale (defined in this context as baleen whales other than 
bowhead whales), or other marine mammal.
    2. Vessel speeds must also be reduced to 10 knots or less when 
mother/calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages of cetaceans are observed 
near a vessel.
    3. All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 500 m 
from bowhead whales. If a whale is observed but cannot be confirmed as 
a species other than a bowhead whale, the vessel operator must assume 
that it is a bowhead whale and take appropriate action.
    4. All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 100 m 
from all other baleen whales.
    5. All vessels must, to the maximum extent practicable, attempt to 
maintain a minimum separation distance of 50 m from all other marine 
mammals, with an understanding that at times this may not be possible 
(e.g., for animals that approach the vessel).
    6. When marine mammals are sighted while a vessel is underway, the 
vessel shall take action as necessary to avoid violating the relevant 
separation distance (e.g., attempt to remain parallel to the animal's 
course, avoid excessive speed or abrupt changes in direction until the 
animal has left the area). If protected species are sighted within the 
relevant separation distance, the vessel must reduce speed and shift 
the engine to neutral, not engaging the engines until animals are clear 
of the area. This does not apply to any vessel towing gear or any 
vessel that is navigationally constrained.
    7. These requirements do not apply in any case where compliance 
would create an imminent and serious threat to a person or vessel or to 
the extent that a vessel is restricted in its ability to maneuver and, 
because of the restriction, cannot comply.
    We did not identify any mitigation specifically appropriate for 
habitat. Marine mammal habitat may be impacted by elevated sound 
levels, but these impacts would be temporary. Prey species are mobile 
and are broadly distributed throughout the project area; therefore, 
marine mammals that may be temporarily displaced during survey 
activities are expected to be able to resume foraging once they have 
moved away from areas with disturbing levels of underwater noise. The 
specified activity is of relatively short duration (30 days) and the 
disturbance will be temporary in nature, similar habitat and resources 
are available in the surrounding area, the impacts to marine mammals 
and the food sources that they utilize are not expected to cause 
significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or 
their populations. No Biologically Important Areas (BIAs), designated 
critical habitat, or other habitat of known significance would be 
impacted by the planned activities.
    We have carefully evaluated the suite of mitigation measures 
described here and considered a range of other measures in the context 
of ensuring that we prescribe the means of effecting the least 
practicable adverse impact on the affected marine mammal species and 
stocks and their habitat. Based on our evaluation of the measures, as 
well as other measures considered by NMFS described above, NMFS has 
determined that the mitigation measures provide the means of effecting 
the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and 
their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating 
grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of 
such species or stock for subsistence uses (see Unmitigable Adverse 
Impact Analysis and Determination).

Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of 
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the 
monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for 
authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the 
necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased 
knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on 
populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the 
action area. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well 
as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required 
monitoring.
    Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should 
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
     Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area 
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution, 
density).
     Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure 
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or 
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment 
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2) 
affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence 
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or 
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas).
     Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or 
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), 
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors.
     How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) 
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) 
populations, species, or stocks.
     Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey 
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of 
marine mammal habitat).
     Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.

Vessel-Based Visual Monitoring

    As described above, PSO observations would take place during 
daytime airgun operations. During seismic operations, at least five 
visual PSOs would be based aboard the R/V Sikuliaq. Two visual PSOs 
would be on duty at all time during daytime hours. Monitoring shall be 
conducted in accordance with the following requirements:
     The operator will work with the selected third-party 
observer provider to ensure PSOs have all equipment (including backup 
equipment) needed to adequately perform necessary tasks, including 
accurate determination of distance and bearing to observed marine 
mammals.
    PSOs must have the following requirements and qualifications:
     PSOs shall be independent, dedicated, trained visual and 
acoustic PSOs and must be employed by a third-party observer provider;
     PSOs shall have no tasks other than to conduct 
observational effort, collect data, and communicate with and instruct 
relevant vessel crew with regard to the presence of protected species 
and mitigation requirements (including brief alerts regarding maritime 
hazards);
     PSOs shall have successfully completed an approved PSO 
training course;
     NMFS must review and approve PSO resumes accompanied by a 
relevant training course information packet that includes the name and 
qualifications (i.e., experience, training completed, or educational 
background) of the instructor(s), the course outline or

