Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Low-Energy Marine Geophysical Survey in the Southwest Pacific Ocean, East of New Zealand, May to June 2015, 29635-29660 [2015-12531]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 99 (Friday, May 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29635-29660]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12531]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XD727


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Low-
Energy Marine Geophysical Survey in the Southwest Pacific Ocean, East 
of New Zealand, May to June 2015

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

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

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), 
notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an IHA to the Scripps 
Institution of Oceanography (SIO), on behalf of SIO and the U.S. 
National Science Foundation (NSF), to take marine mammals, by Level B 
harassment, incidental to conducting a low-energy marine geophysical 
(seismic) survey in the Southwest Pacific Ocean, East of New Zealand, 
May to June 2015.

DATES: Effective May 18, 2015 to July 30, 2015.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the IHA and the application are available by 
writing to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, 
Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 
East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 or by telephone to the 
contacts listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    An electronic copy of the IHA application containing a list of the 
references used in this document may be obtained by writing to the 
address specified above, telephoning the contact listed here (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) or visiting the Internet at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/. Documents cited in this 
notice, including the IHA application, may also be viewed by 
appointment, during regular business hours, at the aforementioned 
address.
    An Environmental Analysis of a Low-Energy Marine Geophysical Survey 
by the R/V Roger Revelle in the Southwest Pacific Ocean, East of New 
Zealand, May to June 2015 (Environmental Analysis) in accordance with 
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the regulations 
published by the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ), has been 
prepared on behalf of NSF and SIO. It is posted at the foregoing site. 
NMFS has independently evaluated the Environmental Analysis and has 
prepared a separate NEPA analysis titled Environmental Assessment on 
the Issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization to the Scripps 
Institution of Oceanography to Take Marine Mammals by Harassment 
Incidental to a Low-Energy Marine Geophysical Survey in the Southwest 
Pacific Ocean, East of New Zealand, May to June 2015. NMFS also issued 
a Biological Opinion under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 
(ESA) to evaluate the effects of the low-energy seismic survey and IHA 
on marine species listed as threatened or endangered. The NMFS 
Biological Opinion is available online at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/consultations/opinion.htm.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

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

[[Page 29636]]

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 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 United States can apply for an authorization 
to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. 
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA establishes a 45-day time limit for 
NMFS's review of an application, followed by a 30-day public notice and 
comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental 
harassment of small numbers of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the 
close of the public 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

    On December 15, 2014, NMFS received an application from SIO, on 
behalf of SIO and NSF, requesting that NMFS issue an IHA for the take, 
by Level B harassment only, of small numbers of marine mammals 
incidental to conducting a low-energy marine seismic survey as well as 
heat-flow measurements in the Southwest Pacific Ocean, at three sites 
off the east coast of New Zealand, during May to June 2015. The 
sediment coring component of the planned project, which was described 
in the IHA application and NSF and SIO's Environmental Analysis, was 
not funded and no piston or gravity coring for seafloor samples would 
be conducted during the low-energy seismic survey. The low-energy 
seismic survey will take place within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) 
and outside the territorial waters of New Zealand. On behalf of SIO, 
the U.S. Department of State is seeking authorization from New Zealand 
for clearance to work within the EEZ.
    The research will be conducted by Oregon State University and 
funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF). SIO plan to use 
one source vessel, the R/V Roger Revelle (Revelle), and a seismic 
airgun array and hydrophone streamer to collect seismic data in the 
Southwest Pacific Ocean, East of New Zealand. SIO plans to use 
conventional low-energy, seismic methodology to perform marine-based 
studies in the Southwest Pacific Ocean (see Figure 1). The studies will 
involve a low-energy seismic survey and heat-flow measurements from the 
seafloor to meet a number of research goals. In addition to the 
proposed operations of the seismic airgun array and hydrophone 
streamer, SIO intends to operate two additional acoustical data 
acquisition systems--a multi-beam echosounder and sub-bottom profiler 
continuously throughout the low-energy seismic survey. NMFS published a 
notice making preliminary determinations and proposing to issue an IHA 
on March 20, 2015 (80 FR 15060). The notice initiated a 30-day public 
comment period.
    Acoustic stimuli (i.e., increased underwater sound) generated 
during the operation of the seismic airgun array have the potential to 
cause behavioral disturbance for marine mammals in the proposed study 
area. This is the principal means of marine mammal taking associated 
with these activities, and SIO requested an authorization to take 35 
species of marine mammals by Level B harassment. Take is not expected 
to result from the use of the multi-beam echosounder and sub-bottom 
profiler, as the brief exposure of marine mammals to one pulse, or 
small numbers of signals, to be generated by these instruments in this 
particular case as well as their characteristics (e.g., narrow-shaped, 
downward-directed beam emitted from the bottom of the ship) is not 
likely to result in the harassment of marine mammals. Also, NMFS does 
not expect take to result from collision with the source vessel because 
it is a single vessel moving at a relatively slow, constant cruise 
speed of 5 knots ([kts]; 9.3 kilometers per hour [km/hr]; 5.8 miles per 
hour [mph]) during seismic acquisition within the study area, for a 
relatively short period of time (approximately 27 operational days). It 
is likely that any marine mammal will be able to avoid the vessel.

Description of the Specified Activity

Overview

    SIO plans to use one source vessel, the Revelle, a two GI airgun 
array and one hydrophone streamer to conduct the conventional seismic 
survey as part of the NSF-funded research project Collaborative 
Research: The Thermal Regime of the Hikurangi Subduction Zone and 
Shallow Slow Slip Events, New Zealand. In addition to the airguns, SIO 
intends to conduct a bathymetric survey and heat-flow measurements at 
three sites off the southwest coast of North Island and northeast coast 
of South Island, New Zealand from the Revelle during the low-energy 
seismic survey.

Dates and Duration

    The Revelle is expected to depart from Auckland, New Zealand on 
approximately May 18, 2015 and arrive at Napier, New Zealand on 
approximately June 18, 2015. Airgun operations will take approximately 
135 hours in total, and the remainder of the time will be spent in 
transit and collecting heat-flow measurements and cores. The total 
distance the Revelle will travel in the region to conduct the proposed 
research activities (i.e., seismic survey, bathymetric survey, and 
transit to heat-flow measurement locations) represents approximately 
2,000 km (1,079.9 nmi). Some minor deviation from this schedule is 
possible, depending on logistics and weather (e.g., the cruise may 
depart earlier or be extended due to poor weather; or there could be 
additional days of airgun operations if collected data are deemed to be 
of substandard quality).

Specified Geographic Region

    The planned project and survey sites are located off the southeast 
coast of North Island and northeast coast of the South Island, New 
Zealand in selected regions of the Southwest Pacific Ocean. The planned 
survey sites are located between approximately 38.5 to 42.5[deg] South 
and approximately 174 to 180[deg] East off the east coast of New 
Zealand, in the EEZ of New Zealand and outside of territorial waters 
(see Figure 1). Water depths in the study area are between 
approximately 200 to 3,000 m (656.2 to 9,842.5 ft). The proposed low-
energy seismic survey will be collected in a total of nine grids of 
intersecting lines of two sizes (see Figure 1) at exact locations to be 
determined in the field during May to June 2015. Figure 1 also 
illustrates the general bathymetry of the proposed study area. The 
proposed low-energy seismic survey would be within an area of 
approximately 1,154 km\2\

[[Page 29637]]

(336.5 nmi\2\). This estimate is based on the maximum number of 
kilometers for the low-energy seismic survey (1,250 km) multiplied by 
the area ensonified around the planned tracklines (2 x 0.6 km in 
intermediate water depths and 2 x 0.4 km in deep water depths). The 
ensonified area is based on the predicted rms radii (m) based on 
modeling and empirical measurements (assuming 100% use of the two 45 
in\3\ GI airguns in 100 to 1,000 m or greater than 1,000 m water 
depths), which was calculated to be 600 m (1,968.5 ft) or 400 m 
(1,312.3 ft).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22MY15.005


[[Page 29638]]



Detailed Description of the Specified Activity

    In support of a research project put forward by Oregon State 
University (OSU) and to be funded by NSF, SIO plans to conduct a low-
energy seismic survey in the Southwest Pacific Ocean, East of New 
Zealand, from May to June 2015. In addition to the low-energy seismic 
survey, scientific research activities will include conducting a 
bathymetric profile survey of the seafloor using transducer-based 
instruments such as a multi-beam echosounder and sub-bottom profiler; 
and heat-flow measurements from the seafloor using various methods and 
equipment at three sites off the southeast coast of North Island and 
northeast coast of South Island, New Zealand. Water depths in the 
survey area are approximately 200 to 3,000 meters (m) (656.2 to 9,842.5 
feet [ft]). The low-energy seismic survey is scheduled to occur for a 
total of approximately 135 hours over the course of the entire cruise, 
which would be for approximately 27 operational days in May to June 
2015. The planned low-energy seismic survey will be conducted during 
the day (from nautical twilight-dawn to nautical twilight-dusk) and 
night, and for up to approximately 72 hours of continuous operations at 
a time. The operation hours and survey length will include equipment 
testing, ramp-up, line changes, and repeat coverage. Some minor 
deviation from these dates will be possible, depending on logistics and 
weather. The Principal Investigators are Dr. R. N. Harris and Dr. A. 
Trehu of OSU.
    The planned surveys will allow the development of a process-based 
understanding of the thermal structure of the Hikurangi subduction 
zone, and the expansion of this understanding by using regional 
observations of gas hydrate-related bottom simulating reflections. To 
achieve the planned project's goals, the Principal Investigators plan 
to collect low-energy, high-resolution multi-channel system profiles, 
heat-flow measurements, and sediment cores along transects seaward and 
landward of the Hikurangi deformation front. Heat-flow measurements 
will be made in well-characterized sites, increasing the number of 
publicly available heat-flow and thermal conductivity measurements from 
this continental margin by two orders of magnitude. Seismic survey data 
will be used to produce sediment structural maps and seismic velocities 
to achieve the project objectives. Data from sediment cores will detect 
and estimate the nature and sources of fluid flow through high 
permeability pathways in the overriding plate and along the subduction 
thrust; characterize the hydrocarbon and gas hydrate system to assist 
with estimates of heat flow from Bottom Simulating Reflectors (BSR), 
their role in slope stability, and fluid source; and elucidate the 
response of microbes involved in carbon cycling to changes in methane 
flux.
    The low-energy seismic survey will be collected in a total of 9 
grids of intersecting lines of two sizes (see Figure 1) at exact 
locations to be determined in the field. The water depths will be very 
similar to those at the nominal survey locations shown in Figure 1. The 
northern and middle sites off the North Island will be the primary 
study areas, and the southern site off the South Island will be a 
contingency area that will only be surveyed if time permits. SIO's 
calculations assume that 7 grids at the primary areas and two grids at 
the southern site will be surveyed. The total trackline distance of the 
low-energy seismic survey will be approximately 1,250 km (including the 
two South Island contingency sites), almost all in water depths greater 
than 1,000 m.
    The procedures to be used for the survey will be similar to those 
used during previous low-energy seismic surveys by SIO and NSF and will 
use conventional seismic methodology. The planned low-energy seismic 
survey would involve one source vessel, the Revelle. SIO will deploy a 
two Sercel Generator Injector (GI) airgun array (each with a discharge 
volume of 45 in\3\ [290.3 cm\3\], in one string, with a total volume of 
90 in\3\ [580.6 cm\3\]) as an energy source, at a tow depth of up to 2 
m (6.6 ft) below the surface (more information on the airguns can be 
found in SIO's IHA application). The airguns in the array will be 
spaced approximately 8 m (26.2 ft) apart and 21 m (68.9 ft) astern of 
the vessel. The receiving system will consist of one 600 m (1,968.5 ft) 
long, 48-channel hydrophone streamer(s) towed behind the vessel (see 
Table 1). Data acquisition is planned along a series of predetermined 
lines, almost all (approximately 95%) of which would be in water depths 
greater than 1,000 m. As the GI airguns are towed along the survey 
lines, the hydrophone streamer will receive the returning acoustic 
signals and transfer the data to the onboard processing system. The 
seismic surveys will be conducted while the heat-flow probe is being 
recharged. All planned seismic data acquisition activities will be 
conducted by technicians provided by SIO, with onboard assistance by 
the scientists who have proposed the study. The vessel will be self-
contained, and the crew will live aboard the vessel for the entire 
cruise.
    The planned low-energy seismic survey (including equipment testing, 
start-up, line changes, repeat coverage of any areas, and equipment 
recovery) will consist of approximately 1,250 kilometers (km) (674.9 
nautical miles [nmi]) of transect lines (including turns) in the study 
area in the Southwest Pacific Ocean (see Figures 1 of the IHA 
application). Approximately 95% of the low-energy seismic survey will 
occur in water depths greater than 1,000 m. In addition to the 
operation of the airgun array and heat-flow measurements, a multi-beam 
echosounder and a sub-bottom profiler will also likely be operated from 
the Revelle continuously throughout the cruise. There will be 
additional airgun operations associated with equipment testing, ramp-
up, and possible line changes or repeat coverage of any areas where 
initial data quality is sub-standard. In SIO's estimated take 
calculations, 25% has been added for those additional operations.

    Table 1--Planned Low-Energy Seismic Survey Activities in the Southwest Pacific Ocean, East of New Zealand
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Time between
      Survey length (km)          Total duration      Airgun array      airgun shots       Streamer length (m)
                                     (hr) \1\         total volume       (distance)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,250 (674.9 nmi).............              ~135   2 x 45 = 90 in\3\  6 to 10 seconds   600 (1,968.5 ft)
                                                    (2 x 1474.8        (18.5 to 31 m
                                                    cm\3\).            or 60.7 to
                                                                       101.7 ft).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Airgun operations are planned for no more than approximately 72 continuous hours at a time.


[[Page 29639]]

    NMFS outlined the purpose of the program in a previous notice of 
the proposed IHA (80 FR 15060, March 20, 2015). The activities to be 
conducted have not changed between the proposed IHA notice and this 
final notice announcing the issuance of the IHA. For a more detailed 
description of the authorized action, including vessel and acoustic 
source specifications, metrics, characteristics of airgun pulses, 
predicted sound levels of airguns, bathymetric survey, heat-flow 
measurements, etc., we refer the reader to the notice of the proposed 
IHA (80 FR 15060, March 20, 2015), the IHA application, EA, and 
associated documents referenced above this section.

