Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to a Marine Geophysical Survey in the Arctic Ocean, September-October 2011, 54433-54451 [2011-22434]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 170 (Thursday, September 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54433-54451]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22434]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XA568


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to a Marine Geophysical Survey in the 
Arctic Ocean, September-October 2011

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 Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) 
regulations, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an 
Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to the University of Alaska 
Geophysics Institute (UAGI) to take marine mammals, by harassment, 
incidental to conducting a marine geophysical seismic survey in the 
Arctic Ocean during September-October 2011.

DATES: Effective September 5, 2011, through October 23, 2011.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the IHA and application may be obtained by writing 
to P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education 
Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, telephoning 
the contact listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or 
visiting the Internet at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm.
    The National Science Foundation (NSF), which is providing funding 
to UAGI to conduct the survey, prepared an ``Environmental Assessment 
of a Marine Geophysical Survey by the R/V Marcus G. Langseth in the 
Arctic Ocean, September-October 2011,'' prepared by LGL Ltd., 
Environmental Research Associates (LGL), on behalf of UAGI and NSF, 
which is also available at the same internet address. NMFS prepared its 
own Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), which is available at the 
same internet address. Documents cited in this notice may also be 
viewed, by appointment, during regular business hours, at the 
aforementioned address.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

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

[[Page 54434]]

such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 
50 CFR 216.103 as ``* * * an impact resulting from the specified 
activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably 
likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on 
annual rates of recruitment or survival.''
    Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process 
by which citizens of the U.S. can apply for an authorization to 
incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. 
Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of 
an application followed by a 30 day public notice and comment period on 
any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of marine 
mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must 
either issue or deny the authorization.
    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the 
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as:

    any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the 
potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the 
wild [``Level A harassment'']; or (ii) has the potential to disturb 
a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing 
disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, 
migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 
[``Level B harassment''].

Summary of Request

    NMFS received an application on March 4, 2011, from UAGI for the 
taking, by harassment, of marine mammals incidental to conducting a 
marine geophysical seismic survey in the Arctic Ocean. NMFS reviewed 
UAGI's application and identified a number of issues requiring further 
clarification. After addressing comments from NMFS, UAGI modified its 
application and submitted a revised application on May 10, 2011. The 
May 10, 2011, application was the one made available for public comment 
(see ADDRESSES) and considered by NMFS for this IHA.
    UAGI proposes to conduct a 2D seismic survey in the Arctic Ocean, 
Chukchi Sea, in both international waters and within the U.S. Exclusive 
Economic Zone (EEZ) in water depths ranging from 30-3,800 m (98-12,467 
ft). UAGI plans to conduct the seismic survey from September 5 through 
October 9, 2011, which includes vessel transit time from Dutch Harbor.
    UAGI plans to use one source vessel, the R/V Marcus G. Langseth 
(Langseth) and a seismic airgun array to collect seismic reflection 
data across the transition from the Chukchi Shelf to the Chukchi 
Borderland to define the apparent change in structure between two large 
continental blocks. In addition to the operation of the seismic airgun 
array, UAGI intends to operate a multibeam echosounder (MBES) and a 
sub-bottom profiler (SBP) continuously throughout the survey. A 75-
kilohertz (kHz) acoustic Doppler current profiler (ADCP) may also be 
used.
    Acoustic stimuli (i.e., increased underwater sound) generated 
during the operation of the seismic airgun array may have the potential 
to cause a short-term behavioral disturbance for marine mammals in the 
survey area. This is the principal means of marine mammal taking 
associated with these activities, and UAGI requested and NMFS 
authorized the take of 11 species of marine mammals by Level B 
harassment in this IHA. These species are: Bowhead whale; gray whale; 
humpback whale; minke whale; fin whale; beluga whale; killer whale; 
bearded seal; spotted seal; ringed seal; and ribbon seal. Take is not 
expected to result from the use of the MBES or SBP; nor is take 
expected to result from collision with the vessel because it is a 
single vessel moving at a relatively slow speed during seismic 
acquisition within the survey, for a relatively short period of time 
(approximately 35 days). It is likely that any marine mammal would be 
able to avoid the vessel.

Description of the Specified Activity

    UAGI's survey is proposed to occur in the area 72.5-77[deg] N. and 
160-175[deg] W. in international waters and within the U.S. EEZ (see 
Figure 1 in UAGI's application). The project is scheduled to occur from 
September 5-October 9, 2011. Some minor deviation from these dates is 
possible, depending on logistics and weather. Therefore, the period of 
validity of the IHA is from September 5-October 23, 2011. The vessel 
will not be able to remain in the area once ice begins to form, as the 
Langseth is not an icebreaker. The Langseth would depart from Dutch 
Harbor on September 5, 2011, and sail northeast to arrive at 
approximately 72.5[deg] N., 162[deg] W., where the seismic survey will 
begin, more than 200 km (124 mi) from Barrow. The entire cruise would 
last for approximately 35 days, and it is estimated that the total 
seismic survey time will be approximately 25 days, depending on ice 
conditions. Seismic survey work is scheduled to terminate near the 
starting point at approximately 72.4[deg] N., 164[deg] W. on October 6; 
the vessel would then sail south to Dutch Harbor for arrival on October 
9. There could be extra days of seismic shooting, if the collected data 
are of substandard quality.
    The survey will include collection of seismic reflection data 
across the transition from the Chukchi Shelf to the Chukchi Borderland 
to define the apparent change in structure between two large 
continental blocks. This study will test existing tectonic models and 
develop new constraints on the development of the Amerasian Basin and 
will substantially advance our understanding of the Mesozoic history of 
this basin. In addition, these data will enable the formulation of new 
tectonic models for the history of this region, which will improve our 
understanding of the surrounding continents.
    The survey will involve one source vessel, the Langseth, which is 
operated by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (L-DEO), a part of 
Columbia University, under a cooperative agreement with NSF. The 
Langseth will deploy an array of 10 airguns (1,830 in\3\) as an energy 
source at a tow depth of 6 m (19.7 ft). The receiving system will 
consist of a 2-km (1.2-mi) long hydrophone streamer. As the airgun 
array is towed along the survey lines, the hydrophone streamer will 
receive the returning acoustic signals and transfer the data to the on-
board processing system. In addition, at least 72 sonobuoys will be 
deployed in order to record seismic refraction data. The Langseth will 
be avoiding the ice edge, and an ice expert will be available to 
provide daily guidance and to predict ice movements.
    The program will consist of a total of approximately 5,502 km 
(3,419 mi) of survey lines, not including transits to and from the 
survey area when airguns will not be in use (see Figure 1 in UAGI's 
application). Water depths within the study area range from 
approximately 30-3,800 m (98-12,467). Just over half of the survey 
effort (55%) will occur in water 100-1,000 m (328-3,281 ft) deep, 32% 
will take place in water >1,000 m (3,281 ft) deep, and 13% will occur 
in water depths <100 m (328 ft). There will be additional seismic 
operations in the survey area associated with turns, airgun testing, 
and repeat coverage of any areas where initial data quality is sub-
standard. In addition to the operations of the airgun array, a 
Kongsberg EM 122 MBES and a Knudsen 320B SBP will also be operated from 
the Langseth continuously throughout the cruise. A 75-kHz ADCP may also 
be used.
    All planned geophysical data acquisition activities will be 
conducted by L-DEO with on-board assistance by the scientists who have 
proposed the study. The Principal Investigator (PI) is Dr. Bernard 
Coakley of UAGI. The

