Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to a Geophysical Survey in the Central Pacific Ocean, 44565-44581 [2017-20362]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Notices than 5:00 p.m. EST on October 10, 2017. Comments received after October 10, 2017, will be distributed to the Committee, but may not be considered at the meetings. The minutes of the meetings will be posted on the Committee Web site within 60 days of the meeting. Dated: September 19, 2017. Maureen Smith, Director, Office of Supply Chain. [FR Doc. 2017–20386 Filed 9–22–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of partially closed meeting. AGENCY: The Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology (VCAT or Committee), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), will meet Monday, October 23, 2017 from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time and Tuesday, October 24, 2017 from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Eastern Time. The VCAT is composed of not fewer than 9 members appointed by the NIST Director, a majority of whom are eminent in such fields as business, research, new product development, engineering, labor, education, management consulting, environment, and international relations. DATES: The VCAT will meet on Monday, October 23, 2017 from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time and Tuesday, October 24, 2017 from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Eastern Time. The portion of the meeting that is closed to the public will take place on Tuesday, October 24, 2017 from 8:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the Portrait Room, Administration Building, at NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, Maryland, 20899. Please note admittance instructions under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Serena Martinez, VCAT, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 1060, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899–1060, telephone number 301–975–2661. Mrs. Martinez’s email address is serena.martinez@nist.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Sep 22, 2017 Jkt 241001 Authority: 15 U.S.C. 278, as amended, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. The purpose of this meeting is for the VCAT to review and make recommendations regarding general policy for NIST, its organization, its budget, and its programs within the framework of applicable national policies as set forth by the President and the Congress. The agenda will include an update on major programs at NIST. In addition, the meeting will include presentations and discussions on priorities for the NIST Laboratory Programs over the next decade. The Committee will also be briefed on plans to improve research services and support. During a closed session on October 24, 2017 from 8:30 a.m. until 10:30 a.m., the VCAT will discuss NIST’s security posture, including recent incidents and planned improvements. The agenda may change to accommodate Committee business. The final agenda will be posted on the NIST Web site at https://www.nist.gov/ director/vcat/agenda.cfm. Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions related to the Committee’s affairs are invited to request a place on the agenda. On Monday, October 23, approximately one-half hour in the afternoon will be reserved for public comments and speaking times will be assigned on a first-come, first-serve basis. The amount of time per speaker will be determined by the number of requests received, but is likely to be about 3 minutes each. The exact time for public comments will be included in the final agenda that will be posted on the NIST Web site at https:// www.nist.gov/director/vcat/agenda.cfm. Questions from the public will not be considered during this period. Speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, those who had wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, and those who were unable to attend in person are invited to submit written statements to VCAT, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, MS 1060, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899, via fax at 301–216–0529 or electronically by email to stephanie.shaw@nist.gov. All visitors to the NIST site are required to pre-register to be admitted. Please submit your name, time of arrival, email address and phone number to Serena Martinez by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Friday, October 13, 2017. Non-U.S. citizens must submit additional information; please contact Mrs. Martinez. Mrs. Martinez’s email address is serena.martinez@nist.gov and her phone number is 301–975–2661. For participants attending in person, please PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 44565 note that federal agencies, including NIST, can only accept a state-issued driver’s license or identification card for access to federal facilities if such license or identification card is issued by a state that is compliant with the REAL ID Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109–13), or by a state that has an extension for REAL ID compliance. NIST currently accepts other forms of federal-issued identification in lieu of a state-issued driver’s license. For detailed information please contact Mrs. Martinez at 301–975–2661 or visit: https://nist.gov/public_affairs/visitor/. Kevin Kimball, NIST Chief of Staff. [FR Doc. 2017–20374 Filed 9–22–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–13–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648–XF330 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to a Geophysical Survey in the Central Pacific Ocean National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. AGENCY: Notice; Issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization. ACTION: In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the University of Hawaii (UH) to incidentally take, by Level A and Level B harassment only, marine mammals during a marine geophysical survey in the Central Pacific Ocean. SUMMARY: This Authorization is valid from September 14, 2017 through September 13, 2018. DATES: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jordan Carduner, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. Electronic copies of the application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/ incidental/research.htm. In case of problems accessing these documents, please call the contact listed above. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: E:\FR\FM\25SEN1.SGM 25SEN1 44566 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Notices Background Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review. An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will 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. The MMPA states that the term ‘‘take’’ means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal. 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). asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES National Environmental Policy Act To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216–6A, NMFS must review our proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an incidental harassment authorization) with respect to potential impacts on the human environment. Accordingly, NMFS prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) to consider the environmental impacts associated with the issuance of the IHA to UH. We reviewed all comments submitted in VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Sep 22, 2017 Jkt 241001 response to the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (82 FR 34352; July 24, 2017) prior to concluding our NEPA process and deciding whether or not to issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). NMFS concluded that issuance of an IHA to UH would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment and prepared and issued a FONSI in accordance with NEPA and NAO 216–6A. NMFS’ EA and FONSI for this activity are available on our Web site at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ permits/incidental. Summary of Request On March 15, 2016, NMFS received a request from the UH for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to conducting a marine geophysical survey in the central Pacific Ocean. On May 16, 2017, we deemed UH’s application for authorization to be adequate and complete. UH’s request is for take of a small number of 24 species of marine mammals by Level B harassment and Level A harassment. Neither UH nor NMFS expects mortality to result from this activity, and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. The planned activity is not expected to exceed one year, hence, we do not expect subsequent MMPA incidental harassment authorizations would be issued for this particular activity. Description of Activity Overview UH, in collaboration with the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC), proposes to conduct a marine seismic survey north of Hawaii in the central Pacific Ocean over the course of five and a half days in September 2017. The survey would occur north of the Hawaiian Islands, in the approximate area 22.6–25.0° N and 153.5–157.4° W (See Figure 1 in IHA application). The project area is partly within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the United States and partly in adjacent international waters. Water depths in the area range from 4,000 to 5,000 meters (m). The survey would involve one source vessel, the Japanflagged R/V (research vessel) Kairei. The Kairei would deploy a 32-airgun array with a total volume of ∼7800 cubic inches (in3) as an energy source. A detailed description of UH’s planned activity is provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (82 FR 34352; July 24, 2017). Since that time, no changes have been made to the planned activities. Therefore, a detailed description is not provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for the description of the specific activity. PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Comments and Responses NMFS published a notice of proposed IHA in the Federal Register on July 24, 2017 (82 FR 34352; July 24, 2017). During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received a comment letter from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission) as well as one comment from a member of the general public. NMFS has posted the comments online at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ permits/incidental. NMFS addresses any comments specific to UH’s application related to the statutory and regulatory requirements or findings that NMFS must make under the MMPA in order to issue an Authorization. The following is a summary of the public comments and NMFS’ responses. Comment 1: The Commission expressed concerns regarding UH’s method to estimate the extent of the Level A and B harassment zones and the numbers of marine mammal takes. The Commission stated that the model is not the best available science because it assumes spherical spreading, a constant sound speed, and no bottom interactions for surveys in deep water. In light of their concerns, the Commission recommended that NMFS require UH, in collaboration with Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University (LDEO) (which performed the modeling of Level A and Level B harassment zones and estimated takes) to re-estimate the Level A and Level B harassment zones and associated takes of marine mammals using both operational (including number/type/spacing of airguns, tow depth, source level/operating pressure, operational volume) and site-specific environmental (including sound speed profiles, bathymetry, and sediment characteristics at a minimum) parameters. The Commission also expressed concern that LDEO used a high-pass filter for modeling the unweighted peak sound pressure level (SPLpeak) thresholds, and stated that use of the full bandwidth is appropriate given that the thresholds themselves were based on responses of the animals to the full frequency spectrum of the airgun pulses, not a filtered bandwidth. Response: NMFS acknowledges the Commission’s concerns about LDEO’s current modeling approach for estimating Level A and Level B harassment zones and takes. UH’s application (LGL, 2017) and the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (82 FR 34352; July 24, 2017) describe the applicant’s approach to modeling Level A and Level B harassment zones. The model LDEO currently uses does not allow for the consideration of E:\FR\FM\25SEN1.SGM 25SEN1 asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Notices environmental and site-specific parameters as requested by the Commission. NMFS continues to work with LDEO to address the 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. The use of models for estimating the size of ensonified areas and for developing take estimates is not a requirement of the MMPA incidental take authorization process, and NMFS does not provide specific guidance on model parameters nor prescribe a specific model for applicants at this time. We recognize that there is no model or approach that is always the most appropriate and that there may be multiple approaches that may be considered acceptable and, in this case, LDEO’s current modeling approach represents the best available information to inform authorized take levels and also NMFS’ determinations under the MMPA. NMFS finds that the Level A and Level B harassment zone calculations conducted by LDEO are reasonable for use in this particular IHA. Further, the results of modeling (e.g., take estimates) is just one component of the analysis during the MMPA authorization process as NMFS also takes into consideration other factors associated with the activity (e.g., geographic location, duration of activities, context, sound source intensity, etc.). With regard to the Commission’s concern regarding LDEO’s use of a highpass filter for modeling the unweighted SPLpeak thresholds, NMFS has reviewed the best available information and we agree that the Commission’s concern is valid. Since the thresholds were based on responses of the animals to the full frequency spectrum of the airgun pulses, not a filtered bandwidth, we agree that use of the full bandwidth is appropriate. Therefore, we have revised the modeled distances to the Level A harassment threshold (SPLpeak) that we rely on for estimating Level A takes, from those described in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (82 FR 34352; July 24, 2017) to those shown in Table 6 in this document, which have no band pass filtering applied. Comment 2: The Commission expressed concern that the method used to estimate the numbers of takes, which summed fractions of takes for each species across project days, does not account for and negates the intent of NMFS’ 24-hour reset policy. NMFS Response: We appreciate the Commission’s ongoing concern in this matter. Calculating predicted takes is not an exact science and there are VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Sep 22, 2017 Jkt 241001 arguments for taking different mathematical approaches in different situations, and for making qualitative adjustments in other situations. We believe, however, that the methodology used for take calculation in this IHA remains appropriate and is not at odds with the 24-hour reset policy the Commission references. Comment 3: The Commission questioned why NMFS did not propose to prohibit the use of power downs and recommended that NMFS use a consistent approach for requiring all geophysical survey operators to abide by the same general mitigation measures, including prohibiting UH from using power downs during its survey. NMFS Response: NMFS agrees with the Commission that consistency in mitigation measures across ITAs for similar activities is a worthwhile goal, to the extent practicable. NMFS also agrees with the Commission that limiting the use of power downs can be beneficial in reducing the overall sound input in the marine environment from geophysical surveys; as such, NMFS is requiring that power downs in this IHA occur for no more than a maximum of 30 minutes at any time. The requirement for a 30 minute maximum for power downs represents a change to the mitigation measures from those proposed in the Federal Register notice of the proposed IHA (82 FR 34352, July 24, 2017) and is reflected in the mitigation measures in the issued IHA. NMFS is still in the process of determining best practice, via solicitation of public comment, for the use of power downs as a mitigation measure in ITAs for geophysical surveys. We will take into consideration the Commission’s recommendation that power downs be eliminated as a mitigation measure as we work toward a determination on best practices for the use of power downs in IHAs for marine geophysical surveys. We will also review the comments received in response to the Federal Register notice for proposed IHAs for marine geophysical surveys in the Atlantic Ocean (82 FR 26244, June 6, 2017) to help inform that determination; we are still reviewing those comments at this time. Ultimately our determination will be based on the best available science and will be communicated clearly to ITA applicants. Comment 4: The Commission expressed concern that reporting of the manner of taking and the numbers of animals incidentally taken should account for all animals in the various survey areas, including those animals directly on the trackline that are not detected and how well animals are PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 44567 detected based on the distance from the observer (accounted for by g(0) and f(0) values). The Commission has recommended a method for estimating the number of cetaceans in the vicinity of geophysical surveys based on the number of groups detected and recommended that NMFS require UH to use this method for estimating g(0) and f(0) values to better estimate the numbers of marine mammals taken by Level A and Level B harassment. NMFS response: NMFS agrees that reporting of the manner of taking and the numbers of animals incidentally taken should account for all animals taken, including those animals directly on the trackline that are not detected and how well animals are detected based on the distance from the observer, to the extent practicable. NMFS has provided the Commission’s recommended method for estimating g(0) and f(0) values to previous applicants for similar activities (i.e., research-based geophysical surveys). We have received feedback in response that those applicants are concerned with some aspects of the Commission’s method, including that the probability values recommended by the Commission’s recommended method involve assumptions that are not met by the surveys conducted aboard research geophysical vessels and that, as such, derived f(0) values for research geophysical surveys would not be suitable for refining the number of cetaceans potentially taken incidentally during these surveys. NMFS requires in this IHA that takes reported in UH’s monitoring report include an estimate that accounts for all animals incidentally taken, including those on the trackline but not detected, but at this time we do not prescribe a particular method for accomplishing this task. Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities Section 4 of the application summarizes available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS’ Stock Assessment Reports (SAR; www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/), and more general information about these species (e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS’ Web site (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ species/mammals/). Table 1 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in the central Pacific Ocean and summarizes information related to the population or E:\FR\FM\25SEN1.SGM 25SEN1 44568 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Notices stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we follow Committee on Taxonomy (2016). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS’ SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and other threats. Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS’ stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS’ U.S. Pacific SARs (e.g., Carretta et al., 2017). All values presented in Table 1 are the most recent available at the time of publication and are available in the 2016 SARs (Carretta et al., 2017), available online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ pr/sars, except where noted otherwise. TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMALS THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE PROJECT AREA Species ESA/MMPA status; strategic (Y/N) 1 Stock Stock abundance 2 (CV, Nmin, most recent abundance survey) 3 Relative occurrence in project area PBR 4 Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) Family: Balaenopteridae Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) 5. Central North Pacific .......... -/-; N 10,103 (0.300; 7,890; 2006). 83 Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus). Central North Pacific .......... E/D; Y 81 (1.14; 38; 2010) ............ 0.1 Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus. Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis). Hawaii ................................ E/D; Y 58 (1.12; 27; 2010) ............ 0.1 Hawaii ................................ E/D; Y 178 (0.90; 93; 2010) .......... 0.2 Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera brydei/ edeni). Hawaii ................................ -/-; N 798 (0.28; 633; 2010) ........ 6.3 Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata). Hawaii ................................ -/-; N n/a (n/a; n/a; 2010) ............ Undet. Seasonal; throughout known breeding grounds during winter and spring (most common November through April). Seasonal; infrequent winter migrant; few sightings, mainly fall and winter; considered rare. Seasonal, mainly fall and winter; considered rare. Rare; limited sightings of seasonal migrants that feed at higher latitudes. Uncommon; distributed throughout the Hawaiian Exclusive Economic Zone. Seasonal, mainly fall and winter; considered rare. Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) Family: Physeteridae Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus). Hawaii ................................ E/D; Y 3,354 (0.34; 2,539; 2010) .. 10.2 Widely distributed year round. Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) Family: Kogiidae Pygmy sperm whale 6 (Kogia breviceps). Dwarf sperm whale 6 (Kogia sima). Hawaii ................................ -/-; N 7,139 (2.91; n/a; 2006) ...... Undet. Hawaii ................................ -/-; N 17,519 (7.14; n/a; 2006) .... Undet. Widely distributed year round. Widely distributed year round. asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) Family delphinidae Killer whale (Orcinus orca) Hawaii ................................ -/-; N 101 (1.00; 50; 2010) .......... 1 False killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens). Pygmy killer whale (Feresa attenuata). Hawaii Pelagic ................... -/-; N 1,540 (0.66; 928; 2010) ..... 9.3 Uncommon; infrequent sightings. Regular. Hawaii ................................ -/-; N 3,433 (0.52; 2,274; 2010) .. 23 Year-round resident. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Sep 22, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25SEN1.SGM 25SEN1 44569 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Notices TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMALS THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE PROJECT AREA—Continued Species ESA/MMPA status; strategic (Y/N) 1 Stock Stock abundance 2 (CV, Nmin, most recent abundance survey) 3 Relative occurrence in project area PBR 4 Short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus). Hawaii ................................ -/-; N 12,422 (0.43; 8,872; 2010) 70 Melon headed whale (Peponocephala electra). Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). Pantropical spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuata). Hawaiian Islands ................ -/-; N 5,794 (0.20; 4,904; 2010) .. 4 Hawaii pelagic .................... -/-; N 5,950 (0.59; 3,755; 2010) .. 38 Hawaii pelagic .................... -/-; N 15,917 (0.40; 11,508; 2010). 115 Striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoala). Hawaii ................................ -/-; N 20,650 (0.36; 15,391; 2010). 154 Spinner dolphin 6 (Stenella longirostris). Rough-toothed dolphin (Steno bredanensis). Hawaii pelagic .................... -/-; N 3,351 (0.74; n/a; 2006) ...... Undet. Hawaii ................................ -/-; N 6,288 (0.39; 4,581; 2010) .. 46 Fraser’s dolphin (Lagenodelphis hosei). Hawaii ................................ -/-; N 16,992 (0.66; 10,241; 2010). Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus). Hawaii ................................ -/-; N 7,256 (0.41; 5,207; 2010) .. 102 42 Commonly observed around Main Hawaiian Islands and Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Regular. Common in deep offshore waters. Common; primary occurrence between 100 and 4,000 m depth. Occurs regularly year round but infrequent sighting during survey. Common year-round in offshore waters. Common throughout the Main Hawaiian Islands and Hawaiian Islands EEZ. Tropical species only recently documented within Hawaiian Islands EEZ (2002 survey). Previously considered rare but multiple sightings in Hawaiian Islands EEZ during various surveys conducted from 2002– 2012. Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) Family: Ziphiidae Cuvier’s beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris). Hawaii ................................ -/-; N 1,941 (n/a; 1,142; 2010) .... 11.4 Blainville’s beaked whale Hawaii ................................ (Mesoplodon densirostris). -/-; N 2,338 (1.13; 1,088; 2010) .. 11 Longman’s beaked whale (Indopacetus pacificus). -/-; N 4,571 (0.65; 2,773; 2010) .. 28 Hawaii ................................ Year-round occurrence but difficult to detect due to diving behavior. Year-round occurrence but difficult to detect due to diving behavior. Considered rare; however, multiple sightings during 2010 survey. asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES 1 Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR (see footnote 3) or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 Abundance estimates from Carretta et al. (2017) unless otherwise noted. 3 CV is coefficient of variation; N min is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. For certain stocks, abundance estimates are actual counts of animals and there is no associated CV. The most recent abundance survey that is reflected in the abundance estimate is presented; there may be more recent surveys that have not yet been incorporated into the estimate. 4 Potential biological removal (PBR), defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population size (OSP). 5 Values for humpback whale are from the 2015 Alaska SAR (Muto et al., 2015). 6 Values for spinner dolphin, dwarf and pygmy sperm whale are from Barlow et al. (2006). All species that could potentially occur in the survey area are included in Table 1. We have reviewed UH’s species descriptions, including life history information, distribution, regional distribution, diving behavior, and acoustics and hearing, for accuracy and completeness. We refer the reader to Section 4 of UH’s IHA application, VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Sep 22, 2017 Jkt 241001 rather than reprinting the information here. A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by UH’s survey, including brief introductions to the species and relevant stocks as well as available information regarding population trends and threats, and information regarding local occurrence, were provided in the Federal Register PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 notice for the proposed IHA (82 FR 34352; July 24, 2017). Since that time, we are not aware of any changes in the status of these species and stocks; therefore, detailed descriptions are not provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for these descriptions. Please also refer to NMFS’ Web site (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ E:\FR\FM\25SEN1.SGM 25SEN1 44570 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Notices species/mammals/) for generalized species accounts Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat The effects of underwater noise from marine geophysical survey activities have the potential to result in behavioral harassment and, in a limited number of instances, auditory injury (PTS) of marine mammals in the vicinity of the action area. The Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (82 FR 34352; July 24, 2017) included a discussion of the effects of anthropogenic noise on marine mammals and their habitat, therefore that information is not repeated here; please refer to the Federal Register notice (82 FR 34352; July 24, 2017) for that information. No instances of serious injury or mortality are expected as a result of UH’s survey activities. Estimated Take This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes authorized through the IHA, which informs both NMFS’ consideration of whether the number of takes is ‘‘small’’ and the negligible impact determination. Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment). Authorized takes would primarily be by Level B harassment, as use of the seismic airguns have the potential to result in disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals. There is also some potential for auditory injury (Level A harassment) to result, primarily for mysticetes and high frequency cetaceans (i.e., kogiidae spp.), due to larger predicted auditory injury zones for those functional hearing groups. Auditory injury is unlikely to occur for mid-frequency species given very small modeled zones of injury for those species. The mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the severity of such taking to the extent practicable. As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated. Described in the most basic way, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and (4) and the number of days of activities. Below, we describe these components in more detail and present the exposure estimate and associated numbers of take authorized. Acoustic Thresholds Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur permanent threshold shift (PTS) of some degree (equated to Level A harassment). Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources—Though significantly driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the source (e.g., frequency, predictability, duty cycle), the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2011). Based on the best available science and the practical need to use a threshold based on a factor that is both predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS uses a generalized acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS predicts that marine mammals are likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner we consider to fall under Level B harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above received levels of 120 decibels (dB) re 1 micropascal (mPa) root mean square (rms) for continuous (e.g. vibratory piledriving, drilling) and above 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive (e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent (e.g., scientific sonar) sources. UH’s activity includes the use of impulsive seismic sources. Therefore, the 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) criteria is applicable for analysis of level B harassment. Level A harassment for non-explosive sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (NMFS, 2016) identifies dual criteria to assess auditory injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) (Table 2) as a result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). The Technical Guidance identifies the received levels, or thresholds, above which individual marine mammals are predicted to experience changes in their hearing sensitivity for all underwater anthropogenic sound sources, reflects the best available science, and better predicts the potential for auditory injury than does NMFS’ historical criteria. TABLE 2—MARINE FUNCTIONAL MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS AND THEIR GENERALIZED HEARING RANGES Generalized hearing range * asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES Hearing group Low frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen whales) ................................................................................................................. Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans (dolphins, toothed whales, beaked whales, bottlenose whales) ...................................... High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins, cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus cruciger and L. australis). Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true seals) .............................................................................................................. Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea lions and fur seals) .......................................................................................... 7Hz to 35 kHz. 150 Hz to 160 kHz. 275 Hz to 160 kHz. 50 Hz to 86 kHz. 60 Hz to 39 kHz. * Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual species’ hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized hearing range chosen based on ∼65 dB threshold from normalized composite audiogram, with the exception for lower limits for LF cetaceans (Southall et al., 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Sep 22, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25SEN1.SGM 25SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Notices These thresholds were developed by compiling and synthesizing the best available science and soliciting input multiple times from both the public and peer reviewers to inform the final product, and are provided in Table 3 below. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS 2016 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at: https:// www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/ 44571 guidelines.htm. As described above, UH’s activity includes the use of intermittent and impulsive seismic sources. TABLE 3—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT IN MARINE MAMMALS PTS onset thresholds Hearing Group Impulsive * Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans .............................................................. Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans ............................................................. High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans ............................................................ Non-impulsive Lpk,flat: 219 dB, LE,LF,24h: 183 dB .. Lpk,flat: 230 dB, LE,MF,24h: 185 dB Lpk,flat: 202 dB, LE,HF,24h: 155 dB .. LE,LF,24h: 199 dB. LE,MF,24h: 198 dB. LE,HF,24h: 173 dB. Note: * Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a nonimpulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should also be considered. Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 μPa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of 1μPa2s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ‘‘flat’’ is being included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be exceeded. asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES Ensonified Area Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that will feed into estimating the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds. The survey would entail use of a 32airgun array with a total discharge of 7,800 in3 at a tow depth of 10 m. The distance to the predicted isopleth corresponding to the threshold for Level B harassment (160 dB re 1 mPa) was calculated based on results of modeling performed by LDEO. Received sound levels were predicted by LDEO’s model (Diebold et al. 2010) as a function of distance from the full 32-airgun array as well as for a single 100 in3 airgun, which would be used during powerdowns. The LDEO modeling approach uses ray tracing for the direct wave traveling from the array to the receiver and its associated source ghost (reflection at the air-water interface in the vicinity of the array), in a constantvelocity half-space (infinite homogeneous ocean layer unbounded by a seafloor). LDEO’s modeling methodology is described in greater detail in the IHA application (LGL 2017) and we refer to the reader to that document rather than repeating it here. The estimated distances to the Level B harassment isopleth for the Kairei’s full airgun array and for the single 100-in3 airgun are shown in Table 4. The total area estimated to be ensonified to the Level B harassment threshold for the entire survey is 24,408 square kilometers (km2). VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Sep 22, 2017 Jkt 241001 TABLE 4—PREDICTED RADIAL DISTANCES FROM R/V KAIREI SEISMIC SOURCE TO ISOPLETH CORRESPONDING TO LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLD Predicted distance to threshold (160 dB re 1 μPa) Source and volume 1 airgun, 100 in 3 ................... 4 strings, 32 airguns, 7800 in 3. 722 m. 9,289 m. Predicted distances to Level A harassment isopleths, which vary based on marine mammal hearing groups (Table 2), were calculated based on modeling performed by LDEO using the Nucleus software program and the NMFS User Spreadsheet, described below. The updated acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds (such as airguns) contained in the Technical Guidance (NMFS 2016) were presented as dual metric acoustic thresholds using both cumulative sound exposure level (SELcum) and peak sound pressure metrics. As dual metrics, NMFS considers onset of PTS (Level A harassment) to have occurred when either one of the two metrics is exceeded (i.e., metric resulting in the largest isopleth). The SELcum metric considers both level and duration of exposure, as well as auditory weighting functions by marine mammal hearing group. In recognition of the fact that the requirement to calculate Level A harassment ensonified areas could be more technically challenging to predict PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 due to the duration component and the use of weighting functions in the new SELcum thresholds, NMFS developed an optional User Spreadsheet that includes tools to help predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to facilitate the estimation of take numbers. The values for SELcum and peak SPL for the Kairei airgun array were derived from calculating the modified farfield signature (Table 5). The farfield signature is often used as a theoretical representation of the source level. To compute the farfield signature, the source level is estimated at a large distance below the array (e.g., 9 km), and this level is back projected mathematically to a notional distance of 1 m from the array’s geometrical center. However, when the source is an array of multiple airguns separated in space, the source level from the theoretical farfield signature is not necessarily the best measurement of the source level that is physically achieved at the source (Tolstoy et al. 2009). Near the source (at short ranges, distances <1 km), the pulses of sound pressure from each individual airgun in the source array do not stack constructively, as they do for the theoretical farfield signature. The pulses from the different airguns spread out in time such that the source levels observed or modeled are the result of the summation of pulses from a few airguns, not the full array (Tolstoy et al. 2009). At larger distances, away from the source array center, sound pressure of all the airguns in the array stack coherently, but not within one time E:\FR\FM\25SEN1.SGM 25SEN1 44572 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Notices sample, resulting in smaller source levels (a few dB) than the source level derived from the farfield signature. Because the farfield signature does not take into account the large array effect near the source and is calculated as a point source, the modified farfield signature is a more appropriate measure of the sound source level for distributed sound sources, such as airgun arrays. UH used the acoustic modeling developed by LDEO (same as used for Level B takes) with a small grid step of 1 m in both the inline and depth directions (for example, see Figure 5 in the IHA application). The propagation modeling takes into account all airgun interactions at short distances from the source, including interactions between subarrays which are modeled using the NUCLEUS software to estimate the notional signature and MATLAB software to calculate the pressure signal at each mesh point of a grid. TABLE 5—MODELED SOURCE LEVELS FOR R/V KAIREI 7,800 IN3 AIRGUN ARRAY AND 100 IN3 AIRGUN BASED ON MODIFIED FARFIELD SIGNATURE 7,800 in3 airgun array (peak SPLflat) Functional hearing group Low frequency cetaceans (Lpk,flat: 219 dB; LE,LF,24h: 183 dB) ........................ Mid frequency cetaceans (Lpk,flat: 230 dB; LE,MF,24h: 185 dB) ........................ High frequency cetaceans (Lpk,flat: 202 dB; LE,HF,24h: 155 dB) ...................... In order to more realistically incorporate the Technical Guidance’s weighting functions over the seismic array’s full acoustic band, unweighted spectrum data for the Kairei’s airgun array (modeled in 1 hertz (Hz) bands) was used to make adjustments (dB) to the unweighted spectrum levels, by frequency, according to the weighting functions for each relevant marine mammal hearing group. These adjusted/ weighted spectrum levels were then converted to pressures (micropascals) in order to integrate them over the entire broadband spectrum, resulting in broadband weighted source levels by hearing group that could be directly incorporated within the User Spreadsheet (i.e., to override the Spreadsheet’s more simple weighting factor adjustment). Using the User Spreadsheet’s ‘‘safe distance’’ methodology for mobile sources (described by Sivle et al., 2014) with the hearing group-specific weighted source levels, and inputs assuming spherical spreading propagation, a source velocity 256.36 dB 245.59 dB 256.26 dB of 2.315 meters/second, and shot interval of 21.59 seconds (LGL 2017), potential radial distances to auditory injury zones were then calculated for SELcum thresholds. To estimate Peak SPL thresholds, LDEO performed modeling for a single shot and then a high pass filter was applied for each hearing group. A high pass filter is a type of band band-pass filter, which pass frequencies within a defined range without reducing amplitude and attenuate frequencies outside that defined range (Yost 2007). In their IHA application (LGL 2017) UH presented modeled distances to level A isopleths (Peak SPL) both with and without the high pass filter applied. In the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (82 FR 34352; July 24, 2017) NMFS presented distances to the Level A harassment thresholds for Peak SPL based on LDEO’s modeling, including the application of the high pass filter. At the time that Federal Register notice was published, we agreed that application of the high pass 7,800 in3 airgun array (SELcum) 235.01 dB 235.12 dB 235.16 dB 100 in3 airgun (peak SPLflat) 100 in3 airgun (SELcum) 229.46 dB 229.47 dB 229.59 dB 208.41 dB. 208.44 dB. 209.01 dB. filter was appropriate, and we accepted LDEO’s modeling methodology and its application for take estimation. However, in response to feedback we received in the form of public comments submitted in response to that Federal Register notice (see Comments and Responses section) we have subsequently determined that the application of the high pass filter is, in fact, not appropriate (see Comments and Responses section for further discussion of this issue). As such, the estimated distances to Level A harassment isopleths (for Peak SPL) shown in Table 6 have revised from those shown in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (82 FR 34352; July 24, 2017) to reflect no band pass filtering. Inputs to the User Spreadsheet are shown in Table 5; outputs from the User Spreadsheet in the form of estimated distances to Level A harassment isopleths are shown in Table 6. The User Spreadsheet used by UH is shown in Table 3 of the IHA application. TABLE 6—MODELED RADIAL DISTANCES FROM R/V KAIREI 7800 IN3 AIRGUN ARRAY AND 100 IN3 AIRGUN TO ISOPLETHS CORRESPONDING TO LEVEL A HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS 7,800 in3 airgun array (peak SPLflat) Functional hearing group asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES Low frequency cetaceans (Lpk,flat: 219 dB; LE,LF,24h: 183 dB) ........................ Mid frequency cetaceans (Lpk,flat: 230 dB; LE,MF,24h: 185 dB) ........................ High frequency cetaceans (Lpk,flat: 202 dB; LE,HF,24h: 155 dB) ...................... Note that because of some of the assumptions included in the methods used, isopleths produced may be overestimates to some degree, which will ultimately result in some degree of overestimate of Level A take. However, these tools offer the best way to predict appropriate isopleths when more sophisticated 3D modeling methods are VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Sep 22, 2017 Jkt 241001 73.8 m 6.0 516.5 m not available, and NMFS continues to develop ways to quantitatively refine these tools and will qualitatively address the output where appropriate. For mobile sources, such as UH’s survey, the User Spreadsheet predicts the closest distance at which a stationary animal would not incur PTS if the sound source traveled by the PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 7,800 in3 airgun array (SELcum) 752.8 m 0.0 m 1.7 m 100 in3 airgun (peak SPLflat) 3.3 m 0.9 24 m 100 in3 airgun (SELcum) 4.48 m n/a n/a animal in a straight line at a constant speed. Marine Mammal Occurrence In this section we provide the information about the presence, density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take calculations. E:\FR\FM\25SEN1.SGM 25SEN1 44573 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Notices The best available scientific information was considered in conducting marine mammal exposure estimates (the basis for estimating take). For most cetacean species, densities calculated by Bradford et al. (2017) from summer–fall vessel-based surveys that are part of the Hawaiian Island Cetacean Ecosystem Assessment Survey (HICEAS) were used. The surveys were conducted by NMFS’ Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) and Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC) in 2010 using two NOAA research vessels, one during August 13—December 1 and the other during September 2—October 29. The densities were estimated using a multiplecovariate line-transect approach (Buckland et al. 2001; Marques and Buckland 2004). Density estimates for pygmy and dwarf sperm whales and spinner dolphins, which were not calculated from the 2010 surveys, were derived from the ‘‘Outer EEZ stratum’’ of the vessel-based HICEAS survey conducted in summer–fall 2002 by SWFSC (Barlow 2006) using linetransect methodology (Buckland et al. 2001). The density estimate for the false killer whale was based on the pelagic stock density calculated by Bradford et al. (2015) using line-transect methodology (Buckland et al. 2001). All densities were corrected for trackline detection probability bias (f(0)) and availability (g(0)) bias by the authors. Bradford et al. (2017) used g(0) values estimated by Barlow (2015), whose analysis indicated that g(0) had previously been overestimated, particularly for high sea states. Barlow (2006) used earlier estimates of g(0), so densities used here for pygmy and dwarf sperm whales and spinner dolphins likely are underestimates. The density for the ‘‘Sei or Bryde’s whale’’ category identified by Bradford et al. (2017) was allocated between sei and Bryde’s whales according to their proportionate densities. Density estimates for humpback and minke whales were not available. There is some uncertainty related to the estimated density data and the assumptions used in their calculations, as with all density data estimates. However, the approach used is based on the best available data. Take Calculation and Estimation Here we describe how the information provided above is brought together to produce a quantitative take estimate. In order to estimate the number of marine mammals predicted to be exposed to sound levels that would result in Level B harassment or Level A harassment, radial distances to predicted isopleths corresponding to the Level A harassment and Level B harassment thresholds are calculated, as described above. We then use those distances to calculate the area(s) around the airgun array predicted to be ensonified to sound levels that exceed the Level A and Level B harassment thresholds. The total ensonified area for the survey is then calculated, based on the areas predicted to be ensonified around the array and the trackline distance. The marine mammals predicted to occur within these respective areas, based on estimated densities, are expected to be incidentally taken by UH’s survey. To summarize, the estimated density of each marine mammal species within an area (animals/km2) is multiplied by the daily ensonified areas (km2) that correspond to the Level A and Level B harassment thresholds for the species. The product (rounded) is the number of instances of take for each species within one day. The number of instances of take for each species within one day is then multiplied by the number of survey days (plus 25 percent contingency, as described below). The result is an estimate of the number of instances that marine mammals are predicted to be exposed to airgun sounds above the Level B harassment threshold and the Level A harassment threshold over the duration of the survey. Estimated takes for all marine mammal species are shown in Table 7. The planned survey would occur both within the U.S. EEZ and outside the U.S. EEZ. We authorize incidental take that is expected to occur as a result of the survey both within and outside the U.S. EEZ. TABLE 7—NUMBERS OF INCIDENTAL TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS AUTHORIZED Estimated density (#/1,000 km2) asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES Species Estimated and authorized Level A takes 0 0 0.97 0.22 0.06 0.05 1.86 0.30 3.11 1.89 29.6 8.99 23.3 0.83 25.0 21.0 4.74 3.54 4.35 0.60 0.06 7.97 3.19 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Humpback whale 1 ................................... Minke whale 1 ........................................... Bryde’s whale ........................................... Sei whale ................................................. Fin whale .................................................. Blue whale 1 ............................................. Sperm whale ............................................ Cuvier’s beaked whale ............................. Longman’s beaked whale ........................ Blainville’s beaked whale ......................... Rough-toothed dolphin ............................. Bottlenose dolphin ................................... Pantropical spotted dolphin ..................... Spinner dolphin 1 ...................................... Striped dolphin ......................................... Fraser’s dolphin ....................................... Risso’s dolphin ......................................... Melon-headed whale ................................ Pygmy killer whale ................................... False killer whale ..................................... Killer whale 1 ............................................ Short-finned pilot whale ........................... Pygmy sperm whale ................................ VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Sep 22, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Estimated Level B takes Sfmt 4703 Authorized Level B takes 0 0 25 6 2 1 51 8 85 76 812 246 639 23 685 577 130 97 119 16 2 218 87 E:\FR\FM\25SEN1.SGM 2 1 25 6 2 3 51 8 85 76 812 246 639 32 685 577 130 97 119 16 5 218 87 25SEN1 Total authorized Level A and Level B takes 2 1 27 6 2 3 51 8 85 76 812 246 639 32 685 577 130 97 119 16 5 218 94 Total authorized Level A and Level B takes as a percentage of population <0.1 n/a 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.7 1.5 <0.1 1.9 3.3 12.9 4.1 4.0 0.9 3.3 3.4 1.8 1.7 3.5 1.0 4.9 1.8 7.4 44574 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Notices TABLE 7—NUMBERS OF INCIDENTAL TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS AUTHORIZED—Continued Estimated density (#/1,000 km2) Species Estimated and authorized Level A takes 7.82 18 Dwarf sperm whale .................................. Estimated Level B takes Authorized Level B takes 214 214 Total authorized Level A and Level B takes 232 Total authorized Level A and Level B takes as a percentage of population 7.8 1 The asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES number of authorized takes (Level B harassment only) for these species has been increased from the calculated take to mean group size. Sources for mean group sizes are as follows: blue whale (Bradford et al. 2017); minke whale (Jackson et al. 2008); humpback whale (Mobley et al. 2001); spinner dolphin (Barlow 2006); killer whale (Bradford et al. 2017). Species with Take Estimates Less than Mean Group Size: Using the approach described above to estimate take, the take estimates for the blue whale, killer whale, and spinner dolphin (Table 7) were less than the average group sizes estimated for these species. However, information on the social structures and life histories of these species indicates it is common for them to be encountered in groups. As the results of take calculations support the likelihood that UH’s survey would be expected to encounter and to incidentally take these species, and we believe it is likely that these species may be encountered in groups, it is reasonable to conservatively assume that one group of each of these species will be taken during the survey. We therefore propose to authorize the take of the average (mean) group size for the blue whale, killer whale, and spinner dolphin to account for the possibility that UH’s survey encounters a group of any of these species (Table 7). Species with No Available Density Data: No density data were available for humpback and minke whales. Both species would typically be found further north than the survey area during the time of year that the survey is planned to occur, based on sightings data around the Hawaiian Islands (Carretta et al. 2017). However, based on input from subject matter experts, we believe it is reasonable to assume that both species may be encountered by UH during the survey. Humpback whales have typically not been observed in the project area in the fall (Carretta et al. 2017). However, there are increasing anecdotal reports of confirmed sightings of humpback whales from early September through October in areas near the planned project area (pers. comm. E. Lyman, NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, to J. Carduner, NMFS, June 20, 2017). Like humpback whales, sightings data does not indicate that minke whales would typically be expected to be present in the project area in the fall (Carretta et al. 2017). However, detections of minke VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Sep 22, 2017 Jkt 241001 whales are common in passive acoustic recordings from various locations around the main Hawaiian Islands, including during the fall (pers. comm. E. Oleson, NOAA PIFSC, to J. Carduner, NMFS, June 20, 2017). Additionally, as minke whales in the North Pacific do not have a visible blow, they can be easily missed by visual observers, suggesting a lack of sightings is likely related to misidentification or low detection capability in poor sighting conditions (Rankin et al. 2007). Though no density data are available, we believe it is reasonable to conservatively assume that UH’s survey may encounter and incidentally take minke and humpback whales. We therefore propose to authorize the take of the average (mean) group size (weighted by effort and rounded up) for the humpback and minke whale (Table 7). It should be noted that the take numbers shown in Table 7 are believed to be conservative for several reasons. First, in the calculations of estimated take, 25 percent has been added in the form of operational survey days (equivalent to adding 25 percent to the line km to be surveyed) to account for the possibility of additional seismic operations associated with airgun testing, and repeat coverage of any areas where initial data quality is substandard. Additionally, marine mammals would be expected to move away from a sound source that represents an aversive stimulus. However, the extent to which marine mammals would move away from the sound source is difficult to quantify and is therefore not accounted for in take estimates shown in Table 7. Level A take estimates (Table 7) have been revised from the take estimates provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (82 FR 34352; July 24, 2017) based on our decision to rely on modeled distances to Level A harassment isopleths for Peak SPL (Table 6) without band pass filtering applied, as described above. The only species for which Level A take numbers were affected by this revision were the PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 pygmy sperm whale and dwarf sperm whale (Level A takes changed from 0 to 7 and from 0 to 18, respectively). Mitigation In order to issue an IHA under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)). In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we carefully consider two primary factors: (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned) the likelihood of effective implementation (probability implemented as planned); and (2) The practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on operations, and, in the case E:\FR\FM\25SEN1.SGM 25SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Notices asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES of a military readiness activity, personnel safety, practicality of implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military readiness activity. UH has reviewed mitigation measures employed during seismic research surveys authorized by NMFS under previous incidental harassment authorizations, as well as recommended best practices in Richardson et al. (1995), Pierson et al. (1998), Weir and Dolman (2007), Nowacek et al. (2013), Wright (2014), and Wright and Cosentino (2015), and has incorporated a suite of mitigation measures into their project description based on the above sources. To reduce the potential for disturbance from acoustic stimuli associated with the activities, UH will implement the following mitigation measures for marine mammals: (1) Vessel-based visual mitigation monitoring; (2) Vessel-based passive acoustic monitoring; (3) Establishment of an exclusion zone; (4) Power down procedures; (5) Shutdown procedures; (6) Ramp-up procedures; and (7) Ship strike avoidance measures. Vessel-Based Visual Mitigation Monitoring Protected Species Observer (PSO) observations will take place during all daytime airgun operations and nighttime start ups (if applicable) of the airguns. Airgun operations will be suspended when marine mammals are observed within, or about to enter, designated Exclusion Zones (as described below). PSOs will also watch for marine mammals near the vessel for at least 30 minutes prior to the planned start of airgun operations. PSOs will monitor the entire extent of the modeled Level B harassment zone (Table 4) (or, as far as they are able to see, if they cannot see to the extent of the estimated Level B harassment zone). Observations will also be made during daytime periods when the Kairei is underway without seismic operations, such as during transits, to allow for comparison of sighting rates and behavior with and without airgun operations and between acquisition periods. During seismic operations, a minimum of four visual PSOs will be based aboard the Kairei. PSOs will be appointed by JAMSTEC with NMFS approval. During the majority of seismic operations, two PSOs will monitor for marine mammals around the seismic vessel. Use of two simultaneous observers will increase the effectiveness VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Sep 22, 2017 Jkt 241001 of detecting marine mammals around the source vessel. However, during meal times, only one PSO may be on duty. PSO(s) would be on duty in shifts of duration no longer than 4 hours. Other crew will also be instructed to assist in detecting marine mammals and in implementing mitigation requirements (if practical). Before the start of the seismic survey, the crew will be given additional instruction in detecting marine mammals and implementing mitigation requirements. The Kairei is a suitable platform for marine mammal observations. When stationed on the observation platform, PSOs will have a good view around the entire vessel. During daytime, the PSO(s) will scan the area around the vessel systematically with reticle binoculars (e.g., 7×50 Fujinon), Big-eye binoculars (25×150), and with the naked eye. The PSOs must have no tasks other than to conduct observational effort, record observational data, and communicate with and instruct relevant vessel crew with regard to the presence of marine mammals and mitigation requirements. PSO resumes will be provided to NMFS for approval. At least two PSOs must have a minimum of 90 days at-sea experience working as PSOs during a high energy seismic survey, with no more than eighteen months elapsed since the conclusion of the atsea experience. One ‘‘experienced’’ visual PSO will be designated as the lead for the entire protected species observation team. The lead will coordinate duty schedules and roles for the PSO team and serve as primary point of contact for the vessel operator. The lead PSO will devise the duty schedule such that ‘‘experienced’’ PSOs are on duty with those PSOs with appropriate training but who have not yet gained relevant experience, to the maximum extent practicable. The PSOs must have successfully completed relevant training, including completion of all required coursework and passing a written and/or oral examination developed for the training program, and must have successfully attained a bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university with a major in one of the natural sciences and a minimum of 30 semester hours or equivalent in the biological sciences and at least one undergraduate course in math or statistics. The educational requirements may be waived if the PSO has acquired the relevant skills through alternate training, including (1) secondary education and/or experience comparable to PSO duties; (2) previous work experience conducting academic, commercial, or government-sponsored marine mammal surveys; or (3) previous PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 44575 work experience as a PSO; the PSO should demonstrate good standing and consistently good performance of PSO duties. In summary, a typical daytime cruise will have scheduled two observers (visual) on duty from the observation platform, and an acoustic observer on the passive acoustic monitoring system. Vessel-Based Passive Acoustic Mitigation Monitoring Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) will take place to complement the visual monitoring program. Visual monitoring typically is not effective during periods of poor visibility or at night, and even with good visibility, is unable to detect marine mammals when they are below the surface or beyond visual range. Acoustic monitoring can be used in addition to visual observations to improve detection, identification, and localization of cetaceans. The acoustic monitoring will serve to alert visual observers (if on duty) when vocalizing cetaceans are detected. It is only useful when marine mammals vocalize, but it can be effective either by day or by night and does not depend on good visibility. It will be monitored in real time so that visual observers can be alerted when marine mammals are detected acoustically. The PAM system consists of hardware (i.e., hydrophones) and software. The ‘‘wet end’’ of the system consists of a towed hydrophone array that is connected to the vessel by a tow cable. A deck cable will connect the tow cable to the electronics unit on board where the acoustic station, signal conditioning, and processing system would be located. The acoustic signals received by the hydrophones are amplified, digitized, and then processed by the software. At least one acoustic PSO (in addition to the four visual PSOs) will be on board. The towed hydrophones would be monitored 24 hours per day (either by the acoustic PSO or by a visual PSO trained in the PAM system if the acoustic PSO is on break) while at the seismic survey area during airgun operations, and during most periods when the Kairei is underway while the airguns are not operating. However, PAM may not be possible if damage occurs to the array or back-up systems during operations. One PSO will monitor the acoustic detection system at any one time, in shifts no longer than six hours, by listening to the signals via headphones and/or speakers and watching the real-time spectrographic display for frequency ranges produced by cetaceans. E:\FR\FM\25SEN1.SGM 25SEN1 44576 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Notices asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES When a vocalization is detected, while visual observations are in progress, the acoustic PSO will contact the visual PSOs immediately, to alert them to the presence of marine mammals (if they have not already been detected visually), in order to facilitate a power down or shut down, if required. The information regarding the marine mammal acoustic detection will be entered into a database. Exclusion Zone and Buffer Zone An exclusion zone (EZ) is a defined area within which occurrence of a marine mammal triggers mitigation action intended to reduce the potential for certain outcomes, e.g., auditory injury, disruption of critical behaviors. The PSOs will establish a minimum EZ with a 500 m radius for the full array. The 500 m EZ will be based on radial distance from any element of the airgun array (rather than being based on the center of the array or around the vessel itself). With certain exceptions (described below), if a marine mammal appears within, enters, or appears on a course to enter this zone, the acoustic source will be powered down (see Power Down Procedures below). In addition to the 500 m EZ for the full array, a 100 m exclusion zone will be established for the single 100 in3 airgun. With certain exceptions (described below), if a marine mammal appears within, enters, or appears on a course to enter this zone the acoustic source will be shut down entirely (see Shutdown Procedures below). Additionally, power down of the full array will last no more than 30 minutes maximum at any given time; thus the array will be shut down entirely if, after 30 minutes of power down, a marine mammal remains inside the 500 m EZ. Potential radial distances to auditory injury zones were calculated on the basis of maximum peak pressure using values provided by the applicant (Table 6). The 500 m radial distance of the standard EZ is intended to be precautionary in the sense that it would be expected to contain sound exceeding peak pressure injury criteria for all cetacean hearing groups, while also providing a consistent, reasonably observable zone within which PSOs would typically be able to conduct effective observational effort. Although significantly greater distances may be observed from an elevated platform under good conditions, we believe that 500 m is likely regularly attainable for PSOs using the naked eye during typical conditions. An appropriate EZ based on cumulative sound exposure level (SELcum) criteria would be dependent on VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Sep 22, 2017 Jkt 241001 the animal’s applied hearing range and how that overlaps with the frequencies produced by the sound source of interest (i.e., via marine mammal auditory weighting functions) (NMFS, 2016), and may be larger in some cases than the zones calculated on the basis of the peak pressure thresholds (and larger than 500 m) depending on the species in question and the characteristics of the specific airgun array. In particular, the EZ radii would be larger for low-frequency cetaceans, because their most susceptible hearing range overlaps the low frequencies produced by airguns, but the zones would remain very small for midfrequency cetaceans (i.e., including the ‘‘small delphinoids’’ described below), whose range of best hearing largely does not overlap with frequencies produced by airguns. Consideration of exclusion zone distances is inherently an essentially instantaneous proposition—a rule or set of rules that requires mitigation action upon detection of an animal. This indicates that consideration of peak pressure thresholds is most relevant, as compared with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds, as the latter requires that an animal accumulate some level of sound energy exposure over some