[[Page 46195]]

syllabus, and course reference material as well as a document stating 
successful completion of the course;
     NMFS shall have one week to approve PSOs from the time 
that the necessary information is submitted, after which PSOs meeting 
the minimum requirements shall automatically be considered approved;
     PSOs must successfully complete relevant training, 
including completion of all required coursework and passing (80 percent 
or greater) a written and/or oral examination developed for the 
training program;
     PSOs must have successfully attained a bachelor's degree 
from an accredited college or university with a major in one of the 
natural sciences, a minimum of 30 semester hours or equivalent in the 
biological sciences, and at least one undergraduate course in math or 
statistics; and
     The educational requirements may be waived if the PSO has 
acquired the relevant skills through alternate experience. Requests for 
such a waiver shall be submitted to NMFS and must include written 
justification. Requests shall be granted or denied (with justification) 
by NMFS within one week of receipt of submitted information. Alternate 
experience that may be considered includes, but is not limited to (1) 
secondary education and/or experience comparable to PSO duties; (2) 
previous work experience conducting academic, commercial, or 
government-sponsored protected species surveys; or (3) previous work 
experience as a PSO; the PSO should demonstrate good standing and 
consistently good performance of PSO duties. Traditional ecological 
knowledge is also a relevant consideration.
    For data collection purposes, PSOs shall use standardized data 
collection forms, whether hard copy or electronic. PSOs shall record 
detailed information about any implementation of mitigation 
requirements, including the distance of animals to the acoustic source 
and description of specific actions that ensued, the behavior of the 
animal(s), any observed changes in behavior before and after 
implementation of mitigation, and if shutdown was implemented, the 
length of time before any subsequent ramp-up of the acoustic source. If 
required mitigation was not implemented, PSOs should record a 
description of the circumstances. At a minimum, the following 
information must be recorded:
     Vessel names (source vessel and other vessels associated 
with survey) and call signs;
     PSO names and affiliations;
     Dates of departures and returns to port with port name;
     Date and participants of PSO briefings;
     Dates and times (Greenwich Mean Time) of survey effort and 
times corresponding with PSO effort;
     Vessel location (latitude/longitude) when survey effort 
began and ended and vessel location at beginning and end of visual PSO 
duty shifts;
     Vessel heading and speed at beginning and end of visual 
PSO duty shifts and upon any line change;
     Environmental conditions while on visual survey (at 
beginning and end of PSO shift and whenever conditions changed 
significantly), including BSS and any other relevant weather conditions 
including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, and overall visibility to the 
horizon;
     Factors that may have contributed to impaired observations 
during each PSO shift change or as needed as environmental conditions 
changed (e.g., vessel traffic, equipment malfunctions); and
     Survey activity information, such as acoustic source power 
output while in operation, number and volume of airguns operating in 
the array, tow depth of the array, and any other notes of significance 
(i.e., pre-clearance, ramp-up, shutdown, testing, shooting, ramp-up 
completion, end of operations, streamers, etc.).
    The following information should be recorded upon visual 
observation of any protected species:
     Watch status (sighting made by PSO on/off effort, 
opportunistic, crew, alternate vessel/platform);
     PSO who sighted the animal;
     Time of sighting;
     Vessel location at time of sighting;
     Water depth;
     Direction of vessel's travel (compass direction);
     Direction of animal's travel relative to the vessel;
     Pace of the animal;
     Estimated distance to the animal and its heading relative 
to vessel at initial sighting;
     Identification of the animal (e.g., genus/species, lowest 
possible taxonomic level, or unidentified) and the composition of the 
group if there is a mix of species;
     Estimated number of animals (high/low/best);
     Estimated number of animals by cohort (adults, yearlings, 
juveniles, calves, group composition, etc.);
     Description (as many distinguishing features as possible 
of each individual seen, including length, shape, color, pattern, scars 
or markings, shape and size of dorsal fin, shape of head, and blow 
characteristics);
     Detailed behavior observations (e.g., number of blows/
breaths, number of surfaces, breaching, spyhopping, diving, feeding, 
traveling; as explicit and detailed as possible; note any observed 
changes in behavior);
     Animal's closest point of approach (CPA) and/or closest 
distance from any element of the acoustic source;
     Platform activity at time of sighting (e.g., deploying, 
recovering, testing, shooting, data acquisition, other); and
     Description of any actions implemented in response to the 
sighting (e.g., delays, shutdown, ramp-up) and time and location of the 
action.