[[Page 54435]]

vessel will be self-contained, and the crew will live aboard the vessel 
for the entire cruise.
    Table 1 in this document and Table 1 in UAGI's application show the 
distances at which three rms sound levels are expected to be received 
from the 10-airgun array and a single airgun. For the 10-airgun array, 
distances were modeled at seven sites; the distances in Table 1 are the 
averages from the sites in each depth range.

  Table 1--Maximum Predicted Distances To Which Sound Levels =190, 180, and 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms)
       Could Be Received in Various Water-Depth Categories During the Proposed Survey in the Arctic Ocean
[The distances for the 10-airgun array are the averages of modeled 95% percentile distances at modeling sites in
                                                each depth range]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Predicted RMS Radii (m)
          Source and volume            Tow depth           Water depth          --------------------------------
                                           (m)                                     190 dB     180 dB     160 dB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single Bolt airgun 40 in\3\..........          6  Deep (>1000 m)...............         12         40        385
                                                  Intermediate (100-1000 m)....         18         60        578
                                                  Shallow (<100)...............        150        296       1050
1 string 10 airguns 1830 in\3\.......          6  Deep (>1000 m)...............        130        425     14,070
                                                  Intermediate (200-1000 m)....        130       1400     13,980
                                                  Shallow (<200)...............        190       1870     14,730
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The tow depth has minimal effect on the maximum near-field output and the shape of the frequency spectrum for
  the single 40 in\3\ airgun; thus, the predicted safety radii are essentially the same at any tow depth.

    NMFS expects that acoustic stimuli resulting from operation of the 
single airgun or the 10 airgun array has the potential to harass marine 
mammals, incidental to the conduct of the proposed seismic survey. NMFS 
expects these disturbances to be temporary and result, at worst, in a 
temporary modification in behavior and/or low-level physiological 
effects (Level B harassment) of small numbers of certain species of 
marine mammals. NMFS does not expect that the movement of the Langseth, 
during the conduct of the seismic survey, has the potential to harass 
marine mammals because of the relatively slow operation speed of the 
vessel (4-5 kts [7.4 to 9.3 km/hr]) during seismic data acquisition.
    Additional details on the purpose of the survey program and details 
of the vessel, acoustic equipment to be deployed and predicted sound 
radii are contained in NMFS' Notice of Proposed IHA (76 FR 41463, July 
14, 2011). The activities to be conducted have not changed between the 
proposed notice and this final issuance notice. The reader should refer 
to the proposed notice and documents referenced earlier in this notice 
for further details (see ADDRESSES).

Comments and Responses

    A Notice of Proposed IHA published in the Federal Register on July 
14, 2011 (76 FR 41463) for public comment. During the 30-day public 
comment period, NMFS received two comment letters from the following: 
The Marine Mammal Commission (MMC) and the North Slope Borough (NSB). 
All of the public comment letters are available on the Internet at: 
https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm. Following are the 
public comments and NMFS' responses.
    Comment 1: The NSB recommends modifying the timing of the survey 
tracklines so that all of the proposed survey area closest to the 
Chukchi Sea coast is surveyed in mid-September and the farthest points 
or areas are sampled at the end of the survey period in October. This 
approach will help to mitigate possible impacts to the availability of 
marine mammals, most notably bowhead whales, to subsistence communities 
by moving the airgun array as far away from the communities as possible 
just before and during hunts.
    Response: Both UAGI and L-DEO considered this request and reviewed 
the constraints of operating the Langseth in the survey region during 
the proposed time frame. The Langseth is not an ice strengthened 
vessel, and, therefore, it must avoid working in areas with ice. In 
addition, for safety reasons, the vessel must prevent towed seismic 
equipment from becoming entangled with ice. The safety of both the 
vessel and its crew is foremost when planning surveys, especially in 
the proposed challenging operational area. In the past few years, the 
freshly formed sea ice crowds in from the west, thus the Langseth will 
need to begin the survey during the low ice period in the far 
northwestern quadrant and work in a southeastern direction to avoid ice 
possibly being in the survey area. Further various ice-dependent 
mammals like walrus, polar bears and several species of seal will be 
avoided by avoiding encroaching ice flows.
    The closest survey lines in the lower southeastern portion of the 
survey area are approximately 250 km (155 mi) from the Chukchi Sea 
coast. Subsistence whaling typically occurs nearshore. In the Chukchi 
Sea region, the fall hunt is generally conducted in an area that 
extends 16 km (10 mi) west of Barrow to 48 km (30 mi) north of Barrow. 
This information is confirmed by the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission 
(AEWC) in a recent letter to NMFS on a separate action, which states 
that ``[s]ubsistence hunters have a limited hunting range and prefer to 
take whales close to shore so as to avoid hauling a harvested whale a 
long distance over which the whale could spoil. During the fall, 
however, subsistence hunters in the Chukchi Sea will pursue bowhead 
whales as far as 50 miles (80 km) from the coast in small, fiberglass 
boats.'' Even if whaling crews venture out 80 km (50 mi), the Langseth 
would still be a minimum of 170 km (105.6 mi) from the hunting grounds 
at its closest point. Additionally, a local Barrow resident with 
knowledge about the marine mammals and fish of the area is expected to 
be included as an observer aboard the Langseth. This person will be 
able to act as a liaison with hunters if they are encountered at sea. 
In its 2011 Conflict Avoidance Agreement, the AEWC noted that 
geophysical activity should not occur within 48 km (30 mi) of the 
Chukchi Sea coast during the fall hunting season and any vessel 
operating within 96.5 km (60 mi) of the Chukchi Sea coast should 
participate in the Communication Centers. Neither of these triggers 
will be met during the UAGI survey; however, UAGI and L-DEO have agreed 
to communicate with Chukchi Sea hunters via the radio onboard the 
vessel. Based on this considerable distance from the traditional whale 
hunting grounds and the fact that the vessel will not come into any of 
the Chukchi Sea villages during the hunting season for resupply