period of time (e.g., 24 hours). A PSO aboard a mobile source will typically have no ability to monitor an animal’s position relative to the acoustic source over relevant time periods for purposes of understanding whether auditory injury is likely to occur on the basis of cumulative sound exposure and, therefore, whether action should be taken to avoid such potential. Therefore, definition of an exclusion zone based on SELcum thresholds is of questionable relevance given relative motion of the source and receiver (i.e., the animal). Cumulative SEL thresholds are likely more relevant for purposes of modeling the potential for auditory injury than they are for informing realtime mitigation. We recognize the importance of the accumulation of sound energy to an understanding of the potential for auditory injury and that it is likely that, at least for low-frequency cetaceans, some potential auditory injury is likely impossible to mitigate and should be considered for authorization. In summary, our intent in prescribing a standard exclusion zone distance is to (1) encompass zones for most species within which auditory injury could occur on the basis of instantaneous exposure; (2) provide additional protection from the potential for more severe behavioral reactions (e.g., panic, antipredator response) for marine PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 mammals at relatively close range to the acoustic source; (3) provide consistency for PSOs, who need to monitor and implement the exclusion zone; and (4) to define a distance within which detection probabilities are reasonably high for most species under typical conditions. Our use of 500 m as the EZ is a reasonable combination of factors. This zone is expected to contain all potential auditory injury for all cetaceans (highfrequency, mid-frequency and lowfrequency functional hearing groups) as assessed against peak pressure thresholds (NMFS, 2016) (Table 6), and to contain all potential auditory injury for high-frequency and mid-frequency cetaceans as assessed against SELcum thresholds (NMFS, 2016) (Table 6), It has also proven to be practicable through past implementation in seismic surveys conducted for the oil and gas industry in the Gulf of Mexico (as regulated by BOEM pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) (43 U.S.C. 1331–1356)). In summary, a practicable criterion such as this has the advantage of simplicity while still providing in most cases a zone larger than relevant auditory injury zones, given realistic movement of source and receiver. The PSOs will also establish and monitor a 1,000 m buffer zone. During use of the acoustic source, occurrence of marine mammals within the buffer zone (but outside the exclusion zone) will be communicated to the vessel operator to prepare for potential power down or shutdown of the acoustic source. The buffer zone is discussed further under Ramp Up Procedures below. PSOs will monitor the entire extent of the modeled Level B harassment zone (Table 4) (or, as far as they are able to see, if they cannot see to the extent of the estimated Level B harassment zone). Power Down Procedures A power down involves decreasing the number of airguns in use such that the radius of the mitigation zone is decreased to the extent that marine mammals are no longer in, or about to enter, the 500 m EZ. During a power down, one 100-in3 airgun would be operated. The continued operation of one 100-in3 airgun is intended to alert marine mammals to the presence of the seismic vessel in the area, and to allow them to leave the area of the seismic vessel if they choose. In contrast, a shutdown occurs when all airgun activity is suspended (shutdown procedures are discussed below). If a marine mammal is detected outside the 500 m EZ but appears likely to enter the 500 m EZ, the airguns will be powered E:\FR\FM\25SEN1.SGM 25SEN1 asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Notices down before the animal is within the 500 m EZ. Likewise, if a mammal is already within the 500 m EZ when first detected, the airguns will be powered down immediately. During a power down of the airgun array, the 100-in3 airgun will be operated. Following a power down, airgun activity will not resume until the marine mammal has cleared the 500 m EZ. The animal will be considered to have cleared the 500 m EZ if the following conditions have been met: • It is visually observed to have departed the 500 m EZ, or • it has not been seen within the 500 m EZ for 15 min in the case of small odontocetes, or • it has not been seen within the 500 m EZ for 30 min in the case of mysticetes and large odontocetes, including sperm, pygmy sperm, dwarf sperm, and beaked whales. This power down requirement will be in place for all marine mammals, with the exception of small delphinoids under certain circumstances. As defined here, the small delphinoid group is intended to encompass those members of the Family Delphinidae most likely to voluntarily approach the source vessel for purposes of interacting with the vessel and/or airgun array (e.g., bow riding). This exception to the power down requirement will apply solely to specific genera of small dolphins— Steno, Tursiops, Stenella and Lagenodelphis—and will only apply if the animals were traveling, including approaching the vessel. If, for example, an animal or group of animals is stationary for some reason (e.g., feeding) and the source vessel approaches the animals, the power down requirement applies. An animal with sufficient incentive to remain in an area rather than avoid an otherwise aversive stimulus could either incur auditory injury or disruption of important behavior. If there is uncertainty regarding identification (i.e., whether the observed animal(s) belongs to the group described above) or whether the animals are traveling, the power down will be implemented. We include this small delphinoid exception because power-down/ shutdown requirements for small delphinoids under all circumstances represent practicability concerns without likely commensurate benefits for the animals in question. Small delphinoids are generally the most commonly observed marine mammals in the specific geographic region and would typically be the only marine mammals likely to intentionally approach the vessel. As described VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Sep 22, 2017 Jkt 241001 below, auditory injury is extremely unlikely to occur for mid-frequency cetaceans (e.g., delphinids), as this group is relatively insensitive to sound produced at the predominant frequencies in an airgun pulse while also having a relatively high threshold for the onset of auditory injury (i.e., permanent threshold shift). Please see Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals above for further discussion of sound metrics and thresholds and marine mammal hearing. A large body of anecdotal evidence indicates that small delphinoids commonly approach vessels and/or towed arrays during active sound production for purposes of bow riding, with no apparent effect observed in those delphinoids (e.g., Barkaszi et al., 2012). The potential for increased shutdowns resulting from such a measure would require the Kairei to revisit the missed track line to reacquire data, resulting in an overall increase in the total sound energy input to the marine environment and an increase in the total duration over which the survey is active in a given area. Although other mid-frequency hearing specialists (e.g., large delphinoids) are no more likely to incur auditory injury than are small delphinoids, they are much less likely to approach vessels. Therefore, retaining a power-down/shutdown requirement for large delphinoids would not have similar impacts in terms of either practicability for the applicant or corollary increase in sound energy output and time on the water. We do anticipate some benefit for a powerdown/shutdown requirement for large delphinoids in that it simplifies somewhat the total range of decisionmaking for PSOs and may preclude any potential for physiological effects other than to the auditory system as well as some more severe behavioral reactions for any such animals in close proximity to the source vessel. At any distance, power down of the acoustic source will also be required upon observation of a large whale (i.e., sperm whale or any baleen whale) with a calf, or upon observation of an aggregation of large whales of any species (i.e., sperm whale or any baleen whale) that does not appear to be traveling (e.g., feeding, socializing, etc.). These are the only two potential situations that would require power down of the array for marine mammals observed beyond the 500 m EZ. A power down could occur for no more than 30 minutes maximum at any given time. If, after 30 minutes of the array being powered down, marine mammals had not cleared the 500 m EZ (as described above), a shutdown of the PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 44577 array will be implemented (see Shut Down Procedures, below). Power down is only allowed in response to the presence of marine mammals within the designated EZ. Thus, the single 100 in3 airgun, which will be operated during power downs, may not be operated continuously throughout the night or during transits from one line to another. Shut Down Procedures The single 100-in3 operating airgun will be shut down if a marine mammal is seen within or approaching the 100 m EZ for the single 100-in3 airgun. Shutdown will be implemented if (1) an animal enters the 100 m EZ of the single 100-in3 airgun after a power down has been initiated, or (2) an animal is initially seen within the 100 m EZ of the single 100-in3 airgun when more than one airgun (typically the full array) is operating. Airgun activity will not resume until the marine mammal has cleared the 500 m EZ. Criteria for judging that the animal has cleared the EZ will be as described above. A shutdown of the array will be implemented if, after 30 minutes of the array being powered down, marine mammals have not cleared the 500 m EZ (as described above). The shutdown requirement, like the power down requirement, will be waived for dolphins of the following genera: Steno, Tursiops, Stenella and Lagenodelphis. The shutdown waiver only applies if the animals are traveling, including approaching the vessel. If animals are stationary and the source vessel approaches the animals, the shutdown requirement would apply. If there is uncertainty regarding identification (i.e., whether the observed animal(s) belongs to the group described above) or whether the animals are traveling, the shutdown would be implemented. A shutdown will be implemented if a North Pacific right whale is sighted, regardless of the distance from the Kairei. Ramp-up procedures would not be initiated until the right whale has not been seen at any distance for 30 minutes. Ramp-Up Procedures Ramp-up of an acoustic source is intended to provide a gradual increase in sound levels following a power down or shutdown, enabling animals to move away from the source if the signal is sufficiently aversive prior to its reaching full intensity. The ramp-up procedure involves a step-wise increase in the number of airguns firing and total array volume until all operational airguns are activated and the full volume is achieved. Ramp-up will be required after the array is powered down or E:\FR\FM\25SEN1.SGM 25SEN1 asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES 44578 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Notices shutdown due to mitigation. If the airgun array has been shut down for reasons other than mitigation (e.g., mechanical difficulty) for a period of less than 30 minutes, it may be activated again without ramp-up if PSOs have maintained constant visual and acoustic observation and no visual detections of any marine mammal have occurred within the buffer zone and no acoustic detections have occurred. Ramp-up will begin by activating a single airgun of the smallest volume in the array and would continue in stages by doubling the number of active elements at the commencement of each stage, with each stage of approximately the same duration. If airguns have been powered down or shut down due to PSO detection of a marine mammal within or approaching the 500 m EZ, ramp-up will not be initiated until all marine mammals have cleared the EZ, during the day or night. Visual and acoustic PSOs are required to monitor during ramp-up. If a marine mammal were detected by visual PSOs within or approaching the 500 m EZ during ramp-up, a power down (or shut down if appropriate) would be implemented as though the full array were operational. Criteria for clearing the EZ would be as described above. Thirty minutes of pre-clearance observation are required prior to rampup for any power down or shutdown of longer than 30 minutes (i.e., if the array were shut down during transit from one line to another). This 30 minute preclearance period may occur during any vessel activity (i.e., transit). If a marine mammal is observed within or approaching the 500 m EZ during this pre-clearance period, ramp-up will not be initiated until all marine mammals have cleared the EZ. Criteria for clearing the EZ will be as described above. Ramp-up will be planned to occur during periods of good visibility when possible. However, ramp-up will be allowed at night and during poor visibility if the 500 m EZ and 1,000 m buffer zone have been monitored by visual PSOs for 30 minutes prior to ramp-up and if acoustic monitoring has occurred for 30 minutes prior to rampup with no acoustic detections during that period. The operator will be required to notify a designated PSO of the planned start of ramp-up as agreed-upon with the lead PSO. A designated PSO must be notified again immediately prior to initiating ramp-up procedures and the operator must receive confirmation from the PSO to proceed. The operator must provide information to PSOs documenting that appropriate procedures were followed. Following deactivation of the array for VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Sep 22, 2017 Jkt 241001 reasons other than mitigation, the operator will be required to communicate the near-term operational plan to the lead PSO with justification for any planned nighttime ramp-up. Based on our evaluation of the applicant’s proposed measures, NMFS has determined that the mitigation measures provide the means effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance. Monitoring and Reporting In order to issue an IHA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the action area. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring. Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following: • Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution, density). • Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment (e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas). • Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors. • How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks. PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 • Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of marine mammal habitat). • Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness. UH submitted a marine mammal monitoring and reporting plan in section XIII of their IHA application. Monitoring that is designed specifically to facilitate mitigation measures, such as monitoring of the EZ to inform potential power downs or shutdowns of the airgun array, are described above and are not repeated here. UH’s monitoring and reporting plan includes the following measures: Vessel-Based Visual Monitoring As described above, PSO observations will take place during daytime airgun operations and nighttime start ups (if applicable) of the airguns. During seismic operations, at least four visual PSOs would be based aboard the Kairei. PSOs will be appointed by JAMSTEC with NMFS approval. During the majority of seismic operations, two PSOs will monitor for marine mammals around the seismic vessel. Use of two simultaneous observers would increase the effectiveness of detecting animals around the source vessel. However, during meal times, only one PSO may be on duty. PSOs will be on duty in shifts of duration no longer than 4 hours. Other crew will also be instructed to assist in detecting marine mammals and in implementing mitigation requirements (if practical). During daytime, PSOs will scan the area around the vessel systematically with reticle binoculars (e.g., 7×50 Fujinon), Big-eye binoculars (25×150), and with the naked eye. PSOs will record data to estimate the numbers of marine mammals exposed to various received sound levels and to document apparent disturbance reactions or lack thereof. Data will be used to estimate numbers of animals potentially ‘taken’ by harassment (as defined in the MMPA). They will also provide information needed to order a power down or shutdown of airguns when a marine mammal is within or near the EZ. 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 airguns or vessel (e.g., none, avoidance, E:\FR\FM\25SEN1.SGM 25SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Notices asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES approach, paralleling, etc.), and behavioral pace. 2. Time, location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel, sea state, visibility, and sun glare. All observations and power downs or shutdowns will be recorded in a standardized format. Data will be entered into an electronic database. The accuracy of the data entry will be verified by computerized data validity checks as the data are entered and by subsequent manual checking of the database. 