Comments and Responses

    A notice of preliminary determinations and proposed IHA for SIO's 
low-energy seismic survey was published in the Federal Register on 
March 20, 2015 (80 FR 15060). During the 30-day public comment period, 
NMFS received comments from one private citizen, Dr. Elisabeth Slooten 
of Otago University, and the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission). The 
comments are posted online at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/. Following are the substantive comments and NMFS's 
responses:
    Comment 1: The Commission recommends that NMFS adjust density 
estimates used to estimate the numbers of potential takes by 
incorporating some measure of uncertainty when available density data 
originate from other geographical areas and temporal scales and that 
NMFS formulate a policy or other guidance setting forth a consistent 
approach for how applicants should incorporate uncertainty in density 
estimates.
    Response: The availability of representative density information 
for marine mammal species varies widely across space and time. 
Depending on survey locations and modeling efforts, it may be necessary 
to consult estimates that are from a different area or season, that are 
at a non-ideal spatial scale, or that are several years out of date. We 
continue to evaluate available density information and are continuing 
progress on guidance that would outline a consistent general approach 
for addressing uncertainty in specific situations where certain types 
of data are or are not available.
    Comment 2: The Commission recommends that NMFS follow a consistent 
approach in assessing the potential for taking by Level B harassment 
from exposure to specific types of sound sources (e.g., echosounders, 
sub-bottom profilers, side-scan sonar, and fish-finding sonar) by all 
applicants who propose to use them. SIO will be using such sources 
during its activities off New Zealand, including when the airgun array 
will not be in use. The Commission understands that NMFS plans to 
develop clearer policies and guidance to address these concerns and 
would welcome to opportunity to work with NMFS as it develops these 
broadly applicable policies.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges the Commission's recommendation and we 
continue to work on a consistent approach for addressing potential 
impacts from active acoustic sources. For this low-energy seismic 
survey, NMFS assessed the potential for multi-beam echosounder and sub-
bottom profiler operations to impact marine mammals with the concurrent 
operation of the airgun array. We assume that, during simultaneous 
operations of the airgun array and the other active acoustic sources, a 
marine mammal close enough to be affected by the other active acoustic 
sources would already be affected by the airguns. Take is not expected 
to result from the use of the multi-beam echosounder and sub-bottom 
profiler, as the brief exposure of marine mammals to one pulse, or 
small number of signals, to be generated by these instruments in this 
particular case as well as their characteristics (e.g., narrow-shaped, 
downward-directed beam emitted from the bottom of the ship) is less 
likely to result in the harassment of marine mammals. Accordingly, NMFS 
has not authorized take from these other sound sources.
    Comment 3: The Commission is concerned that the Lamont-Doherty 
Earth Observatory of Columbia University's (L-DEO) acoustic modeling 
used for this low-energy seismic survey is not based on the best 
available science and does not support its continued use. Therefore, 
the Commission recommends that NMFS require SIO to have L-DEO re-
estimate the proposed exclusion and buffer zones and associated takes 
of marine mammals using site-specific environmental (including sound 
speed profiles, bathymetry, and sediment characteristics at a minimum) 
and operational (including number/type of airguns, tow depth) 
parameters for the proposed IHA. The reflective/refractive arrivals are 
the very measurements that ultimately determine underwater sound 
propagation and should be accounted for in site-specific modeling. 
Either empirical measurements from the particular survey site or a 
model that accounts for the conditions in the proposed survey area 
should be used to estimate exclusion and buffer zones because L-DEO 
failed to verify the applicability of its model to conditions outside 
of the Gulf of Mexico. The Commission recommends that NMFS impose the 
same requirements for all future IHAs submitted by SIO, NSF, Antarctic 
Support Contract (ASC), L-DEO, USGS, or any other relevant entity. The 
Commission also continues to believe that SIO and related entities 
should be held to the same standard as other action proponents (i.e., 
U.S. Navy, Air Force, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, and the oil 
and gas industry).
    Response: NMFS acknowledges the Commission's concerns about L-DEO's 
current acoustic modeling approach for estimating buffer and exclusion 
zones and also acknowledge that L-DEO did not incorporate site-specific 
sound speed profiles, bathymetry, and sediment characteristics of the 
action area in the current approach to estimates those buffer and 
exclusion zones for this low-energy seismic survey.
    In 2015, L-DEO explored solutions to this issue by conducting a 
retrospective sound power analysis of one of the lines acquired during 
L-DEO's truncated seismic survey offshore New Jersey in 2014 (Crone, 
2015). NMFS presented this information in the notice of the proposed 
IHA (80 FR 13961, March 17, 2015) for L-DEO's seismic survey. Briefly, 
Crone's (2015) preliminary analysis, specific to the survey site 
offshore New Jersey, confirmed that in-situ measurements and estimates 
of the 160- and 180 dB (rms) isopleths collected by the R/V Marcus G. 
Langseth's hydrophone streamer in shallow water were smaller that the 
predicted buffer and exclusion zones proposed for use in the 2015 
seismic survey.
    SIO's IHA application and NSF and SIO's Environmental Analysis 
describe the approach to establishing buffer and exclusion zones used 
for mitigation. In summary, L-DEO acquired field measurements for 
several array configurations at shallow- and deep-water depths during 
acoustic verification studies conducted in the northern Gulf of Mexico 
in 2003 (Tolstoy et al., 2004) and in 2007 and 2008 (Tolstoy et al., 
2009). Based on the empirical data from those studies, L-DEO developed 
a sound propagation modeling approach that conservatively predicts 
received sound levels as a function of distance from a particular 
airgun array configuration in deep water. For this low-energy seismic

[[Page 29640]]

survey, L-DEO developed the intermediate- and deep-water buffer and 
exclusion zones for the airgun array based on the empirically-derived 
measurements from the Gulf of Mexico calibration survey. Following is a 
summary of two additional analyses of in-situ data that support L-DEO's 
use of the modeled exclusion zones in this particular case.
    In 2010, L-DEO assessed the accuracy of their modeling approach by 
comparing the sound levels of the field measurements in the Gulf of 
Mexico study to their model predictions (Diebold et al., 2010). They 
reported that the observed sound levels from the field measurements 
fell almost entirely within the predicted mitigation radii curve for 
deep water (greater than 1,000 m) (Diebold et al., 2010).
    In 2012, L-DEO used a similar process to develop mitigation radii 
(i.e., buffer and exclusion zones) for a shallow-water seismic survey 
in the northeast Pacific Ocean offshore Washington in 2012. L-DEO 
conducted the shallow-water seismic survey using an airgun 
configuration that was approximately 98 percent larger than the total 
discharge volume planned for this intermediate and deep water survey 
(i.e., 6,600 cubic inches [in\3\] compared to 90 in\3\) and recorded 
the received sound levels on the shelf and slope off Washington using 
the Langseth's 8-km hydrophone streamer. Crone et al. (2014) analyzed 
those received sound levels from the 2012 seismic survey and reported 
that the actual distances for the buffer and exclusion zones were two 
to three times smaller than what L-DEO's modeling approach predicted. 
While the results confirm bathymetry's role in sound propagation, Crone 
et al. (2014) were able to confirm that the empirical measurements from 
the Gulf of Mexico calibration survey (the same measurements used to 
inform L-DEO's modeling approach for this survey in shallow water) 
overestimated the size of the buffer and exclusion zones for the 
shallow-water 2012 seismic survey off Washington and were thus 
precautionary, in that particular case.
    In summary, at present, L-DEO cannot adjust their modeling 
methodology to add the environmental and site-specific parameters as 
requested by the Commission. NMFS will continue to work with the NSF to 
address this issue of incorporating site-specific information to 
further inform the analysis and development of mitigation measures in 
oceanic and coastal areas for future seismic surveys with L-DEO, SIO, 
and NSF. NMFS will continue to work with L-DEO, SIO, NSF, and the 
Commission on continuing to verify the accuracy of their modeling 
approach. However, L-DEO's current modeling approach represents the 
best available information to reach our determinations for the IHA. As 
described earlier, the comparisons of L-DEO model results and the field 
data collected in the Gulf of Mexico, offshore Washington, and offshore 
New Jersey illustrate a degree of conservativeness built into L-DEO's 
model for deep water, which NMFS expects to offset some of the 
limitations of the model to capture the variability resulting from 
site-specific factors.
    L-DEO has conveyed to NMFS that additional modeling efforts to 
refine the process and conduct comparative analysis may be possible 
with the availability of research fund and other resources. Obtaining 
research funds is typically through a competitive process, including 
those submitted to federal agencies. The use of models for calculating 
buffer and exclusion zone radii and for developing take estimates is 
not a requirement of the MMPA Incidental Take Authorization process. 
Furthermore, NMFS does not provide specific guidance on model 
parameters nor prescribes a specific model for applicants as part of 
the MMPA Incidental Take Authorization process. There is a level of 
variability not only with parameters in the models, but also the 
uncertainty associated with data used in models, and therefore the 
quality of the model results submitted by applicants. NMFS, however, 
considers this variability when evaluating applications. Applicants use 
models as a tool to evaluate potential impacts, estimate the number of 
and type of takes of marine mammals, and for designing mitigation. NMFS 
takes into consideration the model used and its results in determining 
the potential impacts to marine mammals; however, it is just one 
component of our analysis during the MMPA consultation process as we 
also take into consideration other factors associated with the proposed 
action, (e.g., geographic location, duration of activities, context, 
intensity, etc.).
    There are many different modeling products and services 
commercially available that applicants could potentially use in 
developing their take estimates and analyses for MMPA Incidental Take 
Authorizations. These different models range widely in cost, 
complexity, and the number of specific factors that one can consider in 
any particular modeling run. NMFS does not believe that it is 
appropriate to prescribe the use of any particular modeling package. 
Rather, NMFS evaluates each applicant's approach independently in the 
context of their activity. In cases where an applicant uses a simpler 
model and there is concern that a model might not capture the 
variability across a parameter(s) that is not represented in the model, 
conservative choices are often made at certain decision points in the 
model to help ensure that modeled estimates are buffered in a manner 
that would not result in the agency underestimating takes or effects. 
In this case, results have shown that L-DEO's model reliably and 
conservatively estimates mitigation radii in intermediate and deep 
water. First, the observed sound levels from the field measurements 
fell almost entirely below L-DEO's estimated mitigation radii for deep 
water (Diebold et al., 2010). These conservative mitigation radii are 
the foundation for SIO's intermediate and deep water radii used in this 
low-energy seismic survey. Based on Crone et al.'s (2014) findings, 
NMFS finds that L-DEO reasonably estimates sound exposures for this 
low-energy seismic survey.
    Comment 4: The Commission states that NMFS indicated that it 
discounted 18 marine mammal species with ranges that may potentially 
occur in the Southwest Pacific Ocean and/or are in the stranding 
record--NMFS based the presumption on Baker et al. (2010) and their 
categorizing those species as ``vagrants.'' However, many other action 
proponents include certain species (including Arnoux's beaked whales, 
pygmy beaked whales, and Risso's dolphins) in their marine mammal 
impact assessments for seismic activities off New Zealand. Those 
species also are present in the New Zealand Department of 
Conservation's sighting database for marine mammals present (either 
alive or stranded) in New Zealand's waters. Because Arnoux's and pygmy 
beaked whales are not thoroughly studied and their habitat ranges are 
poorly understood, the Commission believes that it would have been 
prudent for NMFS to include them in the proposed IHA since they have 
been observed dead-stranded in New Zealand. Similarly, the range of 
Risso's dolphins does overlap with New Zealand waters based on 
information on various government Web sites, including NMFS's Web site. 
Further, Risso's dolphins have been observed in New Zealand both alive 
and dead. The Commission believes the potential to take those marine 
mammal species exists and recommends that NMFS include Arnoux's beaked 
whales, pygmy beaked whales, and Risso's dolphins in its IHA and 
authorize the associated takes.
    Response: In Baker et al. (2010), the term ``vagrant'' is defined 
as ``taxa that

[[Page 29641]]

are found unexpectedly in New Zealand and whose presence in this region 
is naturally transitory, or migratory species with fewer than 15 
individuals known or presumed to visit per year.'' Based on this, NMFS 
agrees with the Commission's recommendation that the potential to 
encounter Arnoux's and pygmy beaked whales and Risso's dolphins exists 
and has included authorized takes, which are based on encountering an 
average group size of animals, in the IHA issued to SIO and NSF. Also, 
as required in the IHA, if any marine mammal species are encountered 
during airgun operations that are not authorized for take and are 
likely to be exposed to sound pressure levels greater than or equal to 
160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for airgun operations, then SIO must alter 
speed or course or shut-down the airguns to prevent take.
    Comment 4: The Commission believes that g(0) and f(0) values should 
be based on the ability of PSOs to detect marine mammals rather than on 
hypothetically optimal estimates derived from scientific surveys (e.g., 
from NMFS's shipboard abundance surveys). The Commission also 
understands that L-DEO (and relevant entities) has been collecting for 
many years sightings data when the airguns are active and inactive. 
Those data could be pooled amongst similar survey types (e.g., based on 
geographical location, array configuration, airgun activity status, 
vessel-specific observational parameters) to determine rudimentary g(0) 
and f(0) values--an analysis that has been discussed with NMFS, L-DEO 
and relevant entities in the past. The Commission acknowledges that 
those values may not be as accurate as using a well-planned, randomized 
sampling design typically used during marine mammal scientific surveys, 
but believes adjusting by those rudimentary values would be preferable 
to assuming that only those animals detected during the survey equated 
to the total numbers taken, which is clearly an underestimate of 
reality.
    The Commission recommends that NMFS consult with SIO and other 
relevant entities (e.g., NSF, ASC, L-DEO, and USGS) to develop, 
validate, and implement a monitoring program that provides a 
scientifically sound, reasonably accurate assessment of the types of 
marine mammal takes and reliable estimates of the numbers of marine 
mammals taken by incorporating applicable g(0) and f(0) values derived 
from PSO data collected during seismic surveys. Although the Commission 
has made this recommendation in numerous previous letters, the 
Commission believes that NMFS may have misinterpreted it. NMFS recently 
stated that it does not generally believe it is appropriate to require 
NSF to collect information in the field to support the development of 
survey-specific correction factors (80 FR 4892, January 29, 2015). The 
Commission never suggested that correction factors be developed for 
every seismic survey. Rather, it is important for NSF, L-DEO, and other 
relevant entities to continue to collect appropriate sightings data in 
the field to be pooled to determine g(0) and f(0) values relevant to 
the various seismic survey types.
    Response: NMFS's implementing regulations require that applicants 
include monitoring that will result in ``an increased knowledge of the 
species, the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine 
mammals that are expected to be present while conducting activities . . 
.'' This could be qualitative or relative in nature, or it could be 
more directly quantitative. Scientists use g(0) and f(0) values in 
systematic marine mammal surveys to account for the undetected animals 
indicated above, however, these values are not simply established and 
the g(0) value varies across every observer based on their sighting 
acumen. While NMFS does not generally believe that post-activity take 
estimates using f(0) and g(0) are required to meet the monitoring 
requirement of the MMPA, in the context of NSF and SIO's monitoring 
plan, NMFS agrees that developing and incorporating a way to better 
interpret the results of their monitoring (perhaps a simplified or 
generalized version of g(0) and f(0)) is desirable. NMFS is continuing 
to examine this issue with NSF to develop ways to improve their post-
survey take estimates. NMFS will continue to consult with the 
Commission and NMFS scientists prior to finalizing any future 
recommendations.
    NMFS notes that current monitoring measures for past and current 
IHAs for research seismic surveys require the collection of visual 
observation data by PSOs prior to, during, and after airgun operations. 
This data collection may contribute to baseline data on marine mammals 
(presence/absence) and provide some generalized support for estimated 
take numbers (as well as providing data regarding behavioral responses 
to seismic operation that are observable at the surface). However, it 
is unlikely that the information gathered from these cruises alone 
would result in any statistically robust conclusions for any particular 
species because of the small number of animals typically observed.
    Comment 5: Dr. Slooten states that a dedicated large-scale marine 
mammal survey in the action area is required as no current regional 
population estimates exist for New Zealand waters (previous surveys 
have only focused on inshore waters). The estimated potential number of 
marine mammals affected and the population-level impacts should be 
assessed using data and analysis from a dedicated marine mammal survey 
before the start of the low-energy seismic survey. Depending on the 
result of the dedicated marine mammal survey, NSF and SIO's 
Environmental Analysis Alternatives 1 (Alternative Survey Timing) or 2 
(No Action) may be the appropriate decision and the northern and/or 
southern survey areas should be removed from the proposed action.
    Response: While regional population estimates are not available for 
waters offshore of New Zealand, in this case, NMFS does not agree that 
dedicated marine mammal assessment surveys are needed prior to issuing 
an IHA. When information is unavailable on a local marine mammal 
population size, NMFS uses either stock or species information on 
abundance. Also, while information may be lacking for many species of 
cetaceans or pinnipeds, information on some of the locally-found 
species is found in SIO's IHA application and Environmental Analysis, 
see those documents for more information. NSF and SIO are not planning 
on conducting a large-scale dedicated marine mammal survey in New 
Zealand prior to the planned low-energy seismic survey and NMFS has not 
made this a requirement in the IHA.
    Comment 6: Dr. Slooten and the Commission state that in the absence 
of scientifically robust marine mammal data, SIO and NMFS have used 
anecdotal information from various sources (i.e., including marine 
mammals survey data from California, Oregon, and Washington [California 
Current], Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean, and Southern Ocean) to 
describe the occurrence of marine mammals and potential takes that are 
not applicable to New Zealand waters. In this instance, various 
extrapolations and adjustments are based on numerous assumptions in the 
absence of applicable density data off New Zealand.
    Response: No marine mammal density data are available for the 
waters east of New Zealand. The waters of New Zealand are likely to 
have a high diversity of marine mammal species and the impacts on 
marine mammals should be assessed on the (worldwide or region) 
population or stock unit level whenever possible. SIO's IHA