[[Page 54436]]

or crew changes, NMFS has determined that there will not be an 
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of marine mammals for 
subsistence uses, even if the southeastern portion of the project area 
is surveyed in late September/early October. NMFS must also weigh the 
practicability of applicant implementation when requiring mitigation 
measures. Because changing the survey design could potentially make it 
impossible to survey the area or compromise the vessel or its crew, 
NMFS has determined that it is not feasible to change the survey 
design.
    Comment 2: The MMC recommends that NMFS require UAGI to re-estimate 
the proposed exclusion and buffer zones for the mitigation airgun using 
operational and site-specific environmental parameters and the modeled 
developed by Marine Acoustics, Inc. (MAI). If NMFS does not follow this 
recommendation, then the MMC recommends that NMFS provide a detailed 
justification for basing the exclusion and buffer zones for the 
proposed survey in the Chukchi Sea and Arctic Ocean on modeling that 
relies on measurements from the Gulf of Mexico and that is inconsistent 
with the modeling approach used for the 10-airgun array.
    Response: NMFS is satisfied that the data supplied are sufficient 
for NMFS to conduct its analysis and make any determinations and 
therefore no further effort is needed by the applicant. While exposures 
of marine mammals to acoustic stimuli are difficult to estimate, NMFS 
is confident that the levels of take provided by L-DEO in their IHA 
application and EA, and authorized herein are estimated based upon the 
best available scientific information and estimation methodology.
    Although L-DEO has modeled a variety of source configurations 
typically used on the Langseth, for this survey, the PI requested a 
small energy source and unique source configuration to conduct the 
proposed research (i.e., 10-airgun array with a discharge volume of 
1,830 in\3\). L-DEO did not have a model result for this source/
configuration available for use or the capability within L-DEO at the 
time to prepare one. As a result, MAI was contracted by L-DEO to model 
the unique source and configuration for this survey. For that reason, a 
model capable of accounting for site-specific environmental parameters 
was used to estimate the various sound isopleths for the 10-gun array.
    The proposed mitigation gun is considered a low-energy source, a 
single bolt 40 in\3\ airgun. While the model for the mitigation gun 
does not account for site-specific environmental conditions in the 
Arctic, given the small source, it was viewed as unnecessary to run an 
additional model incorporating environmental context for this survey. 
Model results for the mitigation gun do not appear inconsistent with 
results produced by MAI for the larger array. Additionally, sound 
source verification (SSV) tests have been conducted for several small 
airgun sources in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas in recent years. 
Although tests have not been conducted on a single bolt 40 in\3\ 
airgun, SSV tests were conducted in 2008 on a 4 x 10 in\3\ airgun array 
(total discharge volume of 40 in\3\) and in 2009 on two 2 x 10 in\3\ 
airgun array (total discharge volume of 40 in\3\). These tests were 
conducted in shallow to intermediate water depths (as defined by the 
ranges provided in the UAGI IHA application). The 2008 test results 
indicate that sounds attenuated to 160-dB (rms) 1,400 m (4,593 ft) from 
the source, to 180-dB (rms) 160 m (525 ft) from the source, and to 190-
dB (rms) 50 m (164 ft) from the source. The 2009 test results indicate 
that sounds attenuated to 160-dB (rms) 546 m (1,791 ft) from the 
source, to 180-dB (rms) 83 m (272 ft) from the source, and to 190-dB 
(rms) 33 m (108 ft) from the source. The results of these two tests are 
fairly consistent with the modeling for the single bolt gun to be used 
in this survey (see Table 1 earlier in this document). L-DEO intends to 
investigate new acoustic modeling programs in the future which 
incorporate environmental context. NMFS has considered the models and 
model results and has concluded that the proposed exclusions zones for 
the single mitigation gun are appropriate for the survey.
    The IHA issued to UAGI, under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA 
provides monitoring and mitigation requirements to protect marine 
mammals from injury, serious injury, or mortality. UAGI is required to 
comply with the IHA's requirements. These analyses are supported by 
extensive scientific research and data. NMFS is confident in the peer-
reviewed results of the L-DEO seismic calibration studies which, 
although viewed as conservative, were used to determine the sound radii 
for the mitigation airgun for this cruise and which factor into 
exposure estimates. NMFS has determined that these reviews are the best 
scientific data available for review of the IHA application and to 
support the necessary analyses and determinations under the MMPA, 
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and NEPA.
    Comment 3: The NSB states that NMFS should require applicants to 
assess impacts of surveys to bowhead whales to the 120 dB level, 
especially in this case because the survey will overlap in time with 
migrating bowheads and the hunts in Barrow and Wainwright.
    Response: As noted by the NSB in its letter, UAGI did consider the 
impacts to bowhead whales from sound levels lower than 160 dB in its 
application. Additionally, NMFS also noted reactions of bowhead whales 
to sounds below 160 dB in its Notice of Proposed IHA (76 FR 41463, July 
14, 2011). The best information available to date for reactions by 
bowhead whales to noise, such as seismic, is based on the results from 
the 1998 aerial survey (as supplemented by data from earlier years) as 
reported in Miller et al. (1999). In 1998, bowhead whales below the 
water surface at a distance of 20 km (12.4 mi) from an airgun array 
received pulses of about 117-135 dB re 1 [mu]Pa rms, depending upon 
propagation. Corresponding levels at 30 km (18.6 mi) were about 107-126 
dB re 1 [mu]Pa rms. Miller et al. (1999) surmise that deflection may 
have begun about 35 km (21.7 mi) to the east of the seismic operations, 
but did not provide sound pressure level (SPL) measurements to that 
distance and noted that sound propagation has not been studied as 
extensively eastward in the alongshore direction, as it has northward, 
in the offshore direction. Therefore, while this single year of data 
analysis indicates that bowhead whales may make minor deflections in 
swimming direction at a distance of 30-35 km (18.6-21.7 mi), there is 
no indication that the SPL where deflection first begins is at 120 dB; 
it could be at another SPL lower or higher than 120 dB. Miller et al. 
(1999) also note that the received levels at 20-30 km (12.4-18.6 mi) 
were considerably lower in 1998 than have previously been shown to 
elicit avoidance in bowheads exposed to seismic pulses. However, the 
seismic airgun array used in 1998 was larger than the ones used in 1996 
and 1997. Therefore, while NMFS considers impacts to bowhead whales 
from sound levels below 160 dB, NMFS believes that it cannot 
scientifically support adopting any single SPL value below 160 dB and 
apply it across the board for all species and in all circumstances.
    As stated in the past, NMFS does not believe that minor course 
corrections during a migration rise to a level of being a significant 
behavioral response. To show the contextual nature of this minor 
behavioral modification, recent monitoring studies of Canadian seismic 
operations indicate that when, not migrating, but involved in feeding,