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. The time, location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel, sea state, visibility, and sun glare 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. Results from the vessel-based observations will provide: 1. The basis for real-time mitigation (airgun power down or 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 and turtles in the area where the seismic study is conducted. 4. Information to compare the distance and distribution of marine mammals and turtles relative to the source vessel at times with and without seismic activity. 5. Data on the behavior and movement patterns of marine mammals and turtles seen at times with and without seismic activity. Vessel-Based Passive Acoustic Monitoring PAM will take place to complement the visual monitoring program as described above. Please see the Mitigation section above for a description of the PAM system and the acoustic PSO’s duties. The acoustic PSO will record data collected via the PAM system, including the following: An acoustic encounter identification number, whether it was linked with a visual sighting, date, time when first and last heard and whenever any additional information was recorded, position and water depth when first detected, bearing if determinable, species or species group (e.g., unidentified dolphin, sperm whale), types and nature of sounds heard (e.g., clicks, continuous, sporadic, whistles, VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Sep 22, 2017 Jkt 241001 creaks, burst pulses, strength of signal, etc.), and any other notable information. Acoustic detections will also be recorded for further analysis. Reporting A report will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the end of the cruise. The report will describe the operations that were conducted and sightings of marine mammals near the operations. The report will provide full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring. The 90-day report will summarize the dates and locations of seismic operations, and all marine mammal sightings (dates, times, locations, activities, associated seismic survey activities). The report will also include estimates of the number and nature of exposures that occurred above the harassment threshold based on PSO observations. Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location, migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS’ implementing regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or ambient noise levels). To avoid repetition, our analysis applies to all the species listed in Table PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 44579 1, given that NMFS expects the anticipated effects of the planned seismic survey to be similar in nature. Where there are meaningful differences between species or stocks, or groups of species, in anticipated individual responses to activities, impact of expected take on the population due to differences in population status, or impacts on habitat, NMFS has identified species-specific factors to inform the analysis. NMFS does not anticipate that serious injury or mortality would occur as a result of UH’s survey, even in the absence of mitigation. Thus the authorization does not authorize any mortality. Non-auditory physical effects, stranding, and vessel strike are not expected to occur. We authorize a limited number of instances of Level A harassment of three marine mammal species (Table 7). However, we believe that any PTS incurred in marine mammals as a result of the activity would be in the form of only a small degree of PTS and not total deafness that would not be likely to affect the fitness of any individuals, because of the constant movement of both the Kairei and of the marine mammals in the project area, as well as the fact that the vessel is not expected to remain in any one area in which individual marine mammals would be expected to concentrate for an extended period of time (i.e., since the duration of exposure to loud sounds will be relatively short). Also, as described above, we expect that marine mammals would be likely to move away from a sound source that represents an aversive stimulus, especially at levels that would be expected to result in PTS, given sufficient notice of the Kairei’s approach due to the vessel’s relatively low speed when conducting the survey. We expect that the majority of takes would be in the form of short-term Level B behavioral harassment in the form of temporary avoidance of the area or decreased foraging (if such activity were occurring), reactions that are considered to be of low severity and with no lasting biological consequences (e.g., Southall et al., 2007). Potential impacts to marine mammal habitat were discussed in the Federal Register noticed for the proposed IHA (82 FR 34352; July 24, 2017) (see Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals and their Habitat). Marine mammal habitat may be impacted by elevated sound levels, but these impacts would be temporary. Feeding behavior is not likely to be significantly impacted, as marine mammals appear to be less likely to exhibit behavioral reactions or E:\FR\FM\25SEN1.SGM 25SEN1 asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES 44580 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Notices avoidance responses while engaged in feeding activities (Richardson et al., 1995). Prey species are mobile and are broadly distributed throughout the project area; therefore, marine mammals that may be temporarily displaced during survey activities are expected to be able to resume foraging once they have moved away from areas with disturbing levels of underwater noise. Because of the temporary nature of the disturbance, the availability of similar habitat and resources in the surrounding area, and the lack of important or unique marine mammal habitat, the impacts to marine mammals and the food sources that they utilize are not expected to cause significant or longterm consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations. In addition, there are no mating or calving areas known to be biologically important to marine mammals within the project area. The activity is expected to impact a very small percentage of all marine mammal stocks that would be affected by UH’s survey (less than two percent for all marine mammal stocks). Additionally, the acoustic ‘‘footprint’’ of the survey would be very small relative to the ranges of all marine mammals that would potentially be affected. Sound levels would increase in the marine environment in a relatively small area surrounding the vessel compared to the range of the marine mammals within the survey area. The seismic array would be active 24 hours per day throughout the duration of the survey. However, the very brief overall duration of the survey (5.5 days) would further limit potential impacts that may occur as a result of the activity. The mitigation measures are expected to reduce the number and/or severity of takes by allowing for detection of marine mammals in the vicinity of the vessel by visual and acoustic observers, and by minimizing the severity of any potential exposures via power downs and/or shutdowns of the airgun array. Based on previous monitoring reports for substantially similar activities that have been previously authorized by NMFS, we expect that the mitigation will be effective in preventing at least some extent of potential PTS in marine mammals that may otherwise occur in the absence of mitigation. Of the marine mammal species under our jurisdiction that are likely to occur in the project area, the following species are listed as endangered under the ESA: blue, fin, sei, and sperm whales. There are currently insufficient data to determine population trends for blue, fin, sei, and sperm whales (Carretta et al., 2016); however, we are authorizing VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Sep 22, 2017 Jkt 241001 very small numbers of takes for these species (Table 7), relative to their population sizes, therefore we do not expect population-level impacts to any of these species. The other marine mammal species that may be taken by harassment during UH’s seismic survey are not listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. There is no designated critical habitat for any ESAlisted marine mammals within the project area; and of the non-listed marine mammals for which we propose to authorize take, none are considered ‘‘depleted’’ or ‘‘strategic’’ by NMFS under the MMPA. NMFS concludes that exposures to marine mammal species and stocks due to UH’s seismic survey would result in only short-term (temporary and short in duration) effects to individuals exposed. Animals may temporarily avoid the immediate area, but are not expected to permanently abandon the area. Major shifts in habitat use, distribution, or foraging success are not expected. NMFS does not anticipate the take estimates to impact annual rates of recruitment or survival. In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect the marine mammal species or stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival: • No mortality is anticipated or authorized; • The anticipated impacts of the activity on marine mammals would primarily be temporary behavioral changes due to avoidance of the area around the survey vessel. The relatively short duration of the survey (5.5 days) would further limit the potential impacts of any temporary behavioral changes that would occur; • PTS is only anticipated to occur for one species and the number of instances of PTS that may occur are expected to be very small in number (Table 7). Instances of PTS that are incurred in marine mammals would be of a low level, due to constant movement of the vessel and of the marine mammals in the area, and the nature of the survey design (not concentrated in areas of high marine mammal concentration); • The availability of alternate areas of similar habitat value for marine mammals to temporarily vacate the survey area during the survey to avoid exposure to sounds from the activity; • The project area does not contain areas of significance for mating or calving; • The potential adverse effects on fish or invertebrate species that serve as prey PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 species for marine mammals from the survey would be temporary and spatially limited; • The mitigation measures, including visual and acoustic monitoring, powerdowns, and shutdowns, are expected to minimize potential impacts to marine mammals. Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from the planned activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks. Small Numbers As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be authorized under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers; so, in practice, where estimated numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals. Additionally, other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities. Table 7 provides numbers of take by Level A harassment and Level B harassment authorized. These are the numbers we use for purposes of the small numbers analysis. The numbers of marine mammals that we authorize to be taken, for all species and stocks, would be considered small relative to the relevant stocks or populations (approximately 13 percent for rough-toothed dolphin, and less than 8 percent for all other species and stocks). For the blue whale, killer whale, humpback whale, minke whale and spinner dolphin we propose to authorize take resulting from a single exposure of one group of each species or stock, as appropriate (using best available information on mean group size for these species or stocks). We believe that a single incident of take of one group of any of these species represents take of small numbers for that species Based on the analysis contained herein of the activity (including the mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be E:\FR\FM\25SEN1.SGM 25SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Notices taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks. Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes. Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs, NMFS consults internally, in this case with the ESA Interagency Cooperation Division, whenever we propose to authorize take for endangered or threatened species. We (the NMFS OPR Permits and Conservation Division) are authorizing the incidental take of four species of marine mammals which are listed under the ESA: The sei, fin, blue and sperm whale. Under Section 7 of the ESA, we initiated consultation with the NMFS OPR Interagency Cooperation Division for the issuance of this IHA. In September, 2017, the NMFS OPR Interagency Cooperation Division issued a Biological Opinion with an incidental take statement, which concluded that the issuance of the IHA was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of sei, fin, blue and sperm whales. The Biological Opinion also concluded that the issuance of the IHA would not destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat for these species. asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES Authorization NMFS has issued an IHA to the University of Hawaii for the potential harassment of small numbers of 24 marine mammal species incidental to a marine geophysical survey in the central Pacific Ocean, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring and reporting requirements are incorporated. Dated: September 19, 2017. Donna S. Wieting, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 2017–20362 Filed 9–22–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–22–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:45 Sep 22, 2017 Jkt 241001 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Alaska Pacific Halibut Fisheries: Charter Permits National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before November 24, 2017. ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at pracomments@doc.gov). An electronic copy of the most recent supporting statement for this information collection is available from https://www.cio.noaa.gov/itmanagement/ pdfs/0592ext14.pdf. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Kurt Iverson (907) 586–7228 or kurt.iverson@noaa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUMMARY: I. Abstract This request is for an extension of a currently approved information collection. The Alaska Pacific Halibut Charter Program established Federal Charter Halibut Permits (CHPs) for operators in the charter halibut fishery in IPHC regulatory Areas 2C (Southeast Alaska) and 3A (Central Gulf of Alaska). Since February 1, 2011, all vessel operators in Areas 2C and 3A with charter anglers onboard catching and retaining Pacific halibut must have a valid CHP onboard during every charter vessel fishing trip. CHPs must be endorsed with the appropriate regulatory area and number of anglers. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) implemented this program based on recommendations by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to meet allocation objectives in the charter PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 44581 halibut fishery. This program provides stability in the fishery by limiting the number of charter vessels that may participate in Areas 2C and 3A and decreasing the overall number of available CHPs over time. The program goals are to increase the value of the resource, limit boats to qualified active participants in the guided sport halibut sector, and enhance economic stability in rural coastal communities. II. Method of Collection Methods of submittal include mail and facsimile transmission of paper forms. Fillable pdfs are available on the NMFS Alaska Region Web page and may be downloaded, completed, and printed out prior to submission. III. Data OMB Control Number: 0648–0592. Form Number: None. Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a currently approved collection). Affected Public: Business or other forprofit organizations. Estimated Number of Respondents: 68. Estimated Time per Response: 2 hours for Application for Transfer of Charter Halibut Permit; 0.5 hours for Application for Military Charter Permit; 2 hours for Application for Transfer between IFQ and Guided Angler Fish (GAF); and 4 hours for Appeals if an Application for Transfer between IFQ and GAF is denied by NMFS. Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours and Equivalent Labor Costs to the Public: 98 hours and $3,626 per year ($37 per hour for preparing and submitting applications and $125/hr for preparing an appeal). Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $196 in recordkeeping/reporting costs for photocopying, obtaining a notarized signature, faxing, or mailing applications. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. E:\FR\FM\25SEN1.SGM 25SEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 184 (Monday, September 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44565-44581]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20362]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XF330