[[Page 29642]]

application provides information on abundance in the waters of New 
Zealand (when available), larger water bodies (such as the Pacific 
Ocean or Southern Ocean), and off of California, Oregon, and Washington 
(if data were unavailable). NMFS believes that these data are the best 
scientific information available for estimating impacts on affected 
marine mammal species and stocks. This is consistent with Congress' 
recognition that information on marine mammal stock abundance may not 
always be satisfactory. When information is lacking to define a 
particular population or stock of marine mammals then impacts are to be 
assessed with respect to the species as a whole (54 FR 40338, September 
29, 1989).
    Comment 7: Dr. Slooten states that important information is lacking 
on the potential for further population fragmentation of Maui's 
dolphins from SIO and NSF's low-energy seismic survey.
    Response: NMFS has reviewed Hamner et al. (2012, 2013), cited in 
the comment. The population of Maui's dolphin is located along 
approximately 300 km (162 nmi) of the west coast of the North Island of 
New Zealand, and does not overlap with the planned action area for SIO 
and NSF's low-energy seismic survey occurring off the east coast of New 
Zealand. Also, Hector's dolphins (of which Maui's dolphins are a sub-
species) are highly coastal and the low-energy seismic survey will 
occur at least approximately 22.2 km (12 nmi) offshore the east coast 
of New Zealand. This short-duration low-energy seismic survey is 
scheduled to occur for a total of approximately 135 hours 
(approximately 72 hours of continuous operations at a time) over the 
course of the entire cruise, which would be for approximately 27 
operational days in May to June 2015. NMFS anticipates and has 
authorized takes by Level B (behavioral) harassment of marine mammals 
to noise exposure from the low-energy seismic survey, which may include 
temporary avoidance of habitat. No fragmentation of Maui's or Hector's 
dolphin populations is anticipated.
    Comment 8: Dr. Elisabeth Slooten states that SIO did not make 
contact with marine mammal scientists (e.g., Otago University Marine 
Mammal Research Group) earlier, in order to obtain sighting data, or 
reach out about the proposed low-energy seismic survey at the Society 
of Marine Mammalogy 20th Biennial Conference held in Dunedin, New 
Zealand during December 2013. Also, many of the Society of Marine 
Mammalogy's members have active research collaborations with marine 
mammal scientists in New Zealand and Australia.
    Response: SIO and NSF consulted with NMFS's Permits and 
Conservation Division regarding the IHA and NMFS's Endangered Species 
Act Interagency Cooperation Division regarding a Biological Opinion 
under section 7 of the ESA for the low-energy seismic survey in the 
Southwest Pacific Ocean, East of New Zealand. NMFS consulted and 
corresponded with New Zealand's Department of Conservation and Dr. 
Elisabeth Slooten beginning in January 2015. LGL Limited, Environmental 
Research Associates, on behalf of SIO and NSF, also contacted New 
Zealand's Department of Conservation and requested the New Zealand 
cetacean sightings database as well as additional information that 
might be pertinent to the Environmental Analysis (such as marine mammal 
densities and habitat modeling). NMFS is not aware if SIO contacted any 
researchers at the Society of Marine Mammalogy 20th Biennial Conference 
regarding the low-energy seismic survey in the Southwest Pacific Ocean, 
East of New Zealand. NMFS has considered the best available information 
to support the findings for SIO's low-energy seismic survey.
    Comment 9: Dr. Slooten states that the use of alternative 
technologies (Alternative E2 in NSF and SIO's Environmental Analysis) 
should be further considered and discussed (e.g., commercial viability, 
feasibility, purpose, financial cost, environmental impacts, etc.) 
before the start of the low-energy seismic survey.
    Response: NMFS issued its IHA for taking marine mammals incidental 
to the specified activity as described in SIO and NSF's IHA 
application. As discussed in the NSF/USGS PEIS (Section 2.6), 
alternative technologies to airguns were considered but eliminated from 
further analysis as those technologies were not commercially viable. 
NSF and SIO continue to closely monitor the development and progress of 
these types of systems; however, at this point and time, these systems 
are still not commercially available. Geo-Kinetics as a potentially 
viable option for marine vibroseis does not have a viable towable array 
and its current testing is limited to transition zone settings. Other 
possible vibroseis developments lack even prototypes to test. 
Similarly, engineering enhancements to airguns to reduce high 
frequencies are currently being developed by the oil, gas, and energy 
industry, however, at present, these airguns are still not commercially 
available. NSF, SIO, and L-DEO have maintained contact and are in 
communication with a number of developers and companies to express a 
willingness to serve as a test-bed for any such new technologies. As 
noted in the NSF/USGS PEIS, should new technologies to conduct marine 
seismic surveys become available, NSF and SIO would consider whether 
they would be effective tools to meet research goals (and assess any 
potential environmental impacts).
    Of the various technologies cited in the 2009 Okeanos workshop 
report on alternative technologies to seismic airgun surveys for oil 
and gas exploration and their potential for reducing impacts on marine 
mammals, few if any have reached operational viability. While the 
marine vibrator technology has been long discussed and evaluated, the 
technology is still unrealized commercially. According to Pramik 
(2013), the leading development effort by the Joint Industry Programme 
``has the goal of developing three competing designs within the next 
few years.'' Geo-Kinetics has recently announced a commercial product 
called AquaVib, but that product produces relatively low-power, and is 
intended for use in very shallow water depths in sensitive environments 
and the vicinity of pipelines or other infrastructure. The instrument 
is entirely unsuited to deep-water, long-offset reflection profiling. 
The BP North America staggered burst technique would have to be 
developed well beyond the patent stage to be remotely practicable and 
would require extensive modification and testing of the Revelle sound 
source and recording systems. None of the other technologies considered 
(i.e., gravity, electromagnetic, Deep Towed Acoustics/Geophysics System 
developed by the U.S. Navy [DTAGS], etc.) can produce the resolution or 
sub-seafloor penetration required to resolve sediment thickness and 
geologic structure at the requisite scales. Improving the streamer 
signal to noise through improved telemetry (e.g., fiber optic cable) 
while desirable, would involve replacing the Revelle's streamers and 
acquisition units, requiring a major capital expenditure.
    Comment 10: Dr. Slooten states that NMFS, NSF, and SIO should 
clarify the probability and effectiveness of using PSOs for detecting 
marine mammals in the proposed action area, especially when considering 
the distances to which noise from the airgun array propagates. A single 
PSO would only be able to visually sight a small fraction of the marine 
mammals in the action area and even close to the vessel (Barlow and 
Gisiner, 2006). A representative of the

[[Page 29643]]

oil and gas industry (i.e., John Hughes, geophysical operations adviser 
at The Northwood Resource) recently described PSOs on seismic vessels 
as ``window dressing'' at the New Zealand Petroleum Summit 2015 
(Hughes, 2015). The representative's presentation Myths about Marine 
Seismic Surveys are Not Facts can be found online at: https://webcast.gigtv.com.au/Mediasite/Play/b90807c8ea8641bb93c57f435d4334841d?catalog=44162ae3%E2%80%90ca94%E2%80%904a9bb60c%E2%80%903b08c9b325ef.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges that PSO effectiveness is not 100%, 
particularly for some deep-diving species of marine mammals (such as 
beaked whales and Kogia spp.), which may be found in the study area and 
are cryptic at the sea surface and difficult to observe. The Revelle 
will carry three qualified and experienced PSOs. PSOs are appointed by 
SIO with NMFS concurrence. PSOs aboard the vessel will have had 
training to detect protected species and two PSOs will be on visual 
watch during airgun operations, except during mealtimes and restroom 
breaks, if needed. Also, the vessel's crew will be instructed to 
observe from the bridge and decks for opportunistic sightings.
    Comment 11: Dr. Slooten states that NMFS, NSF, and SIO should 
describe the effectiveness and biological meaningful reductions in 
environmental impacts of the mitigation measures (e.g., ramp-up and 
shut-down) that rely on PSOs visually detecting marine mammals and 
support these conclusions using scientific evidence.
    Response: NMFS is currently unaware of any studies that 
meaningfully quantitatively describe the general effectiveness of 
monitoring and mitigation measures in the scientific literature. NMFS 
acknowledges Dr. Slooten's suggestion for analysis of monitoring and 
mitigation measures to help identify the effectiveness for seismic 
surveys. The purpose of a ramp-up is to ``warn'' marine mammals in the 
vicinity of the airguns and to provide the time for them to leave the 
area, avoiding any potential injury or impairment of their hearing 
abilities. The purpose of a shut-down is to turn off the airgun array 
if a marine mammal enters or is about to enter the exclusion zone, 
which would avoid exposing the animal to levels of sound that could 
potentially be injurious. Based on information in monitoring reports 
from previous NSF-funded seismic surveys, NMFS believes that 
implementing shut-downs as a mitigation measure reduced incidents of 
exposures from higher levels of sound from airgun operations on marine 
mammals. The IHA requires PSOs on the Revelle to conduct visual 
monitoring as well as the establishment of buffer and exclusion zones, 
ramp-up procedures, shut-down procedures, speed or course alteration, 
and additional measures for airgun operations in nearshore waters and 
during low-light hours. NMFS requires SIO and NSF to gather all data 
that could potentially provide information regarding the effectiveness 
of mitigation measures it its monitoring report. The information 
gathered may not result in any statistically robust conclusions for 
this particular low-energy seismic survey, but over the long term, 
these requirements may provide information regarding the effectiveness 
of monitoring and mitigation measures, provided PSOs detect animals.
    Comment 12: Dr. Slooten states that NMFS should require shut-downs 
of the airgun array and other sound sources (i.e., multi-beam 
echosounder and sub-bottom profiler) during poor visibility and/or 
nighttime conditions. A cautious approach should be used during poor 
visibility and/or nighttime conditions as a PSO would be unable to 
detect marine mammals near the vessel at those times.
    Response: NMFS disagrees with the commenters' assessment. NMFS has 
measures in place and required by the IHA for airgun operations that we 
believe minimize potential impacts to marine mammals during poor 
visibility and/or nighttime conditions. No initiation of airgun 
operations is permitted from a shut-down position at night or during 
low-light hours (such as in dense fog or heavy rain) when the entire 
relevant exclusion zone cannot be effectively monitored by the PSO(s) 
on duty. However, airgun operations may continue into night and low-
light hours if the segment(s) of the survey is initiated when the 
entire relevant exclusion zones are visible and can be effectively 
monitored. Limiting or suspending the low-energy seismic survey in low 
visibility conditions or at night would significantly extend the 
duration of the low-energy seismic survey. NMFS has not specified 
measures in the IHA requiring a shut-down for other sound sources 
(i.e., multi-beam echosounder and sub-bottom profiler) during poor 
visibility and/or nighttime conditions. Take is not expected to result 
from the use of the multi-beam echosounder and sub-bottom profiler, as 
the brief exposure of marine mammals to one pulse, or small numbers of 
signals, to be generated by these instruments in this particular case 
as well as their characteristics (e.g., narrow-shaped, downward-
directed beam emitted from the bottom of the ship) is not likely to 
result in the harassment of marine mammals.
    Comment 13: Dr. Slooten states that NSF and SIO should use and NMFS 
should require the use of passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) for marine 
mammals during the low-energy seismic survey, as it should be a routine 
requirement in U.S. waters.
    Response: The NSF/USGS PEIS states that a towed PAM system is used 
normally for high-energy seismic surveys, and implied that it was not 
used for low-energy seismic surveys since towing PAM equipment is not 
practicable in some cases. For high-energy seismic surveys, PAM is 
practicable because the system is installed on the vessel used for such 
surveys. These PAM systems are expensive and are not portable from one 
vessel to another, requires complex logistics, and additional PSOs to 
be trained to operate the equipment, software, etc. SIO's project in 
the Southwest Pacific Ocean, East of New Zealand, is considered a low-
energy marine seismic survey and is, furthermore, of short duration; 
therefore, NMFS and SIO has determined that it is not practicable and a 
towed PAM system will not be used for this specific project. SIO has 
appointed three PSOs onboard the Revelle, with NMFS's concurrence, to 
monitor and mitigate the buffer and exclusion zones during daylight. 
Also, NMFS believes that a towed PAM system is not needed to augment 
visual observations as the buffer and exclusion zones are less than 
1,000 m (3,280.1 ft) and can be effectively monitored for marine 
mammals so that mitigation measures may be implemented, if needed.
    Comment 14: Dr. Slooten states that NSF and SIO's Environmental 
Analysis fails to include several important publications, including 
Barlow and Gisiner's Mitigating, monitoring and assessing the effects 
of anthropogenic sound on beaked whales (2006).
    Response: Barlow and Gisiner (2006) was addressed in the NSF/USGS 
PEIS (2011) and is therefore not cited specifically in NSF and SIO's 
Environmental Analysis (2014) or NMFS's EA. A comprehensive literature 
review on the potential effects of seismic surveys is provided in the 
NSF/USGS PEIS (2011), and the NSF and SIO Environmental Analysis and 
NMFS's EA refers to that document. The NSF and SIO Environmental 
Analysis only includes new relevant publications that were not included 
in the NSF/USGS PEIS, as noted in Section IV of that document.

[[Page 29644]]