[[Page 54437]]

bowhead whales do not move away from a noise source at an SPL of 160 
dB. Therefore, while bowheads may avoid an area of 20 km (12.4 mi) 
around a noise source, when that determination requires a post-survey 
computer analysis to find that bowheads have made a 1 or 2 degree 
course change, NMFS believes that does not rise to a level of a 
``take.'' NMFS therefore continues to estimate ``takings'' under the 
MMPA from impulse noises, such as seismic, as being at a distance of 
160 dB (re 1 [mu]Pa).
    Although it is possible that marine mammals could react to any 
sound levels detectable above the ambient noise level within the 
animals' respective frequency response range, this does not mean that 
such animals would react in a biologically significant way. According 
to experts on marine mammal behavior, the degree of reaction which 
constitutes a ``take,'' i.e., a reaction deemed to be biologically 
significant that could potentially disrupt the migration, breathing, 
nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, etc., of a marine mammal is 
complex and context specific, and it depends on several variables in 
addition to the received level of the sound by the animals. These 
additional variables include, but are not limited to, other source 
characteristics (such as frequency range, duty cycle, continuous vs. 
impulse vs. intermittent sounds, duration, moving vs. stationary 
sources, etc.); specific species, populations, and/or stocks; prior 
experience of the animals (na[iuml]ve vs. previously exposed); 
habituation or sensitization of the sound by the animals; and behavior 
context (whether the animal perceives the sound as predatory or simply 
annoyance), etc. (Southall et al., 2007). Therefore, unless and until 
an improved approach is developed and peer-reviewed, NMFS will continue 
to use the 160-dB threshold for determining the level of take of marine 
mammals by Level B harassment for impulse noise (such as from airguns). 
While NMFS does not consider exposures to sounds below 160-dB (rms) as 
likely to result in take of marine mammals by Level B harassment, NMFS 
acknowledges that some behaviors that might result from exposures at 
these lower levels do have the potential to impact a subsistence hunt.
    MAI did not model the 120-dB isopleths for the 10-airgun array for 
the 120-dB radius. Using back-of-the-envelope calculations, which do 
not take into consideration the site-specific environmental parameters 
as was done for calculating the 160-, 180-, and 190-dB radii, the 120-
dB radius is anticipated to extend approximately 115 km (71.5 mi) in 
deep water (>1,000 m [3,281 ft]), 177 km (110 mi) in intermediate water 
(100-1,000 m [328-3,281 ft]), and 204 km (126.8 mi) in shallow water 
(<100 m [328 ft]). The planned survey tracklines lie between 250 and 
800 km (155 and 497 mi) offshore of the Chukchi Sea coast. Therefore, 
when surveying in the project area closest to Barrow and Wainwright, 
the sound will attenuate to 120-dB approximately 50 km (31 mi) from the 
coast. Typical bowhead hunting grounds in Barrow are to the east of 
Point Barrow, therefore making this distance even greater. Although 
Wainwright has not landed a fall bowhead whale in many years, the 
village did land a whale on October 7, 2010. If Wainwright conducts its 
hunt around this same time in 2011, it will be just after the 
conclusion of the UAGI survey. UAGI intends to cease seismic operations 
(barring weather or operational delays) on October 5, 2011. The vessel 
will then spend approximately 4 days transiting to Dutch Harbor. The 
Langseth will remain approximately 80 km (50 mi) or more offshore while 
transiting through the Chukchi Sea, and no airguns will be operating at 
this time. Based on the information provided here and later in this 
document, it is not anticipated that the UAGI survey will have an 
unmitigable adverse impact on the bowhead whale hunts at Barrow or 
Wainwright.
    Comment 4: The NSB recommends that NMFS request the applicant to 
revise the proposal (and take request, if needed) and evaluate the 
potential impacts from the MBES, SBP, and ADCP.
    Response: The applicant provided an evaluation of the potential 
impacts to marine mammals from the use of these equipment sources in 
the IHA application and the associated Environmental Assessment (EA). 
Additionally, NMFS evaluated the potential use of these devices and the 
potential impact that the sources may have on marine mammals in the 
Notice of Proposed IHA (76 FR 41463, July 14, 2011).
    NMFS has determined that it is not necessary to calculate take, 
beyond what has already been calculated, from the use of these higher-
frequency sound sources. The acoustic footprints of these sources are 
anticipated to fall within that of the airgun array. The likelihood of 
a marine mammal swimming within the narrow beams of these sources is 
small. If the animal were to swim within the area under the vessel 
where it could potentially be exposed to these sounds, it would likely 
only be subjected to a single pulse because of the narrow beams. 
Therefore, no additional take has been calculated for these sources.
    Comment 5: The Commission recommends that if NMFS is planning to 
allow the applicant to resume full power after 8 minutes (min) under 
certain circumstances, specify in the authorization in all conditions 
under which an 8 min period could be followed by a full-power 
resumption of the airguns.
    Response: NMFS has specified in the IHA all conditions when UAGI 
may resume full power after 8 min. During periods of active seismic 
operations, there are occasions when the airguns need to be temporarily 
shut-down (for example due to equipment failure, maintenance, or shut-
down) or a power-down is necessary (for example when a marine mammal is 
seen to either enter or about to enter the exclusion zone [EZ]). In 
these instances, should the airguns be inactive or powered-down for 
more than 8 min, then L-DEO would follow the ramp-up procedures 
identified in the ``Mitigation'' section found later in this document 
where airguns will be re-started beginning with the smallest airgun in 
the array and increase in steps not to exceed 6 dB per 5 min over a 
total duration of approximately 30 min. NMFS and NSF believe that the 8 
min period in question is an appropriate minimum amount of time to pass 
after which a ramp-up process should be followed. In these instances, 
should it be possible for the airguns to be re-activated without 
exceeding the 8 min period (for example equipment is fixed or a marine 
mammal is visually observed to have left the EZ for the full source 
level), then the airguns would be reactivated to the full operating 
source level identified for the survey (in this case, 1,830 in\3\) 
without need for initiating ramp-up procedures. In the event a marine 
mammal enters the EZ and a power-down is initiated, and the marine 
mammal is not visually observed to have left the EZ, then UAGI and L-
DEO must wait 15 min (for species with shorter dive durations--small 
odontocetes and pinnipeds) or 30 min (for species with longer dive 
durations--mysticetes) after the last sighting before ramp-up 
procedures can be initiated, or as otherwise directed by requirements 
in an IHA. However, ramp-up will not occur as long as a marine mammal 
is detected within the EZ, which provides more time for animals to 
leave the EZ, and accounts for the position, swim speed, and heading of 
marine mammals within the EZ.