Reporting

    A report will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the end of 
the cruise. The report will describe the operations that were conducted 
and sightings of marine mammals near the operations. The report will 
provide full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation 
pertaining to all monitoring. The 90-day report will summarize the 
dates and locations of seismic operations, and all marine mammal 
sightings (dates, times, locations, activities, associated seismic 
survey activities).
    The draft report shall also include geo-referenced time-stamped 
vessel tracklines for all time periods during which airguns were 
operating. Tracklines should include points recording any change in 
airgun status (e.g., when the airguns began operating, when they were 
turned off, or when they changed from full array to single gun or vice 
versa). GIS files shall be provided in ESRI shapefile format and 
include the UTC date and time, latitude in decimal degrees, and 
longitude in decimal degrees. All coordinates shall be referenced to 
the WGS84 geographic coordinate system. In addition to the report, all 
raw observational data shall be made available to NMFS. The report must 
summarize the data collected as described above and in the IHA. A final 
report must be submitted within 30 days following resolution of any 
comments on the draft report.

Reporting Injured or Dead Marine Mammals

    Discovery of injured or dead marine mammals--In the event that 
personnel involved in survey activities covered by the authorization 
discover an injured or dead marine mammal, the UAGI shall report the 
incident to the Office of Protected Resources (OPR), NMFS, and the NMFS 
Alaska Regional Stranding Coordinator as soon as feasible. The

[[Page 46196]]

report must include the following information:
     Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first 
discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);
     Species identification (if known) or description of the 
animal(s) involved;
     Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if 
the animal is dead);
     Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
     If available, photographs or video footage of the 
animal(s); and
     General circumstances under which the animal was 
discovered.
    Vessel strike--In the event of a ship strike of a marine mammal by 
any vessel involved in the activities covered by the authorization, 
UAGI shall report the incident to OPR, NMFS and to the NMFS Alaska 
Regional Stranding Coordinator as soon as feasible. The report must 
include the following information:
     Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the 
incident;
     Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
     Vessel's course/heading and what operations were being 
conducted (if applicable);
     Status of all sound sources in use;
     Description of avoidance measures/requirements that were 
in place at the time of the strike and what additional measure were 
taken, if any, to avoid strike;
     Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, 
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, visibility) immediately preceding the 
strike;
     Species identification (if known) or description of the 
animal(s) involved;
     Estimated size and length of the animal that was struck;
     Description of the behavior of the animal immediately 
preceding and following the strike;
     If available, description of the presence and behavior of 
any other marine mammals present immediately preceding the strike;
     Estimated fate of the animal (e.g., dead, injured but 
alive, injured and moving, blood or tissue observed in the water, 
status unknown, disappeared); and
     To the extent practicable, photographs or video footage of 
the animal(s).

Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination

    NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the 
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not 
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A 
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough 
information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to 
considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be 
``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the 
likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context 
of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location, 
migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 
of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of 
estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population 
status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS' implementing 
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other 
past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this 
analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as 
reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and 
growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or 
ambient noise levels).
    To avoid repetition, our analysis applies to all species listed in 
Table 1, given that NMFS expects the anticipated effects of the planned 
geophysical survey to be similar in nature. Where there are meaningful 
differences between species or stocks, or groups of species, in 
anticipated individual responses to activities, impact of expected take 
on the population due to differences in population status, or impacts 
on habitat, NMFS has identified species-specific factors to inform the 
analysis.
    NMFS does not anticipate that injury, serious injury or mortality 
will occur as a result of UAGI's planned survey, even in the absence of 
mitigation, and none will be authorized. Similarly, non-auditory 
physical effects, stranding, and vessel strike are not expected to 
occur. Although a few incidents of Level A harassment were predicted 
through the quantitative exposure estimation process (see Estimated 
Take), NMFS has determined that this is not a realistic result due to 
the small estimated Level A harassment zones for the species (no 
greater than approximately 50 m) and the mitigation requirements, and 
no Level A harassment is authorized. These estimated zones are larger 
than what would realistically occur, as discussed in the Estimated Take 
section. Although no Level A harassment would be expected to occur even 
absent mitigation, the extended distance exclusion zones for bowhead 
whales further strengthen this conclusion.
    We expect that takes would be in the form of short-term Level B 
behavioral harassment in the form of temporary avoidance of the area or 
decreased foraging (if such activity were occurring), reactions that 
are considered to be of low severity and with no lasting biological 
consequences (e.g., Southall et al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2012). The 
number of takes for bowhead whales is 0.02 percent of the population.
    Marine mammal habitat may be impacted by elevated sound levels, but 
these impacts would be temporary. Prey species are mobile and are 
broadly distributed throughout the project area; therefore, marine 
mammals that may be temporarily displaced during survey activities are 
expected to be able to resume foraging once they have moved away from 
areas with disturbing levels of underwater noise. Because of the 
relatively short duration (30 days) and temporary nature of the 
disturbance, the availability of similar habitat and resources in the 
surrounding area, the impacts to marine mammals and the food sources 
that they utilize are not expected to cause significant or long-term 
consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations. No 
BIAs, designated critical habitat, or other habitat of known 
significance would be impacted by the planned activities.