    NMFS believes that SIO's visual monitoring efforts are successful 
for detecting marine mammals and, through the implementation of 
mitigation, successful at minimizing the likelihood of injury or 
potentially more severe behavioral responses. NMFS expects that the 
impacts of the seismic survey on marine mammals will be temporary in 
nature and not result in substantial impacts to marine mammals or to 
their role in the ecosystem. The IHA anticipates and authorizes, Level 
B harassment only, in the form of temporary behavioral disturbance, of 
species of cetaceans. Neither Level A harassment (injury), serious 
injury, nor mortality is anticipated or authorized, and Level B 
harassment is not expected to affect biodiversity or ecosystem 
function. NMFS believes that SIO and NSF's short duration low-energy 
seismic survey will have a negligible impact on the affected species or 
stocks of marine mammals in the action area.
    Comment 15: Dr. Slooten states that in general, NSF and SIO's 
Environmental Analysis tends to understate the potential impacts of the 
proposed action. A second draft of the Environmental Analysis should be 
prepared, with a more comprehensive literature review including key 
recent scientific publications that highlight the potential impacts of 
seismic surveys, to avoid over-representing literature that downplays 
the impacts.
    Response: NMFS disagrees with Dr. Slooten's statement that a second 
or revised draft Environmental Analysis is warranted to consider any 
additional scientific literature. Prior to the conduct of the planned 
low-energy seismic survey in the Southwest Pacific Ocean, East of New 
Zealand, a comprehensive literature review and potential impacts based 
on scientific publications are described in the NSF/USGS PEIS (2011), 
NSF and SIO Environmental Analysis, and NMFS EA. The commenter has not 
identified any particular potential impacts or studies that have been 
``downplayed.'' These documents have been posted on NSF's Environmental 
Compliance and NMFS's Web sites at: https://www.nsf.gov/geo/oce/envcomp/index.jsp https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/research.htm#scripps_nz_2015. Also, the commenter has not identified 
any key scientific publications supporting their statement and did not 
provide references supporting their statement which limits our ability 
to respond to the commenter's statements.
    Comment 16: Dr. Slooten states that the southern survey area, off 
New Zealand's South Island is described as a ``contingency area that 
would only be surveyed if time permits.'' On the basis of currently 
available scientific data, this is a high risk area in terms of marine 
mammal density. In addition, the southern survey area has steep depth 
contours relatively close to shore.
    Response: Dr. Slooten provided a brief summary of cetacean 
sightings off Kaikoura, New Zealand by members of Otago University's 
Marine Mammal Research Group between 1990 and 2015. The information on 
the cetacean species present in the action area included year-round 
resident, frequent visitors (more than 2 sightings per year, every 
year), and occasional sightings (1 or 2 sightings per year and not 
every year). The commenter did not provide references or data 
supporting their statement which limits our ability to respond to the 
commenter's statement that the southern area off the South Island is 
``high risk'' based on marine mammal density. For the concerns 
regarding the steep depth contours relatively close to shore in the 
southern survey area, NMFS has added the requirement in the IHA that, 
to the maximum extent practicable (in consideration of time, fuel, and 
other operational constraints), SIO will conduct the low-energy seismic 
survey (especially when near land) from the coast (inshore) and proceed 
towards the sea (offshore) in order to avoid herding or trapping marine 
mammals in shallow water.
    Comment 17: Dr. Slooten states that NMFS should consider the 
potential risk factors of a vessel moving from deep water towards a 
shallower coastal area, and the ship using a multi-beam echosounder and 
sub-bottom profiler in addition to airguns, based on the stranding of 
beaked whales in Mexico (Gulf of California) during a NSF-funded 
seismic survey in 2002 (Taylor, 2004). The multi-beam echosounder and 
sub-bottom profiler could have been a contributing factor in forcing 
the beaked whales into shallower water. The beaked whales could have 
been herded ahead of the ship and found themselves in water that was 
too shallow to allow them to regulate their nitrogen levels. They may 
have out-gassed and died from the bends, or travelled rapidly towards 
the shore to avoid the noise resulting in a stranding.
    Response: The multi-beam echosounder and sub-bottom profiler that 
is currently installed on the Revelle was evaluated in the NSF/USGS 
PEIS and in NSF and SIO's Environmental Analysis, and has been used on 
at least 6 research low-energy seismic surveys throughout the world 
(e.g., Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean, Indian Ocean, Louisville Ridge, 
South Pacific Ocean, Tropical Western Pacific Ocean) since 2004 without 
association to any marine mammal strandings.
    Regarding the 2002 stranding in the Gulf of California, the multi-
beam echosounder and sub-bottom profiler systems were on a different 
vessel, the R/V Maurice Ewing (Ewing), and is no longer operated by L-
DEO. Although Dr. Slooten suggests that the multi-beam echosounder or 
sub-bottom profiler system or other acoustic sources on the Ewing may 
have been associated with the 2002 stranding of 2 beaked whales, as 
noted in Cox et al. (2006), ``whether or not this survey caused the 
beaked whales to strand has been a matter of debate because of the 
small number of animals involved and a lack of knowledge regarding the 
temporal and spatial correlation between the animals and the sound 
source.'' As noted by Yoder (2002), there was no scientific linkage to 
the event with the Ewing's activities and the acoustic sources being 
used. Hildebrand (2006) has noted that ``the settings for these 
stranding are strikingly consistent: An island or archipelago with deep 
water nearby, appropriate for beaked whale foraging habitat. The 
conditions for mass stranding may be optimized when the sound source 
transits a deep channel between two islands, such as in the Bahamas 
(2000), and apparently in the Madeira (2000) incident.''
    The tracklines for the current low-energy seismic survey are 
planned to occur in intermediate and deep water and will not be 
conducted in a manner that is likely to result in the ``herding of 
sensitive species'' into canyons and other similar areas. The IHA has 
included the requirement that to the maximum extent practicable, SIO 
will conduct the low-energy seismic survey (especially when near land) 
from the coast (inshore) and proceed towards the sea (offshore) in 
order to avoid herding or trapping marine mammals in shallow water. 
Also, this low-energy seismic survey is of short duration and spread 
out over space and time as it is scheduled to occur for a total of 
approximately 135 hours (approximately 72 hours of continuous 
operations at a time) over the course of the entire cruise, which would 
be for approximately 27 operational days in May to June 2015. Given 
these conditions, NMFS does not anticipate strandings of marine mammals 
from use of the planned multi-beam echosounder or sub-bottom profiler.
    Comment 18: One private citizen opposed the issuance of an IHA by 
NMFS and the conduct of the low-energy seismic survey in the Southwest 
Pacific Ocean, East of New Zealand. The

[[Page 29645]]

commenter stated that NMFS should protect marine life from harm.
    Response: As described in detail in the notice of the proposed IHA 
(80 FR 15060, March 20, 2015), as well as in this document, NMFS does 
not believe SIO's low-energy seismic survey will cause injury, serious 
injury, or mortality to marine mammals, and no take by injury, serious 
injury, or mortality is authorized. The required monitoring and 
mitigation measures that SIO will implement during the low-energy 
seismic survey will further reduce the potential impacts on marine 
mammals to the lowest level practicable. NMFS anticipates only 
behavioral disturbance to occur during the conduct of the low-energy 
seismic survey.

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

    Few scientific systematic surveys for marine mammals have been 
conducted in the waters of New Zealand, and these mainly consist of 
single-species surveys in shallow coastal waters (e.g., Dawson et al., 
2004; Slooten et al., 2004, 2006). Large-scale, multi-species marine 
mammal surveys are lacking. Various sources for data on sightings in 
the planned study area were used to describe the occurrence of marine 
mammals in the waters of New Zealand, such as opportunistic sighting 
records presented in previous reports (including the New Zealand 
Department of Conservation marine mammals sighting database) considered 
in evaluating potential marine mammals in the planned action area.
    New Zealand is considered a ``hotspot'' for marine mammal species 
richness (Kaschner et al., 2011). The marine mammals that generally 
occur in the proposed action area belong to three taxonomic groups: 
mysticetes (baleen whales), odontocetes (toothed whales), and pinnipeds 
(seals and sea lions). The marine mammal species that could potentially 
occur within the Southwest Pacific Ocean in proximity to the planned 
action area East of New Zealand include 33 species of cetaceans (24 
odontocetes and 9 mysticetes) and 2 species of pinnipeds (35 total 
species of marine mammals).
    Marine mammal species likely to be encountered in the planned study 
area that are listed as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species 
Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), are the southern right 
(Eubalaena australis), humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae), sei 
(Balaenoptera borealis), fin (Balaenoptera physalus), blue 
(Balaenoptera musculus), and sperm (Physeter macrocephalus) whale. The 
Maui's dolphin (Cephalorhynchus hectori maui) and New Zealand sea lion 
(Phocartos hookeri) are two other species are ranked as ``nationally 
critical'' in New Zealand (Baker et al., 2010). Maui's dolphin is only 
found along the west coast of the North Island. The northern range of 
the New Zealand sea lion is not expected to extend to the planned study 
area based on New Zealand's National Aquatic Biodiversity Information 
System (NABIS, 2014) and is not considered further.
    In addition to the marine mammal species known to occur in the 
Southwest Pacific Ocean off the east coast of New Zealand, there are 18 
species of marine mammals (12 cetacean and 6 pinniped species) with 
ranges that are known to potentially occur in the waters of the planned 
study area, but they are categorized as ``vagrant'' under the New 
Zealand Threat Classification System (Baker et al., 2010). These 
include: Dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima), Arnoux's beaked whale 
(Berardius arnouxi), ginkgo-toothed beaked whale (Mesoplodon 
ginkgodens), pygmy beaked whale (Mesoplodon peruvianis), Type B, C, and 
D killer whale (Orcinus orca), melon-headed whale (Peponocephala 
electra), Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus), Fraser's dolphin 
(Lagenodelphis hosei), pantropical spotted dolphin (Stenella 
attenuata), striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba), rough-toothed 
dolphin (Steno bredanensis), spectacled porpoise (Phocoena dioptrica), 
Antarctic fur seal (Arctocephalus gazelle), Subantarctic fur seal 
(Arctocephalus tropicalis), crabeater seal (Lobodon carcinophagus), 
leopard seal (Hydrurga leptonyx), Ross seal (Ommatophoca rossi), and 
Weddell seal (Leptonychotes weddellii). According to Jefferson et al. 
(2008), the distributional range of Hubb's beaked whale (Mesoplodon 
carlhubbsi) and True's beaked whale (Mesoplodon mirus) may also include 
New Zealand waters. There are no records of Hubb's beaked whale in New 
Zealand, and only a single record of True's beaked whale, which 
stranded on the west coast of South Island in November 2011 
(Constantine et al., 2014). The spinner dolphin's (Stenella 
longirostris) range includes tropical and subtropical zones 40[deg] 
North to 40[deg] South, but would be considered vagrant as well. 
However, these species are not expected to occur where the planned 
activities will take place. Except for Arnoux's beaked whale, pygmy 
beaked whale, and Risso's dolphin, these species are not considered 
further in this document. Table 2 (below) presents information on the 
habitat, occurrence, distribution, abundance, population, and 
conservation status of the species of marine mammals that may occur in 
the planned study area during May to June 2015.

 Table 2--The Habitat, Occurrence, Range, Regional Abundance, and Conservation Status of Marine Mammals That May Occur in or Near the Low-Energy Seismic
          Survey Area in the Southwest Pacific Ocean, East of New Zealand (See Text and Tables 2 in SIO's IHA Application for Further Details)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Population
             Species                    Habitat             Occurrence              Range               estimate              ESA \1\          MMPA \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Mysticetes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southern right whale (Eubalaena   Coastal, shelf,      Common..............  Circumpolar 20 to    8,000 \3\ to 15,000  EN..................  D
 australis).                       pelagic.                                   55[deg] South.       \4\--Worldwide.
                                                                                                  12,000 \12\--
                                                                                                   Southern
                                                                                                   Hemisphere.
                                                                                                  2,700 \12\--Sub-
                                                                                                   Antarctic New
                                                                                                   Zealand.
Pygmy right whale (Caperea        Pelagic and coastal  Rare................  Circumpolar 30 to    NA.................  NL..................  NC
 marginata).                                                                  55[deg] South.
Humpback whale (Megaptera         Pelagic, nearshore   Common..............  Cosmopolitan         35,000 to 42,000 3   EN..................  D
 novaeangliae).                    waters, and banks.                         Migratory.           12--Southern
                                                                                                   Hemisphere.
Minke whale (Balaenoptera         Pelagic and coastal  Uncommon............  Circumpolar--Southe  720,000 to 750,000   NL..................  NC
 acutorostrata including dwarf                                                rn Hemisphere to     12 14 15--Southern
 sub-species).                                                                65[deg] South.       Hemisphere.

[[Page 29646]]

 
Antarctic minke whale             Pelagic, ice floes,  Uncommon............  7[deg] South to ice  720,000 to 750,000   NL..................  NC
 (Balaenoptera bonaerensis).       coastal.                                   edge (usually 20     12 14 15--Southern
                                                                              to 65[deg] South).   Hemisphere.
Bryde's whale (Balaenoptera       Pelagic and coastal  Rare................  Circumglobal--Tropi  At least 30,000 to   NL..................  NC
 edeni).                                                                      cal and              40,000 \3\--
                                                                              Subtropical Zones.   Worldwide.
                                                                                                  21,000 \12\--
                                                                                                   Northwestern
                                                                                                   Pacific Ocean.
                                                                                                  48,109 \13\........
Sei whale (Balaenoptera           Primarily offshore,  Uncommon............  Migratory, Feeding   80,000 \3\--         EN..................  D
 borealis).                        pelagic.                                   Concentration 40     Worldwide.
                                                                              to 50[deg] South.   10,000 \14\--South
                                                                                                   of Antarctic
                                                                                                   Convergence.
Fin whale (Balaenoptera           Continental slope,   Uncommon............  Cosmopolitan,        140,000 \3\--        EN..................  D
 physalus).                        pelagic.                                   Migratory.           Worldwide.
                                                                                                  15,000 \14\--South
                                                                                                   of Antarctic
                                                                                                   Convergence.
Blue whale (Balaenoptera          Pelagic, shelf,      Uncommon............  Migratory Pygmy      8,000 to 9,000 \3\-- EN..................  D
 musculus; including pygmy blue    coastal.                                   blue whale--North    Worldwide.
 whale [Balaenoptera musculus                                                 of Antarctic        2,300 \12\--True
 brevicauda]).                                                                Convergence          Southern
                                                                              55[deg] South.       Hemisphere.
                                                                                                  1,500 \14\--Pygmy..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Odontocetes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sperm whale (Physeter             Pelagic, deep sea..  Common..............  Cosmopolitan,        360,000 \3\--        EN..................  D
 macrocephalus).                                                              Migratory.           Worldwide.
                                                                                                  30,000 \13\--South
                                                                                                   of Antarctic
                                                                                                   Convergence.
Dwarf sperm whale (Kogia sima)..  Shelf, Pelagic.....  Vagrant.............  Circumglobal--Tropi  NA.................  NL..................  NC
                                                                              cal and Temperate
                                                                              Zones.
Pygmy sperm whale (Kogia          Shelf, Pelagic.....  Uncommon............  Circumglobal--Tempe  NA.................  NL..................  NC
 breviceps).                                                                  rate Zones.
Arnoux's beaked whale (Berardius  Pelagic............  Vagrant.............  Circumpolar in       NA.................  NL..................  NC
 arnuxii).                                                                    Southern
                                                                              Hemisphere, 24 to
                                                                              78[deg] South.
Cuvier's beaked whale (Ziphius    Pelagic............  Uncommon............  Cosmopolitan.......  600,00014 16         NL..................  NC
 cavirostris).
Southern bottlenose whale         Pelagic............  Rare................  Circumpolar--30[deg  500,000 \3\--South   NL..................  NC
 (Hyperoodon planifrons).                                                     ] South to ice       of Antarctic
                                                                              edge.                Convergence.
                                                                                                  600,000 14 16......
Shepherd's beaked whale           Pelagic............  Rare................  Circumpolar--Cold    600,000 14 16......  NL..................  NC
 (Tasmacetus shepherdi).                                                      temperate waters
                                                                              Southern
                                                                              Hemisphere.
Andrew's beaked whale             Pelagic............  Rare................  Circumpolar--temper  600,000 14 16......  NL..................  NC
 (Mesoplodon bowdoini).                                                       ate waters of
                                                                              Southern
                                                                              Hemisphere, 32 to
                                                                              55[deg] South.
Blainville's beaked whale         Pelagic............  Rare................  Circumglobal--tropi  600,000 14 16......  NL..................  NC
 (Mesoplodon densirostris).                                                   cal and temperate
                                                                              waters.
Ginkgo-toothed beaked whale       Pelagic............  Vagrant.............  Tropical and         NA.................  NL..................  NC
 (Mesoplodon ginkgodens).                                                     Temperate waters--
                                                                              Indo-Pacific Ocean.
Gray's beaked whale (Mesoplodon   Pelagic............  Common..............  30[deg] South to     600,000 14 16......  NL..................  NC
 grayi).                                                                      Antarctic waters.
Hector's beaked whale             Pelagic............  Rare................  Circumpolar--cool    600,000 14 16......  NL..................  NC
 (Mesoplodon hectori).                                                        temperate waters
                                                                              of Southern
                                                                              Hemisphere.
Hubb's beaked whale (Mesoplodon   Pelagic............  Vagrant.............  North Pacific Ocean  NA.................  NL..................  NC
 carlhubbsi).
Pygmy beaked whale (Mesoplodon    Pelagic............  Vagrant.............  28[deg] North to     NA.................  NL..................  NC
 peruvianis).                                                                 30[deg] South in
                                                                              Pacific Ocean.
Spade-toothed beaked whale        Pelagic............  Rare................  Circumantarctic....  600,000 14 16......  NL..................  NC
 (Mesoplodon traversii).
Strap-toothed beaked whale        Pelagic............  Uncommon............  30[deg] South to     600,000 14 16......  NL..................  NC
 (Mesoplodon layardii).                                                       Antarctic
                                                                              Convergence.
True's beaked whale (Mesoplodon   Pelagic............  Vagrant.............  Anti-tropical in     NA.................  NL..................  NC
 mirus).                                                                      Northern and
                                                                              Southern
                                                                              Hemisphere.
Killer whale (Orcinus orca).....  Pelagic, shelf,      Common..............  Cosmopolitan.......  80,000 \3\--South    NL..................  NC
                                   coastal, pack ice.                                              of Antarctic
                                                                                                   Convergence.
False killer whale (Pseudorca     Pelagic, shelf,      Uncommon............  Circumglobal--tropi  NA.................  NL..................  NC
 crassidens).                      coastal.                                   cal and warmer
                                                                              temperate water.
Long-finned pilot whale           Pelagic, shelf,      Common..............  Circumpolar--19 to   200,000 3 5 14--     NL..................  NC
 (Globicephala melas).             coastal.                                   68[deg] South in     South of Antarctic
                                                                              Southern             Convergence.
                                                                              Hemisphere.
Short-finned pilot whale          Pelagic, shelf,      Uncommon............  Circumglobal--50[de  At least 600,000     NL..................  NC
 (Globicephala macrocephalus).     coastal.                                   g] North to          \3\--Worldwide.
                                                                              40[deg] South.
Melon-headed whale                Pelagic, shelf,      Vagrant.............  Circumglobal--40[de  45,000 \3\--Eastern  NL..................  NC
 (Peponocephala electra).          coastal.                                   g] North to          Tropical Pacific
                                                                              35[deg] South.       Ocean.
Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops      Coastal, shelf,      Common..............  45[deg] North to     At least 614,000     NL..................  NC
 truncatus).                       offshore.                                  45[deg] South.       \3\--Worldwide.     C--Fjordland
                                                                                                                        population.