[[Page 54438]]

    Comment 6: The Commission recommends that NMFS condition the 
authorization to require UAGI to monitor, document, and report 
observations during all ramp-up procedures.
    Response: The IHA requires that observers on the Langseth make 
observations for 30 min prior to ramp-up, during all ramp-ups, and 
during all daytime seismic operations and record the following 
information when a marine mammal is sighted:
    (i) Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable), 
behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, heading (if 
consistent), bearing and distance from seismic vessel, sighting cue, 
apparent reaction of the airguns or vessel (e.g., none, avoidance, 
approach, paralleling, etc., and including responses to ramp-up), and 
behavioral pace; and
    (ii) Time, location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel 
(including number of airguns operating and whether in state of ramp-up 
or power-down), Beaufort wind force and sea state, visibility, and sun 
glare.
    Comment 7: The Commission recommends that NMFS work with NSF to 
analyze these monitoring data to help determine the effectiveness of 
ramp-up procedures as a mitigation measure for geophysical surveys 
after the data are compiled and quality control measures have been 
completed.
    Response: One of the primary purposes of monitoring is to result in 
``increased knowledge of the species'' and the effectiveness of 
monitoring and mitigation measures; the effectiveness of ramp-up as a 
mitigation measure and marine mammal reaction to ramp-up would be 
useful information in this regard. NMFS has asked NSF and L-DEO to 
gather all data that could potentially provide information regarding 
the effectiveness of ramp-ups as a mitigation measure. However, 
considering the low numbers of marine mammal sightings and low numbers 
of ramp-ups, it is unlikely that the information will result in any 
statistically robust conclusions for this particular seismic survey. 
Over the long term, these requirements may provide information 
regarding the effectiveness of ramp-up as a mitigation measure, 
provided animals are detected during ramp-up.
    Comment 8: The Commission recommends that NMFS, prior to granting 
the requested authorization, provide additional justification for its 
preliminary determination that the proposed monitoring program will be 
sufficient to detect, with a high level of confidence, all marine 
mammals within or entering the identified EZs and buffer zones, 
including:
    (1) Identifying those species that it believes can be detected with 
a high degree of confidence using visual monitoring only,
    (2) Describing detection probability as a function of distance from 
the vessel,
    (3) Describing changes in detection probability under various sea 
state and weather conditions and light levels, and
    (4) Explaining how close to the vessel marine mammals must be for 
Protected Species Observers (PSOs) to achieve high nighttime detection 
rates.
    Response: NMFS determined that the planned monitoring program will 
be sufficient to detect (using visual monitoring and passive acoustic 
monitoring [PAM]), with reasonable certainty, marine mammals within or 
entering identified EZs. This monitoring, along with the required 
mitigation measures, will result in the least practicable impact on the 
affected species or stocks, will result in a negligible impact on the 
affected species or stocks of marine mammals, and will not have an 
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of marine mammals for 
taking for subsistence uses. Also, NMFS expects some animals to avoid 
areas around the airgun array ensonified at the level of the EZ.
    NMFS acknowledges that the detection probability for certain 
species of marine mammals varies depending on animal's size and 
behavior, as well as sea state, weather conditions, and light levels. 
The detectability of marine mammals likely decreases in low light 
(i.e., darkness), higher Beaufort sea states and wind conditions, and 
poor weather (e.g., fog and/or rain). However, at present, NMFS views 
the combination of visual monitoring and PAM as the most effective 
monitoring and mitigation techniques available for detecting marine 
mammals within or entering the EZ. The final monitoring and mitigation 
measures are the most effective feasible measures, and NMFS is not 
aware of any additional measures which could meaningfully increase the 
likelihood of detecting marine mammals in and around the EZ. Further, 
public comment has not revealed any additional monitoring or mitigation 
measures that could be feasibly implemented to increase the 
effectiveness of detection.
    NSF, UAGI, and L-DEO are receptive to incorporating proven 
technologies and techniques to enhance the current monitoring and 
mitigation program. Until proven technological advances are made, 
nighttime mitigation measures during operations include combinations of 
the use of visual PSOs for ramp-ups, PAM, night vision devices (NVDs), 
and continuous shooting of a mitigation airgun. L-DEO has conducted two 
tests regarding the effectiveness of NVDs and nighttime sightings. 
Results of those tests indicated that NVDs are effective to at least 
150-200 m (492-656 ft) from the vessel, and observing with the naked 
eye at night (i.e., darkness) is effective to about 30 m (98 ft) from 
the vessel. Should the airgun array be powered-down, the operation of a 
single airgun would continue to serve as a sound source deterrent to 
marine mammals. In the event of a complete shut-down of the airgun 
array at night for mitigation or repairs, L-DEO suspends the data 
collection until one-half hour after nautical twilight-dawn (when PSOs 
are able to clear the EZ). L-DEO will not activate the airguns until 
the entire EZ is visible for at least 30 min.
    In cooperation with NMFS, L-DEO will be conducting efficacy 
experiments of NVDs during a future Langseth cruise. In addition, in 
response to a recommendation from NMFS, L-DEO is evaluating the use of 
handheld forward-looking thermal imaging cameras to supplement 
nighttime monitoring and mitigation practices. During other low power 
seismic and seafloor mapping surveys, L-DEO successfully used these 
devices while conducting nighttime seismic operations.
    Comment 9: The NSB states that if PAM is intended to be used to 
help monitor the EZs, they recommend that NMFS require a different 
acoustic monitoring tool because the applicant did not provide details 
about the efficacy of their proposed approach for PAM and previous 
efforts to use PAM in the Chukchi Sea have had limited success. NMFS 
could require the deployment of sonobuoys as a means to detect marine 
mammals within or about to enter the EZs. The NSB fully supports the 
continued testing and development of PAM as a monitoring tool.
    Response: NMFS has determined that the PAM system proposed to be 
used during the UAGI survey is sufficient. The use of sonobuoys to 
detect marine mammals is unlikely to provide additional detection or 
monitoring benefits over the PAM system aboard the Langseth. Single 
sonobuoys cannot be used to localize animals within the EZ, and NMFS is 
unaware of an effective method for deploying and using multiple 
sonobuoys together while on the move or the software to integrate the 
data in a timely fashion, whereas the PAM system is capable of 
determining rough approximates of animal locations, thus making the 
detections more meaningful in the augmentation of mitigation. Second,