Negligible Impact Conclusions

    The survey would be of short duration (30 days of seismic 
operations), and the acoustic ``footprint'' of the survey would be 
small relative to the ranges of the marine mammals that would 
potentially be affected. Sound levels would increase in the marine 
environment in a relatively small area surrounding the vessel compared 
to the range of the marine mammals within the survey area. Short term 
exposures to survey operations are expected to only temporarily affect 
marine mammal behavior in the form of avoidance, and the potential for 
longer-term avoidance of important areas is limited. Short term 
exposures to survey operations are not likely to impact marine mammal 
behavior, and the potential for longer-term avoidance of important 
areas is limited.
    The mitigation measures are expected to reduce the number and/or 
severity of takes by allowing for detection of marine mammals in the 
vicinity of the vessel by visual observers, and by

[[Page 46197]]

minimizing the severity of any potential exposures via shutdowns of the 
airgun array.
    NMFS concludes that exposures to marine mammal species and stocks 
due to UAGI's survey would result in only short-term (temporary and 
short in duration) effects to individuals exposed, over relatively 
small areas of the affected animals' ranges. Animals may temporarily 
avoid the immediate area, but are not expected to permanently abandon 
the area. Major shifts in habitat use, distribution, or foraging 
success are not expected. NMFS does not anticipate the authorized take 
estimates to impact annual rates of recruitment or survival.
    In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily 
support our determination that the impacts resulting from this activity 
are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock through 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
     No Level A harassment, serious injury or mortality is 
anticipated or authorized;
     The activity is temporary and of relatively short duration 
(30 days);
     The anticipated impacts of the activity on marine mammals 
would primarily be temporary behavioral changes in the form of 
avoidance of the area around the survey vessel;
     Location of the survey is further north in the Arctic 
Ocean and away from areas where most of the species listed in Table 1 
have been observed and is north of summer feeding areas and migratory 
routes.
     The availability of alternate areas of similar habitat 
value for marine mammals to temporarily vacate the survey area during 
the survey to avoid exposure to sounds from the activity;
     The potential adverse effects on fish or invertebrate 
species that serve as prey species for marine mammals from the survey 
would be temporary and spatially limited, and impacts to marine mammal 
foraging would be minimal; and
     The mitigation measures, including visual monitoring, 
shutdowns, ramp-up, and prescribed measures based on energy size are 
expected to minimize potential impacts to marine mammals (both amount 
and severity).
    Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the 
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into 
consideration the implementation of the monitoring and mitigation 
measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from the 
activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal 
species or stocks.