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

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

ACTION: Notice; Issuance of an Incidental Harassment Authorization.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given
that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to
the University of Hawaii (UH) to incidentally take, by Level A and
Level B harassment only, marine mammals during a marine geophysical
survey in the Central Pacific Ocean.

DATES: This Authorization is valid from September 14, 2017 through
September 13, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jordan Carduner, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application
and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in
this document, may be obtained online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/research.htm. In case of problems accessing these documents,
please call the contact listed above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 44566]]

Background

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

National Environmental Policy Act

To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA;
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A,
NMFS must review our proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an
incidental harassment authorization) with respect to potential impacts
on the human environment. Accordingly, NMFS prepared an Environmental
Assessment (EA) to consider the environmental impacts associated with
the issuance of the IHA to UH. We reviewed all comments submitted in
response to the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (82 FR
34352; July 24, 2017) prior to concluding our NEPA process and deciding
whether or not to issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
NMFS concluded that issuance of an IHA to UH would not significantly
affect the quality of the human environment and prepared and issued a
FONSI in accordance with NEPA and NAO 216-6A. NMFS' EA and FONSI for
this activity are available on our Web site at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.

Summary of Request

On March 15, 2016, NMFS received a request from the UH for an IHA
to take marine mammals incidental to conducting a marine geophysical
survey in the central Pacific Ocean. On May 16, 2017, we deemed UH's
application for authorization to be adequate and complete. UH's request
is for take of a small number of 24 species of marine mammals by Level
B harassment and Level A harassment. Neither UH nor NMFS expects
mortality to result from this activity, and, therefore, an IHA is
appropriate. The planned activity is not expected to exceed one year,
hence, we do not expect subsequent MMPA incidental harassment
authorizations would be issued for this particular activity.

Description of Activity

Overview

UH, in collaboration with the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science
and Technology (JAMSTEC), proposes to conduct a marine seismic survey
north of Hawaii in the central Pacific Ocean over the course of five
and a half days in September 2017. The survey would occur north of the
Hawaiian Islands, in the approximate area 22.6-25.0[deg] N and 153.5-
157.4[deg] W (See Figure 1 in IHA application). The project area is
partly within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the United States
and partly in adjacent international waters. Water depths in the area
range from 4,000 to 5,000 meters (m). The survey would involve one
source vessel, the Japan-flagged R/V (research vessel) Kairei. The
Kairei would deploy a 32-airgun array with a total volume of ~7800
cubic inches (in\3\) as an energy source. A detailed description of
UH's planned activity is provided in the Federal Register notice for
the proposed IHA (82 FR 34352; July 24, 2017). Since that time, no
changes have been made to the planned activities. Therefore, a detailed
description is not provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register
notice for the description of the specific activity.

Comments and Responses

NMFS published a notice of proposed IHA in the Federal Register on
July 24, 2017 (82 FR 34352; July 24, 2017). During the 30-day public
comment period, NMFS received a comment letter from the Marine Mammal
Commission (Commission) as well as one comment from a member of the
general public. NMFS has posted the comments online at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental. NMFS addresses any comments
specific to UH's application related to the statutory and regulatory
requirements or findings that NMFS must make under the MMPA in order to
issue an Authorization. The following is a summary of the public
comments and NMFS' responses.
Comment 1: The Commission expressed concerns regarding UH's method
to estimate the extent of the Level A and B harassment zones and the
numbers of marine mammal takes. The Commission stated that the model is
not the best available science because it assumes spherical spreading,
a constant sound speed, and no bottom interactions for surveys in deep
water. In light of their concerns, the Commission recommended that NMFS
require UH, in collaboration with Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of
Columbia University (LDEO) (which performed the modeling of Level A and
Level B harassment zones and estimated takes) to re-estimate the Level
A and Level B harassment zones and associated takes of marine mammals
using both operational (including number/type/spacing of airguns, tow
depth, source level/operating pressure, operational volume) and site-
specific environmental (including sound speed profiles, bathymetry, and
sediment characteristics at a minimum) parameters. The Commission also
expressed concern that LDEO used a high-pass filter for modeling the
unweighted peak sound pressure level (SPLpeak) thresholds,
and stated that use of the full bandwidth is appropriate given that the
thresholds themselves were based on responses of the animals to the
full frequency spectrum of the airgun pulses, not a filtered bandwidth.
Response: NMFS acknowledges the Commission's concerns about LDEO's
current modeling approach for estimating Level A and Level B harassment
zones and takes. UH's application (LGL, 2017) and the Federal Register
notice for the proposed IHA (82 FR 34352; July 24, 2017) describe the
applicant's approach to modeling Level A and Level B harassment zones.
The model LDEO currently uses does not allow for the consideration of

[[Page 44567]]

environmental and site-specific parameters as requested by the
Commission. NMFS continues to work with LDEO to address the 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. The use of models for estimating the size of
ensonified areas and for developing take estimates is not a requirement
of the MMPA incidental take authorization process, and NMFS does not
provide specific guidance on model parameters nor prescribe a specific
model for applicants at this time. We recognize that there is no model
or approach that is always the most appropriate and that there may be
multiple approaches that may be considered acceptable and, in this
case, LDEO's current modeling approach represents the best available
information to inform authorized take levels and also NMFS'
determinations under the MMPA. NMFS finds that the Level A and Level B
harassment zone calculations conducted by LDEO are reasonable for use
in this particular IHA. Further, the results of modeling (e.g., take
estimates) is just one component of the analysis during the MMPA
authorization process as NMFS also takes into consideration other
factors associated with the activity (e.g., geographic location,
duration of activities, context, sound source intensity, etc.).
With regard to the Commission's concern regarding LDEO's use of a
high-pass filter for modeling the unweighted SPLpeak
thresholds, NMFS has reviewed the best available information and we
agree that the Commission's concern is valid. Since the thresholds were
based on responses of the animals to the full frequency spectrum of the
airgun pulses, not a filtered bandwidth, we agree that use of the full
bandwidth is appropriate. Therefore, we have revised the modeled
distances to the Level A harassment threshold (SPLpeak) that
we rely on for estimating Level A takes, from those described in the
Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (82 FR 34352; July 24,
2017) to those shown in Table 6 in this document, which have no band
pass filtering applied.
Comment 2: The Commission expressed concern that the method used to
estimate the numbers of takes, which summed fractions of takes for each
species across project days, does not account for and negates the
intent of NMFS' 24-hour reset policy.
NMFS Response: We appreciate the Commission's ongoing concern in
this matter. Calculating predicted takes is not an exact science and
there are arguments for taking different mathematical approaches in
different situations, and for making qualitative adjustments in other
situations. We believe, however, that the methodology used for take
calculation in this IHA remains appropriate and is not at odds with the
24-hour reset policy the Commission references.
Comment 3: The Commission questioned why NMFS did not propose to
prohibit the use of power downs and recommended that NMFS use a
consistent approach for requiring all geophysical survey operators to
abide by the same general mitigation measures, including prohibiting UH
from using power downs during its survey.
NMFS Response: NMFS agrees with the Commission that consistency in
mitigation measures across ITAs for similar activities is a worthwhile
goal, to the extent practicable. NMFS also agrees with the Commission
that limiting the use of power downs can be beneficial in reducing the
overall sound input in the marine environment from geophysical surveys;
as such, NMFS is requiring that power downs in this IHA occur for no
more than a maximum of 30 minutes at any time. The requirement for a 30
minute maximum for power downs represents a change to the mitigation
measures from those proposed in the Federal Register notice of the
proposed IHA (82 FR 34352, July 24, 2017) and is reflected in the
mitigation measures in the issued IHA. NMFS is still in the process of
determining best practice, via solicitation of public comment, for the
use of power downs as a mitigation measure in ITAs for geophysical
surveys. We will take into consideration the Commission's
recommendation that power downs be eliminated as a mitigation measure
as we work toward a determination on best practices for the use of
power downs in IHAs for marine geophysical surveys. We will also review
the comments received in response to the Federal Register notice for
proposed IHAs for marine geophysical surveys in the Atlantic Ocean (82
FR 26244, June 6, 2017) to help inform that determination; we are still
reviewing those comments at this time. Ultimately our determination
will be based on the best available science and will be communicated
clearly to ITA applicants.
Comment 4: The Commission expressed concern that reporting of the
manner of taking and the numbers of animals incidentally taken should
account for all animals in the various survey areas, including those
animals directly on the trackline that are not detected and how well
animals are detected based on the distance from the observer (accounted
for by g(0) and f(0) values). The Commission has recommended a method
for estimating the number of cetaceans in the vicinity of geophysical
surveys based on the number of groups detected and recommended that
NMFS require UH to use this method for estimating g(0) and f(0) values
to better estimate the numbers of marine mammals taken by Level A and
Level B harassment.
NMFS response: NMFS agrees that reporting of the manner of taking
and the numbers of animals incidentally taken should account for all
animals taken, including those animals directly on the trackline that
are not detected and how well animals are detected based on the
distance from the observer, to the extent practicable. NMFS has
provided the Commission's recommended method for estimating g(0) and
f(0) values to previous applicants for similar activities (i.e.,
research-based geophysical surveys). We have received feedback in
response that those applicants are concerned with some aspects of the
Commission's method, including that the probability values recommended
by the Commission's recommended method involve assumptions that are not
met by the surveys conducted aboard research geophysical vessels and
that, as such, derived f(0) values for research geophysical surveys
would not be suitable for refining the number of cetaceans potentially
taken incidentally during these surveys. NMFS requires in this IHA that
takes reported in UH's monitoring report include an estimate that
accounts for all animals incidentally taken, including those on the
trackline but not detected, but at this time we do not prescribe a
particular method for accomplishing this task.

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities

Section 4 of the application summarizes available information
regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and
behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species.
Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be
found in NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SAR; www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/), and more general information about these species (e.g.,
physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS' Web site
(www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/).
Table 1 lists all species with expected potential for occurrence in
the central Pacific Ocean and summarizes information related to the
population or

[[Page 44568]]

stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA and potential
biological removal (PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we follow
Committee on Taxonomy (2016). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum
number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be
removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach
or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS'
SARs). While no mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and
annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are
included here as gross indicators of the status of the species and
other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or
the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area.
NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total
estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that
comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend
beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in
NMFS' U.S. Pacific SARs (e.g., Carretta et al., 2017). All values
presented in Table 1 are the most recent available at the time of
publication and are available in the 2016 SARs (Carretta et al., 2017),
available online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars, except where noted
otherwise.

Table 1--Marine Mammals That Could Occur in the Project Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stock abundance
ESA/MMPA \2\ (CV, Nmin, Relative
Species Stock status; most recent PBR \4\ occurrence in
strategic (Y/ abundance project area
N) \1\ survey) \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family: Balaenopteridae
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback whale (Megaptera Central North -/-; N 10,103 (0.300; 83 Seasonal;
novaeangliae) \5\. Pacific. 7,890; 2006). throughout
known breeding
grounds during
winter and
spring (most
common November
through April).
Blue Whale (Balaenoptera Central North E/D; Y 81 (1.14; 38; 0.1 Seasonal;
musculus). Pacific. 2010). infrequent
winter migrant;
few sightings,
mainly fall and
winter;
considered
rare.
Fin whale (Balaenoptera Hawaii.......... E/D; Y 58 (1.12; 27; 0.1 Seasonal, mainly
physalus. 2010). fall and
winter;
considered
rare.
Sei whale (Balaenoptera Hawaii.......... E/D; Y 178 (0.90; 93; 0.2 Rare; limited
borealis). 2010). sightings of
seasonal
migrants that
feed at higher
latitudes.
Bryde's whale (Balaenoptera Hawaii.......... -/-; N 798 (0.28; 633; 6.3 Uncommon;
brydei/edeni). 2010). distributed
throughout the
Hawaiian
Exclusive
Economic Zone.
Minke whale (Balaenoptera Hawaii.......... -/-; N n/a (n/a; n/a; Undet. Seasonal, mainly
acutorostrata). 2010). fall and
winter;
considered
rare.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family: Physeteridae
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sperm whale (Physeter Hawaii.......... E/D; Y 3,354 (0.34; 10.2 Widely
macrocephalus). 2,539; 2010). distributed
year round.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family: Kogiidae
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pygmy sperm whale \6\ (Kogia Hawaii.......... -/-; N 7,139 (2.91; n/ Undet. Widely
breviceps). a; 2006). distributed
year round.
Dwarf sperm whale \6\ (Kogia Hawaii.......... -/-; N 17,519 (7.14; n/ Undet. Widely
sima). a; 2006). distributed
year round.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family delphinidae
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Killer whale (Orcinus orca)... Hawaii.......... -/-; N 101 (1.00; 50; 1 Uncommon;
2010). infrequent
sightings.
False killer whale (Pseudorca Hawaii Pelagic.. -/-; N 1,540 (0.66; 9.3 Regular.
crassidens). 928; 2010).
Pygmy killer whale (Feresa Hawaii.......... -/-; N 3,433 (0.52; 23 Year-round
attenuata). 2,274; 2010). resident.