[[Page 54439]]

vocalizing low-frequency baleen whales are unlikely to be detected 
through sonobuoys because these sounds are below the human auditory 
threshold, whereas the PAM system is set up to display sound 
spectrograms that would allow the detection of marine mammal 
vocalizations outside of the human auditory range. Additionally, the 
location of sonobuoys after they are deployed are unknown, but they are 
designed to operate in line of sight distance from the vessel which 
would only provide limited detection improvement to visual detections 
during the day, and little improvement in the detection range compared 
to the current PAM system. The use of sonobuoys to detect marine 
mammals in the Arctic has also been done in the past during a similar 
survey, but no detections were made, and it is unlikely that sonobuoys 
would provide any improvement to detections beyond the visual and 
passive acoustic monitoring plan described in the IHA application.
    Comment 10: The Commission recommends that NMFS require the 
applicant to:
    (1) Report on the number of marine mammals that were detected 
acoustically and for which a power-down or shut-down of the airguns was 
initiated;
    (2) Specify if such animals also were detected visually; and
    (3) Compare the results from the two monitoring methods (visual 
versus acoustic) to help identify their respective strengths and 
weaknesses.
    Response: The IHA requires that acoustic PSOs on the Langseth do 
and record the following when a marine mammal is detected by the PAM:
    (i) Notify the on-duty visual PSO(s) immediately of a vocalizing 
marine mammal so a power-down or shut-down can be initiated, if 
required;
    (ii) Enter the information regarding the vocalization into a 
database. The data to be entered include an acoustic encounter 
identification number, whether it was linked with a visual sighting, 
date, time when first and last heard and whenever any additional 
information was recorded, position, and water depth when first 
detected, bearing if determinable, species or species group (e.g., 
unidentified dolphin, sperm whale), types and nature of sounds heard 
(e.g., clicks, continuous, sporadic, whistles, creaks, burst pulses, 
strength of signal, etc.), and any other notable information.
    L-DEO reports on the number of acoustic detections made by the PAM 
system within the post-cruise monitoring reports as required by the 
IHA. The report also includes a description of any acoustic detections 
that were concurrent with visual sightings, which allows for a 
comparison of acoustic and visual detection methods for each cruise.
    The post-cruise monitoring reports also include the following 
information: the total operational effort in daylight (hrs), the total 
operational effort at night (hrs), the total number of hours of visual 
observations conducted, the total number of sightings, and the total 
number of hours of acoustic detections conducted.
    LGL, a contractor for L-DEO, has processed sighting and density 
data, and their publications can be viewed online at: https://www.lgl.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=69&Itemid=162&lang=en. Post-cruise monitoring 
reports are currently available on the NMFS' MMPA Incidental Take 
Program website and on the NSF Web site (https://www.nsf.gov/geo/oce/envcomp/index.jsp) should there be interest in further analysis of this 
data by the public.
    Comment 11: The NSB recommends that NMFS require that all seismic 
surveys, regardless of their location or timing in the Beaufort and 
Chukchi Seas, undergo the independent peer review process.
    Response: NMFS' implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.108(d) state 
that an independent peer review of a monitoring plan is required if the 
activity may affect the availability of a species or stock of marine 
mammals for taking for subsistence purposes. The independent peer 
review of monitoring plans for incidental take authorization 
applications is not required for activities that occur outside of 
Arctic waters or in Arctic waters if it is determined that the activity 
will not affect the availability of a species or stock of marine 
mammals for taking for subsistence purposes. UAGI provided NMFS with a 
draft IHA application in early March, 2011, which included information 
on the timing and location of its proposed seismic lines. For reasons 
stated in the Notice of Proposed IHA (76 FR 41463, July 14, 2011) and 
later in this document, NMFS determined it was not necessary to have 
UAGI's monitoring plan peer reviewed. The survey will occur in an area 
that is between 250 and 800 km (155 and 497 mi) northwest of Barrow and 
Wainwright. Sound levels in the closest portion of the survey area will 
attenuate to 120 dB at approximately 50 km (31 mi) from the coast. The 
bowhead whales will be traveling from the east in a westward direction, 
and will reach Barrow prior to entering the sound field of the survey. 
The survey will occur after the conclusion of the spring and summer 
beluga hunts in the Chukchi Sea. If any beluga hunting continues into 
early September, it will be when the vessel is transiting to the site, 
approximately 80 km (50 mi) offshore. Seal hunting occurs closer to 
shore and typically does not occur beyond 40 km (25 mi) from the coast. 
Additionally, a Barrow resident will be aboard the Langseth in order to 
communicate with hunters.
    Since NMFS preliminarily determined (based on the information 
contained in the draft IHA application) that UAGI's activity would not 
affect the availability of a species or stock of marine mammals for 
taking for subsistence purposes, NMFS determined that their activity 
did not trigger the requirement for independent peer review of the 
monitoring plan. The trigger for needing an independent peer review of 
the monitoring plan is slightly different than the ``no unmitigable 
adverse impact'' determination that NMFS must make prior to the 
issuance of an IHA. Anyone is able to make recommendations on a 
proposed monitoring plan during the 30-day public comment period that 
is afforded during the proposed IHA process. NMFS will continue to make 
determinations on which activities require an independent peer review 
of the monitoring plans on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the 
implementing regulations.
    Comment 12: The NSB states that NMFS should require each IHA 
applicant to contribute funding or support to gather additional 
scientific information about the long-term impacts of anthropogenic 
sounds on bowhead and beluga whales. This could occur through satellite 
tracking, more extensive aerial or acoustic surveys, or physiological 
studies related to stress or impacts to hearing.
    Response: NMFS' implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(14) 
indicate that NMFS encourages additional research and that applicants 
should coordinate with others conducting research on marine mammals in 
the same area. However, NMFS is unable to require that an applicant 
provide funding to those already conducting research on marine mammals.
    The research scientist involved with this survey plans to use 
seismic equipment to investigate the tectonic structure in the 
Amerasian basin. While the study of long term impacts to marine mammals 
that deflect away from anthropogenic sound is outside of the proposed 
scope of this project, UAGI does support a variety of scientists and 
research at its institution, including