[[Page 29647]]

 
Dusky dolphin (Lagenorhynchus     Shelf, slope.......  Common..............  Temperate waters--   12,000 to 20,000     NL..................  NC
 obscurus).                                                                   Southern             \17\--New Zealand.
                                                                              Hemisphere.
Fraser's dolphin (Lagenodelphis   Pelagic............  Vagrant.............  Pantropical--30[deg  289,000 \3\--        NL..................  NC
 hosei).                                                                      ] North to 30[deg]   Eastern Tropical
                                                                              South.               Pacific Ocean.
Hector's dolphin                  Nearshore..........  Rare................  Shallow coastal      7,400 \17\ 55 \19\-- C...................  NC
 (Cephalorhynchus hectori;                                                    waters--New          Maui's.
 including Maui's dolphin                                                     Zealand (Maui's
 subspecies [C. h. maui]).                                                    dolphin--west
                                                                              North Island).
Hourglass dolphin                 Pelagic, ice edge..  Uncommon............  33[deg] South to     144,000 \3\ to       NL..................  NC
 (Lagenorhynchus cruciger).                                                   pack ice.            150,000 \14\--
                                                                                                   South of Antarctic
                                                                                                   Convergence.
Pantropical spotted dolphin       Coastal, shelf,      Vagrant.............  Circumglobal--40[de  At least 2,000,000   NL..................  NC
 (Stenella attenuata).             slope.                                     g] North to          \3\--Worldwide.
                                                                              40[deg] South.
Spinner dolphin (Stenella         Mainly nearshore...  Vagrant.............  Circumglobal--40[de  At least 1,200,000   NL..................  NC
 longirostris).                                                               g] North to          \3\--Worldwide.
                                                                              40[deg] South.
Striped dolphin (Stenella         Off continental      Vagrant.............  Circumglobal--50 to  At least 1,100,000   NL..................  NC
 coeruleoalba).                    shelf, convergence                         40 South.            \3\--Worldwide.
                                   zones, upwelling.
Risso's dolphin (Grampus          Slope, Pelagic.....  Vagrant.............  Circumglobal--Tropi  At least 330,000     NL..................  NC
 griseus).                                                                    cal and Temperate    \3\--Worldwide.
                                                                              waters.
Rough-toothed dolphin (Steno      Pelagic............  Vagrant.............  Circumglobal--40[de  NA.................  NL..................  NC
 bredanensis).                                                                g] North to
                                                                              35[deg] South.
Short-beaked common dolphin       Pelagic............  Common..............  Circumglobal--tropi  At least 3,500,000   NL..................  NC
 (Delphinus delphis).                                                         cal and warm         \3\--Worldwide.
                                                                              temperate waters.
Southern right whale dolphin      Pelagic............  Uncommon............  12 to 65[deg] South  NA.................  NL..................  NC
 (Lissodelphis peronii).
Spectacled porpoise (Phocoena     Coastal, pelagic...  Vagrant.............  Circumpolar--Southe  NA.................  NL..................  NC
 dioptrica).                                                                  rn Hemisphere.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Pinnipeds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crabeater seal (Lobodon           Coastal, pack ice..  Vagrant.............  Circumpolar--Antarc  5,000,000 to         NL..................  NC
 carcinophaga).                                                               tic.                 15,000,000 3 6--
                                                                                                   Worldwide.
Leopard seal (Hydrurga leptonyx)  Pack ice, sub-       Vagrant.............  Sub-Antarctic        220,000 to 440,000   NL..................  NC
                                   Antarctic islands.                         islands to pack      3 7--Worldwide.
                                                                              ice.
Ross seal (Ommatophoca rossii)..  Pack ice, smooth     Vagrant.............  Circumpolar--Antarc  130,000 \3\........  NL..................  NC
                                   ice floes, pelagic.                        tic.                20,000 to 220,000
                                                                                                   \11\--Worldwide.
Weddell seal (Leptonychotes       Fast ice, pack ice,  Vagrant.............  Circumpolar--Southe  500,000 to           NL..................  NC
 weddellii).                       sub-Antarctic                              rn Hemisphere.       1,000,000 3 8--
                                   islands.                                                        Worldwide.
Southern elephant seal (Mirounga  Coastal, pelagic,    Uncommon............  Circumpolar--Antarc  640,000 \9\ to       NL..................  NC
 leonina).                         sub-Antarctic                              tic Convergence to   650,000 \3\--
                                   waters.                                    pack ice.            Worldwide 470,000--
                                                                                                   South Georgia
                                                                                                   Island \11\.
                                                                                                  607,000 \17\.......
Antarctic fur seal                Shelf, rocky         Vagrant.............  Sub-Antarctic        1,600,000 \10\ to    NL..................  NC
 (Arctocephalus gazella).          habitats.                                  islands to pack      3,000,000 \3\--
                                                                              ice edge.            Worldwide.
New Zealand fur seal              Rocky habitats, sub- Common..............  North and South      135,000 \3\--        NL..................  NC
 (Arctocephalus forsteri).         Antarctic islands.                         Islands, New         Worldwide.
                                                                              Zealand.            50,000 to 100,000
                                                                             Southern and          \18\--New Zealand.
                                                                              Western Australia.
Subantarctic fur seal             Shelf, rocky         Vagrant.............  Subtropical front    Greater than         NL..................  NC
 (Arctocephalus tropicalis).       habitats.                                  to sub-Antarctic     310,000 \3\--
                                                                              islands and          Worldwide.
                                                                              Antarctica.
New Zealand sea lion (Phocarctos  Shelf, rocky         Rare................  Sub-Antarctic        12,500 \3\.........  NL..................  NC
 hookeri).                         habitats.                                  islands south of
                                                                              New Zealand.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NA = Not available or not assessed.
\1\ U.S. Endangered Species Act: EN = Endangered, T = Threatened, DL = Delisted, NL = Not listed, C = Candidate.
\2\ U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act: D = Depleted, S = Strategic, NC = Not Classified.
\3\ Jefferson et al., 2008.
\4\ Kenney, 2009.
\5\ Olson, 2009.
\6\ Bengston, 2009.
\7\ Rogers, 2009.
\8\ Thomas and Terhune, 2009.
\9\ Hindell and Perrin, 2009.
\10\ Arnould, 2009.
\11\ Academic Press, 2009.
\12\ IWC, 2014.
\13\ IWC, 1981.
\14\ Boyd, 2002.
\15\ Dwarf and Antarctic minke whale combined.
\16\ All Antarctic beaked whales combined.
\17\ New Zealand Department of Conservation.
\18\ Suisted and Neale, 2004.
\19\ 95% confidence interval (48 to 69 animals) from Hamner et al. 2012, 2013.


[[Page 29648]]

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

Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals

    This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that the 
types of stressors associated with the specified activity (e.g., 
seismic airgun operation, vessel movement, and gear deployment) are 
believed to impact marine mammals. This section is intended as a 
background of potential effects and does not fully consider either the 
specific manner in which this activity would be carried out or the 
mitigation that would be implemented, and how either of those would 
shape the anticipated impacts from this specific activity. The 
``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment'' section later in this 
document will include a quantitative analysis of the number of 
individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The 
``Negligible Impact Analysis'' section will include the analysis of how 
this specific activity will impact marine mammals and will consider the 
content of this section, the ``Estimated Take by Incidental 
Harassment'' section, the ``Mitigation'' section, and the ``Anticipated 
Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat'' section to draw conclusions 
regarding the likely impacts of this activity on the reproductive 
success or survivorship of individuals and from that on the affected 
marine mammal populations or stocks.
    When considering the influence of various kinds of sound on the 
marine environment, it is necessary to understand that different kinds 
of marine life are sensitive to different frequencies of sound. Based 
on available behavioral data, audiograms have been derived using 
auditory evoked potentials, anatomical modeling, and other data. 
Southall et al. (2007) designate ``functional hearing groups'' for 
marine mammals and estimate the lower and upper frequencies of 
functional hearing of the groups. The functional groups and the 
associated frequencies are indicated below (though animals are less 
sensitive to sounds at the outer edge of their functional range and 
most sensitive to sounds of frequencies within a smaller range 
somewhere in the middle of their functional hearing range):
     Low-frequency cetaceans (13 species of mysticetes): 
Functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and 
30 kHz;
     Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 species of dolphins, six 
species of larger toothed whales, and 19 species of beaked and 
bottlenose whales): Functional hearing is estimated to occur between 
approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;
     High-frequency cetaceans (eight species of true porpoises, 
six species of river dolphins, Kogia spp., the franciscana [Pontoporia 
blainvillei], and four species of cephalorhynchids): Functional hearing 
is estimated to occur between approximately 200 Hz and 180 kHz; and
     Phocid pinnipeds in water: Functional hearing is estimated 
to occur between approximately 75 Hz and 100 kHz;
     Otariid pinnipeds in water: Functional hearing is 
estimated to occur between approximately 100 Hz and 40 kHz.
    As mentioned previously in this document, 35 marine mammal species 
(33 cetacean and 2 pinniped species) are likely to occur in the low-
energy seismic survey area. Of the 30 cetacean species likely to occur 
in SIO's action area, 9 are classified as low-frequency cetaceans 
(southern right, pygmy right, humpback, minke, Antarctic minke, 
Bryde's, sei, fin, and blue whale), 20 are classified as mid-frequency 
cetaceans (sperm, Cuvier's beaked, Shepherd's beaked, southern 
bottlenose, Andrew's beaked, Blainville's beaked, Gray's beaked, 
Hector's beaked, spade-toothed beaked, strap-toothed beaked, killer, 
false killer, long-finned pilot, and short-finned pilot whale, and 
bottlenose, dusky, Hector's, hourglass, short-beaked common, and 
southern right whale dolphin), and 1 is classified as high-frequency 
cetaceans (pygmy sperm whale) (Southall et al., 2007). Of the 2 
pinniped species likely to occur in SIO's proposed action area, 1 is 
classified as phocid (southern elephant seal) and 1 is classified as 
otariid (New Zealand fur seal) (Southall et al., 2007). A species 
functional hearing group is a consideration when we analyze the effects 
of exposure to sound on marine mammals.
    Acoustic stimuli generated by the operation of the airguns, which 
introduce sound into the marine environment, have the potential to 
cause Level B harassment of marine mammals in the study 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). Although the 
possibility cannot be entirely excluded, it is unlikely that the 
proposed project would result in any cases of temporary or permanent 
hearing impairment, or any significant non-auditory physical or 
physiological effects. Based on the available data and studies 
described in the notice of the proposed IHA (80 FR 15060, March 20, 
2015, some behavioral disturbance is expected. A more comprehensive 
review of these issues can be found in the NSF/USGS PEIS (2011) and L-
DEO's Final Environmental Assessment of a Marine Geophysical Survey by 
the R/V Marcus G. Langseth in the Atlantic Ocean off Cape Hatteras, 
September to October 2014.
    The notice of the proposed IHA (80 FR 15060, March 20, 2015) 
included a discussion of the effects of sounds from airguns, 
bathymetric surveys, heat-flow measurements, and other acoustic devices 
and sources on mysticetes and odontocetes, including tolerance, 
masking, behavioral disturbance, hearing impairment, and other non-
auditory physical effects. The notice of the proposed IHA (80 FR 15060, 
March 20, 2015) also included a discussion of the effects of vessel 
movement and collisions as well as entanglement. NMFS refers the 
readers to SIO's IHA application and Environmental Analysis for 
additional information on the behavioral reactions (or lack thereof) by 
all types of marine mammals to seismic vessels.

Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat, Fish, and Invertebrates

    NMFS included a detailed discussion of the potential effects of 
this action on marine mammal habitat, including physiological and 
behavioral effects on marine fish and invertebrates, in the notice of 
the proposed IHA (80 FR 15060, March 20, 2015). The low-energy seismic 
survey is not anticipated to have any permanent impact on habitats used 
by the marine mammals in the study 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 conducing airgun 
operations during the low-energy seismic survey. While NMFS anticipates 
that the specified activity may result in marine mammals avoiding 
certain areas due to temporary ensonification, this impact is temporary

[[Page 29649]]

and reversible, and was considered in further detail in the notice of 
the proposed IHA (80 FR 15060, March 20, 2015), as behavioral 
modification. The main impact associated with the planned activity will 
be temporarily elevated noise levels and the associated direct effects 
on marine mammals.

Mitigation

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

  Table 3--Predicted and Modeled (Two 45 in\3\ GI Airgun Array) Distances to Which Sound Levels >=160, 180, and
190 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) Could Be Received in Intermediate and Deep Water During the Proposed Low-Energy Seismic
                  Survey in the Southwest Pacific Ocean, East of New Zealand, May to June 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Predicted RMS radii distances (m) for 2 GI airgun
                                  Tow                                               array
    Source and total volume      depth    Water depth (m)  -----------------------------------------------------
                                  (m)                            160 dB            180 dB            190 dB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two 45 in\3\ GI Airguns.......        2  Intermediate (100  600 (1,968.5 ft)  100 (328.1 ft)..  15 (49.2 ft)
(90 in\3\)....................            to 1,000).                                             *100 would be
                                                                                                 used for
                                                                                                 pinnipeds as
                                                                                                 described in
                                                                                                 NSF/USGS PEIS.*
Two 45 in\3\ GI Airguns (90           2  Deep (>1,000)....  400 (1,312.3 ft)  100 (328.1 m)...  10 (32.8 ft)
 in\3\).                                                                                         *100 would be
                                                                                                 used for
                                                                                                 pinnipeds as
                                                                                                 described in
                                                                                                 NSF/USGS PEIS.*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Based on the NSF/USGS PEIS and Record of Decision, for situations which 
incidental take of marine mammals is anticipated, SIO has established 
exclusion zones of 100 m for cetaceans and pinnipeds for all low-energy 
acoustic sources in water depths greater than 100 m would be 
implemented.
    Received sound levels were modeled by L-DEO for a number of airgun 
configurations, including two 45 in\3\ Nucleus G airguns, in relation 
to distance and direction from the airguns (see Figure 2 of the IHA 
application). In addition, propagation measurements of pulses from two 
GI airguns have been reported for shallow water (approximately 30 m 
[98.4 ft] depth) in the Gulf of Mexico (Tolstoy et al., 2004). However, 
measurements were not made for the two GI airguns in deep water. The 
model does not allow for bottom interactions, and is most directly 
applicable to deep water. Based on the modeling, estimates of the 
maximum distances from the GI airguns where sound levels are predicted 
to be 190, 180, and 160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa (rms) in intermediate and 
deep water were determined (see Table 3 above).
    Empirical data concerning the 190, 180, and 160 dB (rms) distances 
were acquired for various airgun arrays based on measurements during 
the acoustic verification studies conducted by L-DEO in the northern 
Gulf of Mexico in 2003 (Tolstoy et al., 2004) and 2007 to 2008 (Tolstoy 
et al., 2009). Results of the 18 and 36 airgun arrays are not relevant 
for the two GI airguns to be used in the proposed low-energy seismic 
survey because the airgun arrays are not the same size or volume. The 
empirical data for the 6, 10, 12, and 20 airgun arrays indicate that, 
for deep water, the L-DEO model tends to overestimate the received 
sound levels at a given distance (Tolstoy et al., 2004). Measurements 
were not made for the two GI airgun array in deep water; however, SIO 
proposed to use the safety radii predicted by L-DEO's model for the 
planned GI airgun operations in intermediate and deep water, although 
they are likely conservative given the empirical results for the other 
arrays.
    Based on the modeling data, the outputs from the pair of 45 in\3\ 
GI airguns planned to be used during the low-energy seismic survey are 
considered a low-energy acoustic source in the NSF/USGS PEIS (2011) for 
marine seismic research. A low-energy seismic source was defined in the 
NSF/USGS PEIS as an acoustic source whose received level is less than 
or equal to 180 dB at 100 m (including any single or any two GI airguns 
and a single pair of clustered airguns with individual volumes of less 
than or equal to 250 in\3\). The NSF/USGS PEIS also established for 
these low-energy sources a standard exclusion zone of 100 m for all 
low-energy sources in water depths greater than 100 m. This standard 
100 m exclusion zone will be used during the proposed low-energy 
seismic survey using the pair of 45 in\3\ GI airguns. The 180 and 190 
dB (rms) radii are the current Level A harassment criteria applicable 
to cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively; these levels were used to 
establish exclusion zones. Therefore, the assumed 180 and 190 dB radii 
are 100