Small Numbers

    As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be 
authorized under sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for 
specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA 
does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated 
numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to 
the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or 
stock in our determination of whether the take is limited to small 
numbers of marine mammals. When the predicted number of individuals to 
be taken is fewer than one third of the species or stock abundance, the 
take is considered to be of small numbers (see 86 FR 5322, January 19, 
2021). Additionally, other qualitative factors may be considered in the 
analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
    There are several stocks for which there is no currently accepted 
stock abundance estimate. These include the fin whale Northeast Pacific 
stock, the minke whale Alaska stock, the narwhal Unidentified stock, 
the bearded seal Beringia stock, and the ringed seal Arctic stock. In 
those cases, qualitative factors are used to inform an assessment of 
whether the likely number of individual marine mammals taken is 
appropriately considered small. We discuss these in further detail 
below.
    For all other stocks (aside from those without accepted abundance 
estimates), the authorized take is less than 7 percent of the best 
available stock abundance, well less than the one-third threshold for 
exceeding small numbers (and some of those takes may be repeats of the 
same individual, thus rendering the actual percentage even lower). We 
also acknowledge that, given the location of the planned survey 
activity high in the Arctic Ocean, the stock ranges referenced in the 
SARs do not always fully overlap the area of the planned survey 
activity. However, given the very small percentage of the best 
available stock abundance estimates for these species and the 
likelihood that the numbers of take authorized would be very small 
relative to any reasonable population abundance estimate, we conclude 
these numbers are small.
    The stock abundance estimates for fin whale, minke whale, narwhal, 
bearded seal and ringed seal stocks that occur in the surveys area are 
unknown, according to the latest 2020 SARs (Muto et al., 2021, Carretta 
et al., 2021). Therefore, we reviewed other scientific information in 
making our small numbers determinations for these animals. The 
abundance estimate of 20,000 minke whales was taken from the Northwest 
Pacific and Okhotsk Sea (IWC 2021). In addition, as noted previously, 
partial abundance estimates of 1,233 and 2,020 minke whales are 
available for shelf and nearshore waters between the Kenai Peninsula 
and Amchitka Pass and for the eastern Bering Sea shelf, respectively. 
For the minke whale, these partial abundance estimates alone are 
sufficient to demonstrate that the authorized take number of 2 is of 
small numbers. The same surveys produced partial abundance estimates of 
1,652 and 1,061 fin whales, for the same areas, respectively, which are 
similarly sufficient to demonstrate that the authorized take number of 
2 is small numbers. The bearded seal estimate of 125,000 was estimated 
for the U.S. portion of the Bering Sea (Boveng et al., 2017) and 
155,000 bearded seals for the entire Alaska stock (Cameron et al., 
2010). These partial abundance estimates near the survey are sufficient 
to demonstrate that the authorized take number of 916 seals is small 
numbers. Similarly, the ringed seal abundance estimate of 171,418 
ringed seals was based on a limited sub-sample from the Bering Sea 
(Conn et al., 2014 in Muto et al., 2020). This minimal abundance 
estimate for the Alaska region is enough to demonstrate that a take of 
10,373 will be small numbers at 6.05 percent of the Bering Sea 
population. There is no abundance information available for narwhals. 
However, the take number is sufficiently small (2) that we assume that 
it is small relative to any reasonable assumption of likely population 
abundance for the narwhal. Additionally, the survey area encompasses a 
very small portion of the hypothesized range of the species.
    Based on the analysis contained herein of the activity (including 
the mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of 
marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be 
taken relative to the population size of the affected species or 
stocks.

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination

    In order to issue an IHA, NMFS must find that the specified 
activity will not have an ``unmitigable adverse impact'' on the 
subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal species or stocks by 
Alaskan Natives. NMFS has defined ``unmitigable adverse impact'' in 50 
CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity: (1) 
That is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level 
insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by: (i) Causing 
the

[[Page 46198]]

marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas; (ii) Directly 
displacing subsistence users; or (iii) Placing physical barriers 
between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters; and (2) That 
cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the 
availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.
    The coast and nearshore waters of Alaska are of cultural importance 
to indigenous peoples for fishing, hunting, gathering, and ceremonial 
purposes. Marine mammals are legally hunted in Alaskan waters by 
coastal Alaska Natives. There are seven communities in the North Slope 
Borough region of Alaska (northwestern and northern Alaska) that 
harvest seals, including from west to east Point Hope, Point Lay, 
Wainwright, Utqia[gdot]vik, Atqusak, Nuiqsut, and Kaktovik (Ice Seal 
Committee 2019). Bearded seals are the preferred species to harvest as 
food and for skin boat coverings, but ringed seals are also commonly 
taken for food and their blubber (Ice Seal Committee 2019). Ringed 
seals are typically harvested during the summer and can extend up to 64 
km from shore (Stephen R. Braund & Associates 2010). No ribbon seals 
have been harvested in any of the North Slope Borough communities since 
the 1960s (Ice Seal Committee 2019). However, the number of seals 
harvested each year varies considerably.
    A subsistence harvest of bowheads and belugas is also practiced by 
Alaskan Natives, providing nutritional and cultural needs. In 2019, 36 
bowhead whales were taken during the Alaskan subsistence hunt (Suydam 
et al., 2020). Whaling near Utqia[gdot]vik occurs during spring (April 
and May) and autumn, and can continue into November, depending on the 
quota and conditions. Communities that harvested bowheads during 2019 
include Utqia[gdot]vik, Gamgell, Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, Point Hope, Point 
Lay, and Wainwright. Bowhead whales and gray whales are also taken in 
the aboriginal subsistence hunt in the Russian Federation (Zharikov et 
al., 2020). During 2019, 135 gray whales and one bowhead whale were 
harvested at Chukotka.
    Beluga whales from the eastern Chukchi Sea stock are an important 
subsistence resource for residents of the village of Point Lay, 
adjacent to Kasegaluk Lagoon, and other villages in northwest Alaska. 
Each year, hunters from Point Lay drive belugas into the lagoon to a 
traditional hunting location. The beluga whales have been predictably 
sighted near the lagoon from late June through mid to late July (Suydam 
et al., 2001). The mean annual number of Beaufort Sea belugas landed by 
Alaska Native subsistence hunters in 2011-2015 was 47, and an average 
of 92 were taken in Canadian waters; the mean annual number of Eastern 
Chukchi Sea belugas landed by Alaska Native subsistence hunters in 
2011-2015 was 67 (Muto et al., 2020).
    The survey by UAGI will occur within ~73.5-81.0[deg] N, ~139.5-
168[deg] W and over 300 km from the Alaska coastline. Due to the 
location of the survey being far north in the Arctic and over 200 
kilometers from any hunting area or buffer (http://www.north-slope.org/assets/images/uploads/bowhead%20migration%20map%2021mar03%20distribution.pdf), no impacts on 
the availability of marine mammals for subsistence uses are expected to 
occur. Specifically, based on the survey methods and location planned, 
there is no reason to believe that there will be any behavioral 
disturbance of bowhead whales that would also impact their behavior in 
a manner that would interfere with subsistence use later. Although 
fishing/hunting would not be precluded in the survey area, a safe 
distance would need to be kept from R/V Sikuliaq and the towed seismic 
equipment. The principal investigator for the survey presented the 
action to the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) at the July 2020, 
October 2020, and February 2021 Triannual Meetings. As specifically 
noted, during the meetings, daily email communications with interested 
community members would be made from the vessel. Communication may 
include notice of any unusual marine mammal observations during the 
survey. Any potential space use conflicts would be further avoided 
through direct communication with subsistence fishers/hunters during 
the surveys. Considering the limited time that the planned seismic 
surveys would take place and the far offshore location of the surveys, 
no direct interaction with subsistence fishers/hunters would be 
anticipated. However, UAGI will still be required to remain in constant 
communication with subsistence fishers/hunters during the surveys.
    Based on the description of the specified activity, the measures 
described to minimize adverse effects on the availability of marine 
mammals for subsistence purposes, and the mitigation and monitoring 
measures, NMFS has determined that there will not be an unmitigable 
adverse impact on subsistence uses from UAGI's activities.

National Environmental Policy Act

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as implemented by the regulations published 
by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), NSF 
prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) to consider the direct, 
indirect and cumulative effects to the human environment resulting from 
this marine geophysical survey in the Arctic. NSF's EA was made 
available to the public for review and comment in relation to its 
suitability for adoption by NMFS in order to assess the impacts to the 
human environment of issuance of an IHA to UAGI. In compliance with 
NEPA and CEQ regulations, as well as NOAA Administrative Order 216-2, 
NMFS has reviewed the NSF's EA, determined it to be sufficient, and 
adopted that EA and signed a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). 
NSF's EA is available at www.nsf.gov/geo/oce/envcomp/, and NMFS' FONSI 
is available at www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-lamont-doherty-earth-observatory-marine-geophysical-survey-2.

Endangered Species Act

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any 
action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or 
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated 
critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs, 
NMFS consults internally whenever we propose to authorize take for 
endangered or threatened species.
    The NMFS OPR ESA Interagency Cooperation Division issued a 
Biological Opinion under section 7 of the ESA, on the issuance of an 
IHA to UAGI under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA by the NMFS OPR 
Permits and Conservation Division and NSF's funding of the survey. The 
Biological Opinion concluded that the action is not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of ESA-listed bowhead whales, fin 
whales, the Western North Pacific population of gray whales, the Mexico 
DPS and Western North Pacific DPS of humpback whales, bearded seals and 
ribbon seals, and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify the 
proposed critical habitat for bearded seals and ringed seals. There is 
no designated critical habitat in the action area for the other ESA-
listed species.

Authorization

    As a result of these determinations, NMFS has issued an IHA to UAGI 
for conducting marine geophysical surveys in the Arctic in August and 
September,

[[Page 46199]]

2021, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and 
reporting requirements are incorporated.

    Dated: August 11, 2021.
Catherine Marzin,
Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-17683 Filed 8-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P