[[Page 54440]]

marine mammal research. Data collected by PSOs on the Langseth during 
the survey will be made publicly available for further analysis by 
interested parties. This research project received funding from NSF. 
NSF has provided support and funding for workshops, conferences, and 
meetings related to the issue of anthropogenic sound in the marine 
environment and research proposals to enhance monitoring and mitigation 
measures for marine species, with a particular focus on marine mammals. 
NSF is receptive to receiving science proposals for funding 
consideration, including those to investigate anthropogenic sound in 
the marine environment and potential long-term effects. Proposals 
received would be reviewed and considered for funding through the 
standard NSF merit review process.
    Comment 13: The NSB states that NMFS should request UAGI to revise 
their IHA application and take estimates to account for the migration 
of marine mammals through the proposed survey area.
    Response: NMFS does not agree that the take estimates need to be 
revised for bowhead and beluga whales to account for migration. First, 
evidence has shown that the bowhead whale fall migratory route through 
the Chukchi Sea is more spread out than in the Beaufort Sea, where 
whales tend to have a more confined migratory corridor due to ice 
conditions. In a recent satellite tagging study, Quakenbush et al. 
(2010) concluded from GPS data that bowhead whales do not spend much 
time in the northern Chukchi Sea or the Arctic Ocean north of the 
Chukchi Sea, near UAGI's 2011 seismic survey. Quakenbush et al. (2010) 
note that most of the whales moved west through the Chukchi Sea between 
71[deg] and 74[deg] N. UAGI's study area occurs between 72.5-77[deg] N. 
Based on that data, only part of the survey area occurs in the 
migratory corridor. Kernel densities from the study showed that areas 
with the highest probability of bowhead use from September to December 
were near Point Barrow and the northeast Chukotka coast; the area along 
the east coast of Wrangel Island also had a moderate probability of use 
(Quakenbush et al., 2010). In addition, movements and behavior of 
tagged bowhead whales in this study indicated that the greatest 
potential for disturbance from industrial activities is near Point 
Barrow in September and October and in the lease area in September. 
These locations are a considerable distance from UAGI's survey area.
    UAGI used data collected during recent aerial surveys in the 
Chukchi Sea to determine likely densities of cetaceans in the fall. 
These data are considered the best available. Therefore, NMFS has 
determined that the authorized levels of take are appropriate. 
Reasoning for this determination was provided in the Notice of Proposed 
IHA (76 FR 41463, July 14, 2011). Additionally, UAGI included an 
additional 25 percent of survey tracklines into the calculations to 
account for lines associated with turns, airgun testing, and repeat 
coverage of any areas where initial data quality is sub-standard. 
Because UAGI multiplied the expected species density times the 
anticipated area to be ensonified to that level during airgun 
operations in each depth stratum, excluding overlap, this 25 percent 
contingency is included in the take calculations. Based on the 
reasoning provided here, NMFS has determined that it is unnecessary to 
recalculate the take estimates for bowhead and beluga whales or any 
other marine mammals that may occur in the seismic survey project area.
    Comment 14: The Commission recommends that NMFS consult with the 
funding agency (i.e., NSF) and individual applicants (e.g., UAGI, L-DEO 
and U.S. Geological Survey) to develop, validate, and implement a 
monitoring program that provides a scientifically sound, reasonably 
accurate assessment of the types of marine mammal taking and number of 
marine mammals taken.
    Response: Studies have reported on the abundance and distribution 
of marine mammals inhabiting the Arctic Ocean in the Chukchi Sea, which 
overlaps with the seismic survey area, and UAGI has incorporated this 
data into their analyses used to predict marine mammal take in their 
application. NMFS believes that UAGI's current approach for estimating 
abundance in the survey area (prior to the survey) is the best 
available approach.
    There will be significant amounts of transit time during the 
cruise, and PSOs will be on watch prior to and after the seismic 
portions of the survey, in addition to during the survey. The 
collection of this visual observational data by PSOs may contribute to 
baseline data on marine mammals (presence/absence) and provide some 
generalized support for estimated take numbers, but it is unlikely that 
the information gathered from this single cruise would result in any 
statistically robust conclusions for any particular species because of 
the small number of animals typically observed.
    NMFS acknowledges the MMC's recommendations and is open to further 
coordination with the MMC, NSF (the vessel owner), and L-DEO (the ship 
operator on behalf of NSF), to develop, validate, and implement a 
monitoring program that will provide or contribute towards a more 
accurate assessment of the types of marine mammal taking and the number 
of marine mammals taken. However, the cruise's primary focus is marine 
geophysical research, and the survey may be operationally limited due 
to considerations such as location, time, fuel, services, and other 
resources.

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity

    The Chukchi Sea supports a diverse assemblage of marine mammals, 
including: bowhead, gray, beluga, killer, minke, humpback, and fin 
whales; harbor porpoise; ringed, ribbon, spotted, and bearded seals; 
narwhals; polar bears; and walruses. The bowhead, humpback, and fin 
whales are listed as endangered, and the polar bear is listed as 
threatened under the U.S. ESA. All of these species are also considered 
depleted under the MMPA. On December 10, 2010, NMFS published a 
notification of proposed threatened status for subspecies of the ringed 
seal (75 FR 77476) and a notification of proposed threatened and not 
warranted status for subspecies and distinct population segments of the 
bearded seal (75 FR 77496) in the Federal Register. Neither species is 
considered depleted under the MMPA.
    The bowhead and beluga whales and the ringed and bearded seals are 
the marine mammal species most likely to be encountered during this 
survey, with the ringed seal being the most likely marine mammal 
species to occur throughout the survey area. Although humpback and 
minke whales are uncommon in the Arctic Ocean, sightings of both 
species have occurred in the Chukchi Sea in recent years (Brueggeman, 
2009; Haley et al., 2010; Clarke et al., 2011).
    There are scattered records of narwhal in Alaskan waters, where the 
species is considered extralimital (Reeves et al., 2002). Harbor 
porpoises occur mainly in shelf areas where they can dive to depths of 
at least 220 m (722 ft) and stay submerged for more than 5 min (Harwood 
and Wilson, 2001). This species prefers shallower waters, making it 
unlikely that harbor porpoises would be encountered during the proposed 
seismic survey. Because of the rarity of these two species in the 
survey area, they are not considered further in this document. The 
polar bear and walrus are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
(USFWS) and are

[[Page 54441]]

not considered further in this IHA notice.
    Refer to Sections III and IV of UAGI's application for detailed 
information regarding the abundance and distribution, seasonal 
distribution, population status, and life history and behavior of these 
species and their occurrence in the project area. When reviewing the 
application, NMFS determined that the species descriptions provided by 
UAGI correctly characterized the abundance and distribution, seasonal 
distribution, population status, and life history and behavior of each 
species. Additional information can also be found in the NMFS Stock 
Assessment Reports (SAR). The 2010 Alaska Marine Mammal SAR is 
available on the Internet at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/sars/ak2010.pdf.
    The application also presents how UAGI calculated the estimated 
densities for the marine mammals in the survey area (see ADDRESSES). 
NMFS reviewed these data and determined them to be the best available 
scientific information for the purposes of the IHA.