[[Page 29650]]

m for intermediate and deep water. If the PSO detects a marine mammal 
within or about to enter the appropriate exclusion zone, the airguns 
will be shut-down immediately.
    Speed and Course Alterations--If a marine mammal is detected 
outside the exclusion zone and, based on its position and direction of 
travel (relative motion), is likely to enter the exclusion zone, 
changes of the vessel's speed and/or direct course will be considered 
if this does not compromise operational safety or damage the deployed 
equipment. This will be done if operationally practicable while 
minimizing the effect on the planned science objectives. For marine 
seismic surveys towing large streamer arrays, course alterations are 
not typically implemented due to the vessel's limited maneuverability. 
However, the Revelle will be towing a relatively short hydrophone 
streamer, so its maneuverability during operations with the hydrophone 
streamer will not be as limited as vessels towing long streamers, thus 
increasing the potential to implement course alterations, if necessary. 
After any such speed and/or course alteration is begun, the marine 
mammal activities and movements relative to the seismic vessel would be 
closely monitored to ensure that the marine mammal does not approach 
within the applicable exclusion zone. If the marine mammal appears 
likely to enter the exclusion zone, further mitigation actions will be 
taken, including further speed and/or course alterations, and/or shut-
down of the airgun(s). Typically, during airgun operations, the source 
vessel is unable to change speed or course, and one or more alternative 
mitigation measures will need to be implemented.
    Shut-down Procedures--If a marine mammal is detected outside the 
exclusion zone for the airgun(s) but is likely to enter the exclusion 
zone, and the vessel's speed and/or course cannot be changed to avoid 
having the animal enter the exclusion zone, SIO will shut-down the 
operating airgun(s) before the animal is within the exclusion zone. 
Likewise, if a marine mammal is already within the exclusion zone when 
first detected, the airguns will be shut-down immediately.
    Following a shut-down, SIO will not resume airgun activity until 
the marine mammal has cleared the exclusion zone, or until the PSO is 
confident that the animal has left the vicinity of the vessel. SIO will 
consider the animal to have cleared the exclusion zone if:
     A PSO has visually observed the animal leave the exclusion 
zone, or
     A PSO has not sighted the animal within the exclusion zone 
for 15 minutes for species with shorter dive durations (i.e., small 
odontocetes and pinnipeds), or 30 minutes for species with longer dive 
durations (i.e., mysticetes and large odontocetes, including sperm, 
dwarf and pygmy sperm, killer, and beaked whales).
    Although power-down procedures are often standard operating 
practice for seismic surveys, they will not be used during this planned 
low-energy seismic survey because powering-down from two airguns to one 
airgun will make only a small difference in the exclusion zone(s) that 
probably will not be enough to allow continued one-airgun operations if 
a marine mammal came within the exclusion zone for two airguns.
    Ramp-up Procedures--Ramp-up of an airgun array provides a gradual 
increase in sound levels, and involves a step-wise increase in the 
number and total volume of airguns firing until the full volume of the 
airgun array is achieved. The purpose of a ramp-up is to ``warn'' 
marine mammals in the vicinity of the airguns and to provide the time 
for them to leave the area, avoiding any potential injury or impairment 
of their hearing abilities. SIO will follow a ramp-up procedure when 
the airgun array begins operating after a specified period without 
airgun operations or when a shut-down has exceeded that period. For the 
present cruise, this period will be approximately 15 minutes. SIO, L-
DEO, USGS, NSF, and ASC have used similar periods (approximately 15 
minutes) during previous low-energy seismic surveys.
    Ramp-up will begin with a single GI airgun (45 in\3\). The second 
GI airgun (45 in\3\) will be added after 5 minutes. During ramp-up, the 
PSOs will monitor the exclusion zone, and if marine mammals are 
sighted, a shut-down will be implemented as though both GI airguns were 
operational.
    If the complete exclusion zone has not been visible for at least 30 
minutes prior to the start of operations in either daylight or 
nighttime, SIO will not commence the ramp-up. Given these provisions, 
it is likely that the airgun array will not be ramped-up from a 
complete shut-down during low light conditions, at night, or in thick 
fog, (i.e., poor visibility conditions) because the outer part of the 
exclusion zone for that array will not be visible during those 
conditions. If one airgun has been operating, ramp-up to full power 
will be permissible during low light, at night, or in poor visibility, 
on the assumption that marine mammals will be alerted to the 
approaching seismic vessel by the sounds from the single airgun and 
could move away if they choose. SIO will not initiate a ramp-up of the 
airguns if a marine mammal is sighted within or near the applicable 
exclusion zones during day or night. NMFS refers the reader to Figure 
2, which presents a flowchart representing the ramp-up and shut-down 
protocols described in this notice.

[[Page 29651]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22MY15.006

Mitigation Conclusions

    NMFS has carefully evaluated the applicant's mitigation measures 
and has considered a range of other measures in the context of ensuring 
that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least practicable 
impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their 
habitat. NMFS's evaluation of potential measures included consideration 
of the following factors in relation to one another:
    (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful 
implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts 
to marine mammals;
    (2) The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to 
minimize adverse impacts as planned; and
    (3) The practicability of the measure for applicant implementation 
including consideration of personnel safety, practicality of 
implementation, and

[[Page 29652]]

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

Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an ITA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of 
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth ``requirements pertaining to 
the monitoring and reporting of such taking.'' The MMPA implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for IHAs 
must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary 
monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the 
species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine 
mammals that are expected to be present in the action area. SIO 
submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan as part of the IHA 
application. It can be found in Section 13 of the IHA application. The 
plan has not been modified or supplemented between the notice of the 
proposed IHA (80 FR 15060, March 20, 2015) and this notice announcing 
the issuance of the IHA, as none of the comments or new information 
received from the public during the public comment period required a 
change to the plan.
    Monitoring measures prescribed by NMFS should accomplish one or 
more of the following general goals:
    (1) An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, 
both within the mitigation zone (thus allowing for more effective 
implementation of the mitigation) and in general to generate more data 
to contribute to the analyses mentioned below;
    (2) An increase in our understanding of how many marine mammals are 
likely to be exposed to levels of sound (airguns) that we associate 
with specific adverse effects, such as behavioral harassment, TTS, or 
PTS;
    (3) An increase in our understanding of how marine mammals respond 
to stimuli expected to result in take and how anticipated adverse 
effects on individuals (in different ways and to varying degrees) may 
impact the population, species, or stock (specifically through effects 
on annual rates of recruitment or survival) through any of the 
following methods:
     Behavioral observations in the presence of stimuli 
compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to 
accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other 
pertinent information);
     Physiological measurements in the presence of stimuli 
compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to 
accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other 
pertinent information); and
     Distribution and/or abundance comparisons in times or 
areas with concentrated stimuli versus times or areas without stimuli
    (4) An increased knowledge of the affected species; and
    (5) An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of 
certain mitigation and monitoring measures.

Monitoring

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

Vessel-Based Visual Monitoring

    SIO's PSOs will be based aboard the seismic source vessel and will 
watch for marine mammals near the vessel during daytime airgun 
operations and during any ramp-ups of the airguns at night. PSOs will 
also watch for marine mammals near the seismic vessel for at least 30 
minutes prior to the start of airgun operations and after an extended 
shut-down (i.e., greater than approximately 15 minutes for this low-
energy seismic survey). When feasible, PSOs will conduct observations 
during daytime periods when the seismic system is not operating (such 
as during transits) for comparison of sighting rates and behavior with 
and without airgun operations and between acquisition periods. Based on 
PSO observations, the airguns will be shut-down when marine mammals are 
observed within or about to enter a designated exclusion zone.
    During airgun operations in the Southwest Pacific Ocean, East of 
New Zealand, at least three PSOs will be based aboard the Revelle. At 
least one PSO will stand watch at all times while the Revelle is 
operating airguns during the low-energy seismic survey; this procedure 
would also be followed when the vessel is in transit. SIO will appoint 
the PSOs with NMFS's concurrence. The lead PSO will be experienced with 
marine mammal species in the Pacific Ocean and/or off the east coast of 
New Zealand, the second and third PSOs would receive additional 
specialized training from the lead PSO to ensure that they can identify 
marine mammal species commonly found in the Southwest Pacific Ocean. 
Observations will take place during ongoing daytime operations and 
ramp-ups of the airguns. During the majority of seismic operations, at 
least one PSO will be on

[[Page 29653]]

duty from observation platforms (i.e., the best available vantage point 
on the source vessel) to monitor marine mammals near the seismic 
vessel. PSO(s) will be on duty in shifts no longer than 4 hours in 
duration. Other crew will also be instructed to assist in detecting 
marine mammals and implementing mitigation requirements (if practical). 
Before the start of the low-energy seismic survey, the crew will be 
given additional instruction on how to do so.
    The Revelle is a suitable platform for marine mammal observations 
and will serve as the platform from which PSOs will watch for marine 
mammals before and during airgun operations. The Revelle has been used 
for marine mammal observations during the routine California 
Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations (CalCOFI). Two locations 
are likely as observation stations onboard the Revelle. Observing 
stations are located at the 02 level, with PSO eye level at 
approximately 10.4 m (34 ft) above the waterline and the PSO will have 
a good view around the entire vessel. At a forward-centered position on 
the 02 deck, the view is approximately 240[deg] around the vessel; and 
one atop the aft hangar, with an aft-centered view includes the 100 m 
radius around the GI airguns. The PSO eye level on the bridge is 
approximately 15 m (49.2 ft) above sea level. PSOs will work on the 
enclosed bridge and adjoining aft steering station during any inclement 
weather.
    Standard equipment for PSOs will be reticle binoculars and optical 
range finders. Night-vision equipment will be available at night and 
low-light conditions during the cruise. The PSOs will be in 
communication with ship's officers on the bridge and scientists in the 
vessel's operations laboratory, so they can advise promptly of the need 
for avoidance maneuvers or seismic source shut-down. During daylight, 
the PSO(s) will scan the area around the vessel systematically with 
reticle binoculars (e.g., 7 x 50 Fujinon FMTRC-SX), Big-eye binoculars 
(e.g., 25 x 150 Fujinon MT), optical range-finders (to assist with 
distance estimation), and the naked eye. These binoculars will have a 
built-in daylight compass. Estimating distances is done primarily with 
the reticles in the binoculars. The optical range-finders are useful in 
training PSOs to estimate distances visually, but are generally not 
useful in measuring distances to animals directly. At night, night-
vision equipment will be available. The PSO(s) will be in direct 
(radio) wireless communication with ship's officers on the bridge and 
scientists in the vessel's operations laboratory during seismic 
operations, so they can advise the vessel operator, science support 
personnel, and the science party promptly of the need for avoidance 
maneuvers or a shut-down of the seismic source.
    When a marine mammal is detected within or about to enter the 
designated exclusion zone, the airguns will immediately be shut-down, 
unless the vessel's speed and/or course can be changed to avoid having 
the animal enter the exclusion zone. The PSO(s) will continue to 
maintain watch to determine when the animal is outside the exclusion 
zone by visual confirmation. Airgun operations will not resume until 
the animal is confirmed to have left the exclusion zone, or is not 
observed after 15 minutes for species with shorter dive durations 
(small odontocetes and pinnipeds) or 30 minutes for species with longer 
dive durations (mysticetes and large odontocetes, including sperm, 
dwarf and pygmy sperm, killer, and beaked whales).

PSO Data and Documentation

    PSOs will record data to estimate the numbers of marine mammals 
exposed to various received sound levels and to document apparent 
disturbance reactions or lack thereof. Data will be used to estimate 
numbers of animals potentially ``taken'' by harassment. They will also 
provide information needed to order a shut-down of the airguns when a 
marine mammal is within or near the exclusion zone. Observations will 
also be made during daylight periods when the Revelle is underway 
without seismic airgun operations (i.e., transits to, from, and through 
the study area) to collect baseline biological data.
    When a sighting is made, the following information about the 
sighting will be recorded:
    1. Species, group size, age/size/sex categories (if determinable), 
behavior when first sighted and after initial sighting, heading (if 
consistent), bearing and distance from seismic vessel, sighting cue, 
apparent reaction to the seismic source or vessel (e.g., none, 
avoidance, approach, paralleling, etc.), and behavioral pace.
    2. Time, location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel 
(including number of airguns operating and whether in state of ramp-up 
or shut-down), sea state, wind force, visibility, cloud cover, and sun 
glare.
    The data listed under (2) will also be recorded at the start and 
end of each observation watch, and during a watch whenever there is a 
change in one or more of the variables.
    All observations, as well as information regarding ramp-ups or 
shut-downs, will be recorded in a standardized format. Data will be 
entered into an electronic database. The data accuracy will be verified 
by computerized data validity checks as the data are entered and by 
subsequent manual checking of the database by the PSOs at sea. These 
procedures will allow initial summaries of data to be prepared during 
and shortly after the field program, and will facilitate transfer of 
the data to statistical, graphical, and other programs for further 
processing and archiving.
    Results from the vessel-based observations will provide the 
following information:
    1. The basis for real-time mitigation (airgun shut-down).
    2. Information needed to estimate the number of marine mammals 
potentially taken by harassment, which must be reported to NMFS.
    3. Data on the occurrence, distribution, and activities of marine 
mammals in the area where the seismic study is conducted.
    4. Information to compare the distance and distribution of marine 
mammals relative to the source vessel at times with and without airgun 
operations.
    5. Data on the behavior and movement patterns of marine mammals 
seen at times with and without airgun operations.

Reporting

    SIO will submit a comprehensive report to NMFS and NSF within 90 
days after the end of the cruise. The report will describe the 
operations that were conducted and sightings of marine mammals near the 
operations. The report submitted to NMFS and NSF will provide full 
documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all 
monitoring. The 90-day report would summarize the dates and locations 
of airgun operations and all marine mammal sightings (i.e., dates, 
times, locations, activities, and associated seismic survey 
activities). The report will include, at a minimum:
     Summaries of monitoring effort--total hours, total 
distances, and distribution of marine mammals through the study period 
accounting for Beaufort sea state and other factors affecting 
visibility and detectability of marine mammals;
     Analyses of the effects of various factors influencing 
detectability of marine mammals including Beaufort sea state, number of 
PSOs, and fog/glare;
     Species composition, occurrence, and distribution of 
marine mammals sightings including date, water depth, numbers, age/
size/gender, and group

[[Page 29654]]

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

Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment

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

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

    Level B harassment is anticipated and authorized as a result of the 
low-energy seismic survey in the Southwest Pacific Ocean, East of New 
Zealand. Acoustic stimuli (i.e., increased underwater sound) generated 
during the operation of the seismic airgun array are expected to result 
in the behavioral disturbance of some marine mammals. NMFS's current 
underwater exposure criteria for impulsive sound are detailed in Table 
4 (above). There is no evidence that the planned activities could 
result in injury, serious injury, or mortality. The required mitigation 
and monitoring measures will minimize any potential risk for injury, 
serious injury, or mortality.
    The following sections describe SIO's methods to estimate take by 
incidental harassment and present the applicant's estimates of the 
numbers of marine mammals that could be affected. The estimates are 
based on a consideration of the number of marine mammals that could be 
harassed during the approximately 135 hours and 1,250 km of seismic 
airgun operations with the two GI airgun array to be used.

[[Page 29655]]

Density Data

    There are no known systematic aircraft- or ship-based surveys 
conducted for marine mammals stock assessments and very limited 
population information available for marine mammals in offshore waters 
of the Southwest Pacific Ocean off the east coast of New Zealand. For 
most cetacean species, SIO and NMFS used densities from extensive NMFS 
Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) cruises (Ferguson and 
Barlow, 2001, 2003; Barlow, 2003, 2010; Forney, 2007) in one province 
of Longhurst's (2006) pelagic biogeography, the California Current 
Province (CALC). That province is similar to the South Subtropical 
Convergence Province (SSTC) in which the proposed low-energy seismic 
survey is located, in that productivity is high and large pelagic fish 
such as tuna occur. Specifically, SIO and NMFS used the 1986 to 1996 
data from blocks 35, 36, 47, 48, 59, and 60 of Ferguson and Barlow 
(2001, 2003), the 2001 data from Barlow (2003) for the Oregon, 
Washington, and California strata, and the 2005 and 2008 data from 
Forney (2007) and Barlow (2010), respectively, for the two strata 
combined. The densities used were effort-weighted means for the 10 
locations (blocks or States). The surveys off California, Oregon, and 
Washington were conducted up to approximately 556 km (300.2 nmi) 
offshore, and most of those data were from offshore areas that overlap 
with the above blocks selected from Ferguson and Barlow (2001, 2003).
    For pinnipeds, SIO and NMFS used the densities in Bonnell et al. 
(1992) of northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus) and northern 
elephant seals in offshore areas of the western U.S. (the only species 
regularly present in offshore areas there) to estimate the numbers of 
pinnipeds that might be present off New Zealand.
    The marine mammal species that will be encountered during the low-
energy seismic survey will be different from those sighted during 
surveys off the western U.S. and in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean. 
However, the overall abundances of species groups with generally 
similar habitat requirements are expected to be roughly similar. Thus, 
SIO and NMFS used the data described above to estimate the group 
densities of beaked whales, delphinids, small whales, and mysticetes in 
the proposed study area. SIO and NMFS then estimated the relative 
abundance of individual southern species within the species groups 
using various surveys and other information from areas near the study 
area, and general information on species' distributions such as 
latitudinal ranges and group sizes. Group densities from northern 
species were multiplied by their estimated relative abundance off New 
Zealand divided by the relative abundance for all species in the 
species group to derive estimates for the southern species (see Table 3 
of the IHA application).
    Densities for several cetacean species are available for the 
Southern Ocean (Butterworth et al., 1994), as follows: (1) For 
humpback, sei, fin, blue, sperm, killer, and pilot whales in Antarctic 
Management areas I to VI south of 60[deg] South, based on the 1978/1979 
to 1984 and 1985/1986 to 1990/1991 IWC/IDCR circumpolar sighting survey 
cruises, and (2) for humpback, sei, fin, blue, and sperm whales 
extrapolated to latitudes 30 to 40[deg] South, 40 to 50[deg] South, 50 
to 60[deg] South based on Japanese scouting vessel data from 1965/1966 
to 1977/1978 and 1978/1979 to 1987/1988. SIO and NMFS calculated 
densities based on abundance and surface areas given in Butterworth et 
al. (1994) and used the weighted or mean density for the Regions V and/
or VI (whichever is available) due to locations that represent foraging 
areas or distributions for animals that are likely to move past New 
Zealand during northerly migrations or breed in New Zealand waters.
    The densities used for purposes of estimating potential take do not 
take into account the patchy distributions of marine mammals in an 
ecosystem, at least on the moderate to fine scales over which they are 
known to occur. Instead, animals are considered evenly distributed 
throughout the assessed study area and seasonal movement patterns are 
not taken into account, as none are available. Although there is some 
uncertainty about the representativeness of the data and the 
assumptions used in the calculations below, the approach used here is 
believed to be the best available approach, using the best available 
science.

  Table 5--Estimated Densities and Numbers of Marine Mammal Species That Might Be Exposed to Greater Than or Equal to 160 dB (Airgun Operations) During
 SIO's Low-Energy Seismic Survey (Approximately 1,250 km of Tracklines/Approximately 1,154 km\2\ Ensonified Area for Airgun Operations) in the Southwest
                                                  Pacific Ocean, East of New Zealand, May to June 2015
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Calculated take
                                                         from seismic airgun
                                     Density U.S. West    operations (i.e.,                                         Approximate
                                   Coast/Southern Ocean/ estimated number of   Authorized                          percentage of       Population trend
             Species                estimate used (# of  individuals exposed    take \3\      Abundance \4\     population estimate          \6\
                                   animals/1,000 km\2\)    to sound levels                                       (authorized take)
                                            \1\             >=160 dB re 1                                               \5\
                                                             [mu]Pa) \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Mysticetes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southern right whale.............  0.98/NA/0.98........  1.13...............            2  8,000 to 15,000--    0.03--Worldwide....  Increasing at 7 to
                                                                                            Worldwide.          0.02--Southern        8% per year.
                                                                                           12,000--Southern      Hemisphere.
                                                                                            Hemisphere.         0.07--Sub-Antarctic
                                                                                           2,700--Sub-           New Zealand.
                                                                                            Antarctic New
                                                                                            Zealand.
Pygmy right whale................  0.39/NA/0.39........  0.45...............            2  NA.................  NA.................  NA.
Humpback whale...................  0.98/0.25/0.25......  0.29...............            2  35,000 to 42,000--   <0.01--Southern      Increasing.
                                                                                            Southern             Hemisphere.
                                                                                            Hemisphere.
Antarctic minke whale............  0.59/NA/0.59........  0.68...............            2  720,000 to 750,000-- <0.01--Southern      Stable.
                                                                                            Southern             Hemisphere.
                                                                                            Hemisphere.
Minke whale (including dwarf       0.59/NA/0.59........  0.68...............            2  720,000 to 750,000-- <0.01--Southern      NA.
 minke whale sub-species).                                                                  Southern             Hemisphere.
                                                                                            Hemisphere.

[[Page 29656]]

 
Bryde's whale....................  0.20/NA/0.20........  0.23...............            2  At least 30,000 to   <0.01--Worldwide...  NA.
                                                                                            40,000--Worldwide.  <0.01--Northwestern
                                                                                           21,000--Northwester   Pacific Ocean.
                                                                                            n Pacific Ocean     <0.01..............
                                                                                            48,109.
Sei whale........................  0.59/0.08/0.08......  0.09...............            2  80,000--Worldwide..  <0.01--Worldwide...  NA.
                                                                                           10,000--South of     0.02--South of
                                                                                            Antarctic            Antarctic
                                                                                            Convergence.         Convergence.
Fin whale........................  0.59/0.13/0.13......  0.15...............            2  140,000--Worldwide.  <0.01--Worldwide...  NA.
                                                                                           15,000--South of     0.01--South of
                                                                                            Antarctic            Antarctic
                                                                                            Convergence.         Convergence.
Blue whale.......................  0.59/0.05/0.05......  0.06...............            2  8,000 to 9,000--     0.03--Worldwide....  NA.
                                                                                            Worldwide.          0.09--True Southern
                                                                                           2,300--True           Hemisphere.
                                                                                            Southern            0.13--Pygmy........
                                                                                            Hemisphere.
                                                                                           1,500--Pygmy.......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Odontocetes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sperm whale......................  1.62/1.16/1.16......  1.34...............           10  360,000--Worldwide.  <0.01--Worldwide...  NA.
                                                                                           30,000--South of     0.03--South of
                                                                                            Antarctic            Antarctic
                                                                                            Convergence.         Convergence.
Pygmy sperm whale................  0.97/NA/0.97........  1.12...............            5  NA.................  NA.................  NA.
Arnoux's beaked whale............  NA/NA/NA............  NA.................            8  NA.................  NA.................  NA.
Cuvier's beaked whale............  0.69/NA/0.69........  0.80...............            2  600,000............  <0.01..............  NA.
Shepherd's beaked whale..........  0.46/NA/0.46........  0.53...............            3  600,000............  <0.01..............  NA.
Southern bottlenose whale........  0.46/NA/0.46........  0.53...............            2  50,000--South of     <0.01--South of      NA.
                                                                                            Antarctic            Antarctic
                                                                                            Convergence          Convergence.
                                                                                            600,000.            <0.01..............
Andrew's beaked whale............  0.46/NA/0.46........  0.53...............            2  600,000............  <0.01..............  NA.
Blainville's beaked whale........  0.23/NA/0.23........  0.27...............            2  600,000............  <0.01..............  NA.
Gray's beaked whale..............  0.92/NA0.92.........  1.06...............            2  600,000............  <0.01..............  NA.
Hector's beaked whale............  0.46/NA/0.46........  0.53...............            2  600,000............  <0.01..............  NA.
Pygmy beaked whale...............  NA/NA/NA............  NA.................            3  NA.................  NA.................  NA.
Spade-toothed beaked whale.......  0.23/NA/0.23........  0.27...............            2  600,000............  <0.01..............  NA.
Strap-toothed beaked whale.......  0.69/NA/0.69........  0.80...............            3  600,000............  <0.01..............  NA.
Killer whale.....................  0.45/5.70/5.70......  6.58...............           12  80,000--South of     0.02--South of       NA.
                                                                                            Antarctic            Antarctic
                                                                                            Convergence.         Convergence.
False killer whale...............  0.27/NA/0.27........  0.31...............           10  NA.................  NA.................  NA.
Long-finned pilot whale..........  0.27/6.41/6.41......  7.40...............           20  200,000--South of    0.01--South of       NA.
                                                                                            Antarctic            Antarctic
                                                                                            Convergence.         Convergence.
Short-finned pilot whale.........  0.45/NA/0.45........  0.52...............           20  At least 600,000--   <0.01--Worldwide...  NA.
                                                                                            Worldwide.
Bottlenose dolphin...............  81.55/NA/81.55......  94.11..............           95  At least 614,000--   0.02--Worldwide....  NA.
                                                                                            Worldwide.
Dusky dolphin....................  81.55/NA/81.55......  94.11..............           95  12,000 to 20,000--   0.79--New Zealand..  NA.
                                                                                            New Zealand.
Hector's dolphin.................  32.62/NA/32.62......  37.64..............           38  7,400..............  0.51...............  Declining.
Hourglass dolphin................  48.93/NA/48.93......  56.47..............           57  144,000 to 150,000-- 0.04--South of       NA.
                                                                                            South of Antarctic   Antarctic
                                                                                            Convergence.         Convergence.
Risso's dolphin..................  NA/NA/NA............  NA.................           10  At least 330,000--   <0.01--Worldwide...  NA.
                                                                                            Worldwide.
Short-beaked common dolphin......  163.10/NA/163.10....  188.22.............          189  At least 3,500,000-- <0.01--Worldwide...  NA.
                                                                                            Worldwide.
Southern right whale dolphin.....  48.93/NA/48.93......  56.46..............           57  NA.................  NA.................  NA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Pinnipeds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southern elephant seal...........  5.11/NA/5.11........  5.90...............            6  640,000 to 650,000-- <0.01--Worldwide or  Increasing,
                                                                                            Worldwide.           South Georgia        decreasing, or
                                                                                           470,000--South        Island.              stable depending
                                                                                            Georgia Island                            on breeding
                                                                                            607,000.                                  population.
New Zealand fur seal.............  12.79/NA/12.79......  14.76..............           15  135,000--Worldwide.  0.01--Worldwide....  Increasing.
                                                                                           50,000 to 100,000--  0.03--New Zealand..
                                                                                            New Zealand.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NA = Not available or not assessed.

[[Page 29657]]

 
\1\ Densities based on sightings from NMFS SWFSC, IWC, and Bonnell et al. (2012) data.
\2\ Calculated take is estimated density multiplied by the area ensonified to 160 dB (rms) around the seismic tracklines, increased by 25% for
  contingency.
\3\ Adjusted to account for average group size.
\4\ See population estimates for marine mammal species in Table 3 (above).
\5\ Total authorized takes expressed as percentages of the species or regional populations.
\6\ Jefferson et al. (2008).

Calculation

    As described above, numbers of marine mammals that might be present 
and potentially disturbed are estimated based on the available data 
about marine mammal distribution and densities in the U.S. west coast 
and Southern Ocean as a proxy for the planned study area off the east 
coast of New Zealand. SIO then estimated the number of different 
individuals that may be exposed to airgun sounds with received levels 
greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for seismic airgun 
operations on one or more occasions by considering the total marine 
area that would be within the 160 dB radius around the operating airgun 
array on at least one occasion and the expected density of marine 
mammals in the area (in the absence of the low-energy seismic survey). 
The number of possible exposures can be estimated by considering the 
total marine area that would be within the 160 dB radius (the diameter 
is 400 m multiplied by 2 for deep water depths, the diameter is 600 m 
multiplied by 2 for intermediate water depths) around the operating 
airguns, including areas of overlap. The spacing of tracklines is 500 m 
(1,640.4 ft) in the smaller grids and 1,250 m (4,101.1 ft) in the 
larger grids. Overlap was measured using GIS and was minimal (area with 
overlap is equal to 1.13 multiplied by the area without overlap). The 
take estimates were calculated without overlap. The 160 dB radii are 
based on acoustic modeling data for the airguns that may be used during 
the planned action (see SIO's IHA application). During the low-energy 
seismic survey, the transect lines are widely spaced relative to the 
160 dB distance. As summarized in Table 3 (see Table 1 and Figure 2 of 
the IHA application), the modeling results for the low-energy seismic 
airgun array indicate the received levels are dependent on water depth. 
Since the majority of the planned airgun operations would be conducted 
in waters 100 to 1,000 m deep or greater than 1,000 m deep, the buffer 
zone of 600 m or 400 m, respectively, for the two 45 in\3\ GI airguns 
was used.
    The number of different individuals potentially exposed to received 
levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) from seismic 
airgun operations was calculated by multiplying:
    (1) The expected species density (in number/km\2\), times.
    (2) The anticipated area to be ensonified to that level during 
airgun operations (excluding overlap).
    The area expected to be ensonified to 160 dB (rms) was determined 
by entering the planned tracklines into MapInfo GIS using the GIS to 
identify the relevant areas by ``drawing'' the applicable 160 dB (rms) 
isopleth around each trackline, and then calculating the total area 
within the isopleth. Applying the approach described above, 
approximately 1,153.6 km\2\ (including the 25% contingency 
[approximately 923 km\2\ without contingency]) will be ensonified 
within the 160 dB isopleth for seismic airgun operations on one or more 
occasions during the planned low-energy seismic survey. The total 
ensonified area (1,154 km\2\ [336.5 nmi\2\]) was calculated by adding 
847 km\2\ (246.9 nmi\2\) in deep water, 76 km\2\ (22.2 nmi\2\), and 
230.8 km\2\ (67.3 nmi\2\) for the 25% contingency.
    The take calculations do not explicitly add animals to account for 
``turnover,'' the fact that new animals not accounted for in the 
initial density snapshot could also approach and enter the area 
ensonified above 160 dB for seismic airgun operations. However, studies 
suggest that many marine mammals will avoid exposing themselves to 
sounds at this level, which suggests that there would not necessarily 
be a large number of new animals entering the area once the seismic 
survey started. Because this approach for calculating take estimates 
does not account for turnover in the marine mammal populations in the 
area during the course of the planned low-energy seismic survey, the 
actual number of individuals exposed may be underestimated. However, 
any underestimation is likely offset by the conservative (i.e., 
probably overestimated) line-kilometer distances (including the 25% 
contingency) used to calculate the survey area, and the fact that the 
approach assumes no cetaceans or pinnipeds would move away from or 
toward the tracklines as the Revelle approaches in response to 
increasing sound levels before the levels reach 160 dB for seismic 
airgun operations, which is likely to occur and would decrease the 
density of marine mammals in the survey area. Another way of 
interpreting the estimates in Table 5 is that they represent the number 
of individuals that would be expected (in absence of a seismic program) 
to occur in the waters that would be exposed to greater than or equal 
to 160 dB (rms) for seismic airgun operations.
    SIO's estimates of exposures to various sound levels assume that 
the planned low-energy seismic survey will be carried out in full; 
however, the ensonified areas calculated using the planned number of 
line-kilometers has been increased by 25% to accommodate lines that may 
need to be repeated, equipment testing, etc. As is typical during 
offshore seismic surveys, inclement weather and equipment malfunctions 
would be likely to cause delays and may limit the number of useful 
line-kilometers of airgun operations that can be undertaken. The 
estimates of the numbers of marine mammals potentially exposed to 160 
dB (rms) received levels are precautionary and probably overestimate 
the actual numbers of marine mammals that could be involved. These 
estimates assume that there will be no weather, equipment, or 
mitigation delays that limit the airgun operations, which is highly 
unlikely.
    Table 5 shows the estimates of the number of different individual 
marine mammals anticipated to be exposed to greater than or equal to 
160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for seismic airgun operations during the low-
energy seismic survey if no animals moved away from the survey vessel. 
The total authorized take is presented in column 4 of Table 5.