Brief Background on Marine Mammal Hearing

    When considering the influence of various kinds of sound on the 
marine environment, it is necessary to understand that different kinds 
of marine life are sensitive to different frequencies of sound. Based 
on available behavioral data, audiograms have been derived using 
auditory evoked potentials, anatomical modeling, and other data, 
Southall et al. (2007) designate ``functional hearing groups'' for 
marine mammals and estimate the lower and upper frequencies of 
functional hearing of the groups. The functional groups and the 
associated frequencies are indicated below (though animals are less 
sensitive to sounds at the outer edge of their functional range and 
most sensitive to sounds of frequencies within a smaller range 
somewhere in the middle of their functional hearing range):
     Low frequency cetaceans (13 species of mysticetes): 
functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and 
22 kHz (however, a study by Au et al. (2006) of humpback whale songs 
indicate that the range may extend to at least 24 kHz);
     Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 species of dolphins, six 
species of larger toothed whales, and 19 species of beaked and 
bottlenose whales): functional hearing is estimated to occur between 
approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;
     High frequency cetaceans (eight species of true porpoises, 
six species of river dolphins, Kogia, the franciscana, and four species 
of cephalorhynchids): functional hearing is estimated to occur between 
approximately 200 Hz and 180 kHz; and
     Pinnipeds in Water: functional hearing is estimated to 
occur between approximately 75 Hz and 75 kHz, with the greatest 
sensitivity between approximately 700 Hz and 20 kHz.
    As mentioned previously in this document, 11 marine mammal species 
(seven cetacean and four pinniped species) are likely to occur in the 
survey area. Of the seven cetacean species likely to occur in UAGI's 
survey area, five are classified as low frequency cetaceans (i.e., 
bowhead, gray, humpback, minke, and fin whales) and two are classified 
as mid-frequency cetaceans (i.e., beluga and killer whales) (Southall 
et al., 2007).

Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals

    Acoustic stimuli generated by the operation of the airguns, which 
introduce sound into the marine environment, may have the potential to 
cause Level B harassment of marine mammals in the survey area. The 
effects of sounds from airgun operations might include one or more of 
the following: tolerance, masking of natural sounds, behavioral 
disturbance, temporary or permanent hearing impairment, or non-auditory 
physical or physiological effects (Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon et 
al., 2004; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2007). Takes by 
serious injury or mortality are not anticipated to occur as a result of 
the proposed activities and none are authorized in the IHA.
    Permanent hearing impairment, in the unlikely event that it 
occurred, would constitute injury, but temporary threshold shift (TTS) 
is not an injury (Southall et al., 2007). Although the possibility 
cannot be entirely excluded, it is unlikely that the project would 
result in any cases of temporary or permanent hearing impairment or any 
significant non-auditory physical or physiological effects. Based on 
available data and studies, some behavioral disturbance is expected, 
but NMFS expects the disturbance to be localized and short-term.
    In the ``Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine 
Mammals'' section of the Notice of Proposed IHA, NMFS included a 
qualitative discussion of the different ways that the seismic survey 
activities may potentially affect marine mammals. The discussion 
included potential effects from the airguns, as well as the other 
instrumentation that may be deployed during the survey (i.e., MBES, 
SBP, and ADCP). Marine mammals may experience masking and behavioral 
disturbance. The information contained in the ``Potential Effects of 
Specified Activities on Marine Mammals'' section from the proposed IHA 
has not changed. Please refer to the Notice of Proposed IHA for the 
full discussion (76 FR 41463, July 14, 2011). Additional information 
can also be found in UAGI's application and the NSF EA (see ADDRESSES). 
The inclusion of mitigation and monitoring measures described later in 
this document (see the ``Mitigation'' and ``Monitoring and Reporting'' 
sections) are anticipated to reduce impacts even further.

Anticipated Effects on Habitat

    The seismic survey is not anticipated to have any permanent impact 
on habitats used by the marine mammals in the survey area, including 
the food sources they use (i.e., fish and invertebrates). Additionally, 
no physical damage to any habitat is anticipated as a result of 
conducting the seismic survey. While it is anticipated that the 
specified activity may result in marine mammals avoiding certain areas 
due to temporary ensonification, this impact to habitat is temporary 
and reversible and was considered as behavioral modification. The main 
impact associated with the activity will be temporarily elevated noise 
levels and the associated direct effects on marine mammals.
    The Notice of Proposed IHA contained a full discussion of the 
potential impacts to marine mammal habitat and prey species in the 
project area. No changes have been made to that discussion. Please 
refer to the Notice of Proposed IHA for the full discussion of 
potential impacts to marine mammal habitat (76 FR 41463, July 14, 
2011). NMFS has determined that UAGI's marine seismic survey is not 
expected to have any habitat-related effects that could cause 
significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or 
on the food sources that they utilize.

Mitigation

    In order to issue an incidental take authorization (ITA) under 
section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must, where applicable, set 
forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and 
other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species 
or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, 
mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the 
availability of

[[Page 54442]]

such species or stock for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant).
    UAGI and L-DEO have based the mitigation measures described herein, 
to be implemented for the proposed seismic survey, on the following:
    (1) Protocols used during previous L-DEO seismic research cruises 
as approved by NMFS; and
    (2) Recommended best practices in Richardson et al. (1995), Pierson 
et al. (1998), and Weir and Dolman (2007).
    To reduce the potential for disturbance from acoustic stimuli 
associated with the proposed activities, UAGI and/or its designees will 
implement the following mitigation measures for marine mammals:
    (1) Exclusion zones;
    (2) Power-down procedures;
    (3) Shut-down procedures; and
    (4) Ramp-up procedures.

Planning Phase

    Prior to submitting a final MMPA ITA request to NMFS, NSF works 
with the scientists that propose studies to determine when to conduct 
the research study. Dr. Coakley worked with L-DEO and NSF to identify 
potential time periods to carry out the survey, taking into 
consideration key factors such as environmental conditions (i.e., ice 
conditions, the seasonal presence of marine mammals and sea birds), 
weather conditions, and equipment. The project's timeframe avoids the 
eastward (