Encouraging and Coordinating Research

    SIO and NSF will coordinate the planned marine mammal monitoring 
program associated with the low-energy seismic survey with other 
parties that express interest in this activity and area. SIO and NSF 
will coordinate with applicable U.S. agencies (e.g., NMFS) and the 
government of New Zealand, and will comply with their requirements. The 
planned low-energy seismic survey falls under Level 3 of the ``Code of 
Conduct for minimizing acoustic disturbance to marine mammals from 
seismic survey operations'' issued by New Zealand. Level 3 seismic 
surveys are exempt from the provisions of the Code of Conduct.

[[Page 29658]]

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

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

Analysis and Determinations

Negligible Impact

    Negligible impact is ``an impact resulting from the specified 
activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably 
likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on 
annual rates of recruitment or survival'' (50 CFR 216.103). A 
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of Level B harassment takes, 
alone, is not enough information on which to base an impact 
determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of 
marine mammals that might be ``taken'' through behavioral harassment, 
NMFS must consider other factors, such as the likely nature of any 
responses (their intensity, duration, etc.) and the context of any 
responses (critical reproductive time or location, migration, etc.), as 
well as the number and nature of estimated Level A harassment takes, 
the number of estimated mortalities, effects on habitat, and the status 
of the species.
    In making a negligible impact determination, NMFS evaluates factors 
such as:
    (1) The number of anticipated serious injuries and or mortalities;
    (2) The number and nature of anticipated injuries;
    (3) The number, nature, intensity, and duration of takes by Level B 
harassment (all of which are relatively limited in this case);
    (4) The context in which the takes occur (e.g., impacts to areas of 
significance, impacts to local populations, and cumulative impacts when 
taking into account successive/contemporaneous actions when added to 
baseline data);
    (5) The status of stock or species of marine mammals (e.g., 
depleted, ESA-listed, decreasing, increasing, stable, impact relative 
to the size of the population);
    (6) Impacts on habitat affecting rates of recruitment/survival; and
    (7) The effectiveness of monitoring and mitigation measures.
    To avoid repetition, the discussion of NMFS's analyses applies to 
all the species or stocks for which take is being authorized (listed in 
Table 5), given that the anticipated effects of this short duration 
low-energy seismic survey on marine mammals are expected to be 
relatively similar in nature in this case. Additionally, there is no 
information about the size, status, or structure of any species or 
stock that would lead to a different analysis for this activity. NMFS 
has determined that the specified activities associated with the low-
energy seismic survey are not likely to cause long-term behavioral 
disturbance, PTS, or other (non-auditory) injury, serious injury, or 
death, based on the analysis contained in the notice of the proposed 
IHA (80 FR 15060, March 20, 2015). NMFS also considered the following 
factors:
    (1) The anticipated impacts of SIO and NSF's low-energy seismic 
survey on marine mammals are temporary behavioral changes due to 
avoidance of the action area.
    (2) The likelihood that marine mammals approaching the action area 
will be traveling through the area or opportunistically foraging within 
the vicinity, as no known breeding, calving, pupping, nursing areas, or 
haul-outs, overlap with the action area.
    (3) The likelihood that, given sufficient notice through relatively 
slow ship speed, marine mammals are expected to move away from a noise 
source that is annoying prior to its becoming potentially injurious;
    (4) The availability of alternate areas of similar habitat value 
for marine mammals to temporarily vacate the survey area during the 
operation of the airgun(s) to avoid acoustic harassment;
    (5) The expectation that the low-energy seismic survey would have 
not more than a temporary and minimal adverse effect on any fish or 
invertebrate species that serve as prey species for marine mammals, and 
therefore consider the potential impacts to marine mammal habitat 
minimal.
    (6) The relatively low potential for temporary or permanent hearing 
impairment and the likelihood that it would avoided through the 
implementation of the required monitoring and mitigation measures 
(including shut-down measures); and
    (7) The high likelihood that trained PSOs would detect marine 
mammals at close proximity to the vessel.
    No injuries, serious injuries, or mortalities are anticipated to 
occur as a result of the SIO's planned low-energy seismic survey, and 
none are authorized by NMFS. NMFS anticipates only behavioral 
disturbance to occur primarily in the form of avoidance behavior to the 
sound source during the conduct of the low-energy seismic survey. Table 
5 of this document outlines the number of authorized Level B harassment 
takes that are anticipated as a result of these activities. Due to the 
nature, degree, and context of Level B (behavioral) harassment 
anticipated and described in the notice of the proposed IHA (80 FR 
15060, March 20, 2015 (see ``Potential Effects on Marine Mammals'' 
section above), NMFS does not expect Level B harassment to affect the 
ability of marine mammals to survive or reproduce. Additionally, the 
low-energy seismic survey will not adversely impact marine mammal 
habitat.
    Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting, 
traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (i.e., 24 hr cycle). 
Behavioral reactions to noise exposure (such as disruption of critical 
life functions, displacement, or avoidance of important habitat) are 
more likely to be significant if they last more than one diel cycle or 
recur on subsequent days (Southall et al., 2007). While airgun 
operations are anticipated to occur on consecutive days, the estimated 
duration of the survey would not last more than a total of 
approximately 27 operational days, with only a total of approximately 
135 hours, meaning that the airgun operations will not be continuous 
for more than approximately 72 hours at time during the May to June 
2015 time period. Additionally, the low-energy seismic survey will be 
increasing sound levels in the marine environment in a relatively small 
area surrounding the vessel (compared to the range of the animals), and 
constantly travelling over distances, so individual animals likely will 
only be exposed to and harassed by sound for less than a day.
    As mentioned previously, NMFS estimates that 35 species of marine 
mammals under its jurisdiction could be potentially affected by Level B 
harassment over the course of the IHA. The population estimates for the 
marine mammal species that may be taken by Level B harassment were 
provided in Table 2 and 5 of this document. As shown in those tables, 
the authorized takes represent small proportions of the overall 
populations of these marine mammal species where abundance

[[Page 29659]]

estimates are available (i.e., less than 1%).
    Of the 35 marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction that may or 
are known to likely occur in the study area, six are listed as 
threatened or endangered under the ESA: Southern right, humpback, sei, 
fin, blue, and sperm whales. These species are also considered depleted 
under the MMPA. None of the other marine mammal species that may be 
taken are listed as depleted under the MMPA. Of the ESA-listed species, 
incidental take has been authorized for six species. As mitigation to 
reduce impacts to the affected species or stocks, SIO will be required 
to cease airgun operations if any marine mammal enters designated 
exclusion zones. No injury, serious injury, or mortality is expected to 
occur for any of these species, and due to the nature, degree, and 
context of the Level B harassment anticipated, and the activity is not 
expected to impact rates of recruitment or survival for any of these 
species.
    NMFS has determined that, provided that the aforementioned 
mitigation and monitoring measures are implemented, the impact of 
conducting a low-energy marine seismic survey in the Southwest Pacific 
Ocean, May to June 2015, may result, at worst, in a modification in 
behavior and/or low-level physiological effects (Level B harassment) of 
certain species of marine mammals.
    While behavioral modifications, including temporarily vacating the 
area during the operation of the airgun(s), may be made by these 
species to avoid the resultant acoustic disturbance, the availability 
of alternate areas for species to move to and the short and sporadic 
duration of the research activities, have led NMFS to determine that 
the taking by Level B harassment from the specified activity will have 
a negligible impact on the affected species in the specified geographic 
region. Due to the nature, degree, and context of Level B (behavioral) 
harassment anticipated and described (see ``Potential Effects on Marine 
Mammals'' section above) in this notice, the specified activity is not 
expected to impact rates of annual recruitment or survival for any 
affected species or stock, particularly given the required mitigation, 
monitoring, and reporting measures to minimize impacts. Based on the 
analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified 
activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into 
consideration the implementation of the required monitoring and 
mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from 
SIO's low-energy seismic survey will have a negligible impact on the 
affected marine mammal species or stocks.

Small Numbers

    As mentioned previously, NMFS estimates that 35 species of marine 
mammals under its jurisdiction could be potentially affected by Level B 
harassment over the course of the IHA. The population estimates for the 
marine mammal species that may be taken by Level B harassment were 
provided in Tables 2 and 5 of this document.
    The estimated numbers of individual cetaceans and pinnipeds that 
could be exposed to seismic sounds with received levels greater than or 
equal to 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) during the low-energy seismic survey 
(including a 25% contingency) are in Table 5 of this document. Of the 
cetaceans, 2 southern right, 2 pygmy right, 2 humpback, 2 Antarctic 
minke, 2 minke, 2 Bryde's, 2 sei, 2 fin, 2 blue, and 10 sperm whales 
could be taken by Level B harassment during the planned low-energy 
seismic survey, which would represent 0.03, unknown, 0.1, less than 
0.01, less than 0.01, less than 0.01, less than 0.01, less than 0.01, 
0.03, and 0.03% of the affected worldwide or regional populations, 
respectively. In addition, 5 pygmy sperm, 8 Arnoux's beaked, 2 Cuvier's 
beaked, 3 Shepherd's beaked, 2 southern bottlenose, 2 Andrew's beaked, 
2 Blainville's beaked, 2 Gray's beaked, 2 Hector's beaked, 3 pygmy 
beaked, 2 spade-toothed beaked, and 3 strap-toothed beaked could be 
taken be Level B harassment during the planned low-energy seismic 
survey, which would represent unknown, unknown, less than 0.01, less 
than 0.01, less than 0.01, less than 0.01, less than 0.01, less than 
0.01, less than 0.01, unknown, less than 0.01, and less than 0.01% of 
the affected worldwide or regional populations, respectively. Of the 
delphinids, 12 killer whales, 10 false killer whales, 20 long-finned 
pilot whales, 20 short-finned pilot whales, 95 bottlenose dolphins, 95 
dusky dolphins, 38 Hector's dolphins, 57 hourglass dolphins, 10 Risso's 
dolphins, 189 short-beaked common dolphins, and 57 southern right whale 
dolphins could be taken by Level B harassment during the planned low-
energy seismic survey, which would represent 0.02, unknown, 0.01, less 
than 0.01, 0.02, 0.79, 0.51, 0.04, less than 0.01, less than 0.01, and 
unknown of the affected worldwide or regional populations, 
respectively. Of the pinnipeds, 15 New Zealand fur seals and 6 southern 
elephant seals could be taken by Level B harassment during the planned 
low-energy seismic survey, which would represent 0.01 and less than 
0.01 of the affected worldwide or regional population, respectively.
    No known current worldwide or regional population estimates are 
available for 6 species under NMFS's jurisdiction that could 
potentially be affected by Level B harassment over the course of the 
IHA. These species are the pygmy right, pygmy sperm, Arnoux's beaked, 
pygmy beaked, and false killer whales and southern right whale 
dolphins. Pygmy right whales have a circumglobal distribution and occur 
throughout coastal and oceanic waters in the Southern Hemisphere 
(between 30 to 55[deg] South) (Jefferson et al., 2008). Pygmy sperm 
whales occur in deep waters on the outer continental shelf and slope in 
tropical to temperate waters of the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific 
Oceans. Arnoux's beaked whales occur in deep, cold, temperate, and 
subpolar waters of the Southern Hemisphere (most south of 40[deg] 
South) (Jefferson et al., 2008). Pygmy beaked whales occur in deep 
waters beyond the continental shelf in tropical/warm temperate waters 
of the Pacific Ocean (between 28[deg] North to 30[deg] South) 
(Jefferson et al., 2008). False killer whales generally occur in deep 
offshore tropical to temperate waters (between 50[deg] North to 50[deg] 
South) of the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific Oceans (Jefferson et al., 
2008). Southern right whale dolphins have a circumpolar distribution 
and generally occur in deep temperate to sub-Antarctic waters in the 
Southern Hemisphere (between 30 to 65[deg] South) (Jefferson et al., 
2008). Based on these broad distributions and preferences of these 
species relative to the area where the specified activity will occur, 
NMFS concludes that the authorized take of these species likely 
represent small numbers relative to the affected species' overall 
population sizes, even though we are unable to quantify the take 
numbers.
    NMFS makes its small numbers determination based on the numbers or 
proportion of marine mammals that will be taken relative to the 
populations of the affected species or stocks. The authorized take 
estimates all represent small numbers relative to the affected species 
or stock size (i.e., less than 1%), with the exception of the six 
species (i.e., pygmy right, pygmy sperm, Arnoux's beaked, pygmy beaked, 
and false killer whales and southern right whale dolphins) for which a 
qualitative rationale was provided.

Endangered Species Act

    Of the species of marine mammals that may occur in the planned 
survey area, six are listed as endangered under the ESA: The southern 
right, humpback,

[[Page 29660]]

sei, fin, blue, and sperm whales. Under section 7 of the ESA, NSF, on 
behalf of SIO, initiated formal consultation with the NMFS, Office of 
Protected Resources, Endangered Species Act Interagency Cooperation 
Division, on this low-energy seismic survey. NMFS's Office of Protected 
Resources, Permits and Conservation Division, initiated and engaged in 
formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA with NMFS's Office of 
Protected Resources, Endangered Species Act Interagency Cooperation 
Division, on the issuance of an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the 
MMPA for this activity. These two consultations were consolidated and 
addressed in a single Biological Opinion addressing the direct and 
indirect effects of these independent actions. In May 2015, NMFS issued 
a Biological Opinion that concluded that the action is not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of the six listed cetaceans that may 
occur in the study area and included an Incidental Take Statement (ITS) 
incorporating the requirements of the IHA as Terms and Conditions of 
the ITS. Compliance with those Terms and Conditions is likewise a 
mandatory requirement of the IHA. The Biological Opinion also concluded 
that designated critical habitat of these species does not occur in the 
action area and would not be affected by the low-energy seismic survey.

National Environmental Policy Act

    With SIO's complete IHA application, NSF and SIO provided NMFS an 
Environmental Analysis of a Low-Energy Marine Geophysical Survey by the 
R/V Roger Revelle in the Southwest Pacific Ocean, East of New Zealand, 
May to June 2015, (Environmental Analysis), prepared by LGL Limited, 
Environmental Research Associates, on behalf of NSF and SIO. The 
Environmental Analysis analyzes the direct, indirect, and cumulative 
environmental impacts of the planned specified activities on marine 
mammals, including those listed as threatened or endangered under the 
ESA. NMFS, after independently reviewing and evaluating the document 
for sufficiency and compliance with Council on Environmental Quality 
(CEQ) NEPA regulations and NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 Sec.  
5.09(d), conducted a separate NEPA analysis and prepared an 
Environmental Assessment on the Issuance of an Incidental Harassment 
Authorization to the Scripps Institution of Oceanography to Take Marine 
Mammals by Harassment Incidental to a Low-Energy Marine Geophysical 
Survey in the Southwest Pacific Ocean, East of New Zealand, May to June 
2015. This process included a public review period. Following 
completion of our EA, NMFS has determined that the issuance of the IHA 
is not likely to result in significant impacts on the human environment 
and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).

Authorization

    NMFS has issued an IHA to SIO for conducting a low-energy seismic 
survey in the Southwest Pacific Ocean, East of New Zealand, 
incorporating the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and 
reporting requirements.

    Dated: May 15, 2015.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-12531 Filed 5-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P