[[Page 44569]]

Short-finned pilot whale Hawaii.......... -/-; N 12,422 (0.43; 70 Commonly
(Globicephala macrorhynchus). 8,872; 2010). observed around
Main Hawaiian
Islands and
Northwestern
Hawaiian
Islands.
Melon headed whale Hawaiian Islands -/-; N 5,794 (0.20; 4 Regular.
(Peponocephala electra). 4,904; 2010).
Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops Hawaii pelagic.. -/-; N 5,950 (0.59; 38 Common in deep
truncatus). 3,755; 2010). offshore
waters.
Pantropical spotted dolphin Hawaii pelagic.. -/-; N 15,917 (0.40; 115 Common; primary
(Stenella attenuata). 11,508; 2010). occurrence
between 100 and
4,000 m depth.
Striped dolphin (Stenella Hawaii.......... -/-; N 20,650 (0.36; 154 Occurs regularly
coeruleoala). 15,391; 2010). year round but
infrequent
sighting during
survey.
Spinner dolphin \6\ (Stenella Hawaii pelagic.. -/-; N 3,351 (0.74; n/ Undet. Common year-
longirostris). a; 2006). round in
offshore
waters.
Rough-toothed dolphin (Steno Hawaii.......... -/-; N 6,288 (0.39; 46 Common
bredanensis). 4,581; 2010). throughout the
Main Hawaiian
Islands and
Hawaiian
Islands EEZ.
Fraser's dolphin Hawaii.......... -/-; N 16,992 (0.66; 102 Tropical species
(Lagenodelphis hosei). 10,241; 2010). only recently
documented
within Hawaiian
Islands EEZ
(2002 survey).
Risso's dolphin (Grampus Hawaii.......... -/-; N 7,256 (0.41; 42 Previously
griseus). 5,207; 2010). considered rare
but multiple
sightings in
Hawaiian
Islands EEZ
during various
surveys
conducted from
2002-2012.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family: Ziphiidae
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cuvier's beaked whale (Ziphius Hawaii.......... -/-; N 1,941 (n/a; 11.4 Year-round
cavirostris). 1,142; 2010). occurrence but
difficult to
detect due to
diving
behavior.
Blainville's beaked whale Hawaii.......... -/-; N 2,338 (1.13; 11 Year-round
(Mesoplodon densirostris). 1,088; 2010). occurrence but
difficult to
detect due to
diving
behavior.
Longman's beaked whale Hawaii.......... -/-; N 4,571 (0.65; 28 Considered rare;
(Indopacetus pacificus). 2,773; 2010). however,
multiple
sightings
during 2010
survey.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-)
indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the
MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR (see footnote
3) or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future.
Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a
strategic stock.
\2\ Abundance estimates from Carretta et al. (2017) unless otherwise noted.
\3\ CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not
applicable. For certain stocks, abundance estimates are actual counts of animals and there is no associated
CV. The most recent abundance survey that is reflected in the abundance estimate is presented; there may be
more recent surveys that have not yet been incorporated into the estimate.
\4\ Potential biological removal (PBR), defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including
natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or
maintain its optimum sustainable population size (OSP).
\5\ Values for humpback whale are from the 2015 Alaska SAR (Muto et al., 2015).
\6\ Values for spinner dolphin, dwarf and pygmy sperm whale are from Barlow et al. (2006).

All species that could potentially occur in the survey area are
included in Table 1. We have reviewed UH's species descriptions,
including life history information, distribution, regional
distribution, diving behavior, and acoustics and hearing, for accuracy
and completeness. We refer the reader to Section 4 of UH's IHA
application, rather than reprinting the information here. A detailed
description of the species likely to be affected by UH's survey,
including brief introductions to the species and relevant stocks as
well as available information regarding population trends and threats,
and information regarding local occurrence, were provided in the
Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (82 FR 34352; July 24,
2017). Since that time, we are not aware of any changes in the status
of these species and stocks; therefore, detailed descriptions are not
provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for these
descriptions. Please also refer to NMFS' Web site (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
pr/

[[Page 44570]]

species/mammals/) for generalized species accounts

Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat

The effects of underwater noise from marine geophysical survey
activities have the potential to result in behavioral harassment and,
in a limited number of instances, auditory injury (PTS) of marine
mammals in the vicinity of the action area. The Federal Register notice
for the proposed IHA (82 FR 34352; July 24, 2017) included a discussion
of the effects of anthropogenic noise on marine mammals and their
habitat, therefore that information is not repeated here; please refer
to the Federal Register notice (82 FR 34352; July 24, 2017) for that
information. No instances of serious injury or mortality are expected
as a result of UH's survey activities.

Estimated Take

This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes
authorized through the IHA, which informs both NMFS' consideration of
whether the number of takes is ``small'' and the negligible impact
determination.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these
activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent
here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment);
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns,
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would primarily be by Level B harassment, as use
of the seismic airguns have the potential to result in disruption of
behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals. There is also some
potential for auditory injury (Level A harassment) to result, primarily
for mysticetes and high frequency cetaceans (i.e., kogiidae spp.), due
to larger predicted auditory injury zones for those functional hearing
groups. Auditory injury is unlikely to occur for mid-frequency species
given very small modeled zones of injury for those species. The
mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize the
severity of such taking to the extent practicable.
As described previously, no mortality is anticipated or authorized
for this activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated.
Described in the most basic way, we estimate take by considering:
(1) Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available
science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur
some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of
water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the
density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas;
and (4) and the number of days of activities. Below, we describe these
components in more detail and present the exposure estimate and
associated numbers of take authorized.

Acoustic Thresholds

Using the best available science, NMFS has developed acoustic
thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above
which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be
behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur
permanent threshold shift (PTS) of some degree (equated to Level A
harassment).
Level B Harassment for non-explosive sources--Though significantly
driven by received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from
anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by
other factors related to the source (e.g., frequency, predictability,
duty cycle), the environment (e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving
animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, behavioral
context) and can be difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007,
Ellison et al., 2011). Based on the best available science and the
practical need to use a threshold based on a factor that is both
predictable and measurable for most activities, NMFS uses a generalized
acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the onset of
behavioral harassment. NMFS predicts that marine mammals are likely to
be behaviorally harassed in a manner we consider to fall under Level B
harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above
received levels of 120 decibels (dB) re 1 micropascal ([mu]Pa) root
mean square (rms) for continuous (e.g. vibratory pile-driving,
drilling) and above 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) for non-explosive
impulsive (e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent (e.g., scientific
sonar) sources. UH's activity includes the use of impulsive seismic
sources. Therefore, the 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) criteria is applicable
for analysis of level B harassment.
Level A harassment for non-explosive sources--NMFS' Technical
Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine
Mammal Hearing (NMFS, 2016) identifies dual criteria to assess auditory
injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine mammal groups
(based on hearing sensitivity) (Table 2) as a result of exposure to
noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive).
The Technical Guidance identifies the received levels, or thresholds,
above which individual marine mammals are predicted to experience
changes in their hearing sensitivity for all underwater anthropogenic
sound sources, reflects the best available science, and better predicts
the potential for auditory injury than does NMFS' historical criteria.

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

[[Page 44571]]

These thresholds were developed by compiling and synthesizing the
best available science and soliciting input multiple times from both
the public and peer reviewers to inform the final product, and are
provided in Table 3 below. The references, analysis, and methodology
used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS 2016
Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/guidelines.htm. As described above, UH's activity includes
the use of intermittent and impulsive seismic sources.

Table 3--Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Permanent Threshold Shift
in Marine Mammals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS onset thresholds
Hearing Group ---------------------------------------
Impulsive * Non-impulsive
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans.... Lpk,flat: 219 dB, LE,LF,24h: 199 dB.
LE,LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans.... Lpk,flat: 230 dB, LE,MF,24h: 198 dB.
LE,MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans... Lpk,flat: 202 dB, LE,HF,24h: 173 dB.
LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: * Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use
whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset.
If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound
pressure level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these
thresholds should also be considered.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 [mu]Pa, and
cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of
1[mu]Pa2s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect
American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However,
peak sound pressure is defined by ANSI as incorporating frequency
weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence,
the subscript ``flat'' is being included to indicate peak sound
pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized
hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure
level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory
weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds)
and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The
cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be exceeded in a
multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty
cycle). When possible, it is valuable for action proponents to
indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be
exceeded.

Ensonified Area

Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the
activity that will feed into estimating the area ensonified above the
acoustic thresholds.
The survey would entail use of a 32-airgun array with a total
discharge of 7,800 in\3\ at a tow depth of 10 m. The distance to the
predicted isopleth corresponding to the threshold for Level B
harassment (160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa) was calculated based on results of
modeling performed by LDEO. Received sound levels were predicted by
LDEO's model (Diebold et al. 2010) as a function of distance from the
full 32-airgun array as well as for a single 100 in\3\ airgun, which
would be used during power-downs. The LDEO modeling approach uses ray
tracing for the direct wave traveling from the array to the receiver
and its associated source ghost (reflection at the air-water interface
in the vicinity of the array), in a constant-velocity half-space
(infinite homogeneous ocean layer unbounded by a seafloor). LDEO's
modeling methodology is described in greater detail in the IHA
application (LGL 2017) and we refer to the reader to that document
rather than repeating it here. The estimated distances to the Level B
harassment isopleth for the Kairei's full airgun array and for the
single 100-in\3\ airgun are shown in Table 4. The total area estimated
to be ensonified to the Level B harassment threshold for the entire
survey is 24,408 square kilometers (km\2\).

Table 4--Predicted Radial Distances From R/V Kairei Seismic Source to
Isopleth Corresponding to Level B Harassment Threshold
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predicted distance to
Source and volume threshold (160 dB re 1
[mu]Pa)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 airgun, 100 in \3\...................... 722 m.
4 strings, 32 airguns, 7800 in \3\........ 9,289 m.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Predicted distances to Level A harassment isopleths, which vary
based on marine mammal hearing groups (Table 2), were calculated based
on modeling performed by LDEO using the Nucleus software program and
the NMFS User Spreadsheet, described below. The updated acoustic
thresholds for impulsive sounds (such as airguns) contained in the
Technical Guidance (NMFS 2016) were presented as dual metric acoustic
thresholds using both cumulative sound exposure level
(SELcum) and peak sound pressure metrics. As dual metrics,
NMFS considers onset of PTS (Level A harassment) to have occurred when
either one of the two metrics is exceeded (i.e., metric resulting in
the largest isopleth). The SELcum metric considers both
level and duration of exposure, as well as auditory weighting functions
by marine mammal hearing group. In recognition of the fact that the
requirement to calculate Level A harassment ensonified areas could be
more technically challenging to predict due to the duration component
and the use of weighting functions in the new SELcum
thresholds, NMFS developed an optional User Spreadsheet that includes
tools to help predict a simple isopleth that can be used in conjunction
with marine mammal density or occurrence to facilitate the estimation
of take numbers.
The values for SELcum and peak SPL for the Kairei airgun
array were derived from calculating the modified farfield signature
(Table 5). The farfield signature is often used as a theoretical
representation of the source level. To compute the farfield signature,
the source level is estimated at a large distance below the array
(e.g., 9 km), and this level is back projected mathematically to a
notional distance of 1 m from the array's geometrical center. However,
when the source is an array of multiple airguns separated in space, the
source level from the theoretical farfield signature is not necessarily
the best measurement of the source level that is physically achieved at
the source (Tolstoy et al. 2009). Near the source (at short ranges,
distances <1 km), the pulses of sound pressure from each individual
airgun in the source array do not stack constructively, as they do for
the theoretical farfield signature. The pulses from the different
airguns spread out in time such that the source levels observed or
modeled are the result of the summation of pulses from a few airguns,
not the full array (Tolstoy et al. 2009). At larger distances, away
from the source array center, sound pressure of all the airguns in the
array stack coherently, but not within one time

[[Page 44572]]

sample, resulting in smaller source levels (a few dB) than the source
level derived from the farfield signature. Because the farfield
signature does not take into account the large array effect near the
source and is calculated as a point source, the modified farfield
signature is a more appropriate measure of the sound source level for
distributed sound sources, such as airgun arrays. UH used the acoustic
modeling developed by LDEO (same as used for Level B takes) with a
small grid step of 1 m in both the inline and depth directions (for
example, see Figure 5 in the IHA application). The propagation modeling
takes into account all airgun interactions at short distances from the
source, including interactions between subarrays which are modeled
using the NUCLEUS software to estimate the notional signature and
MATLAB software to calculate the pressure signal at each mesh point of
a grid.

Table 5--Modeled Source Levels for R/V Kairei 7,800 in\3\ Airgun Array and 100 in\3\ Airgun Based on Modified
Farfield Signature
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7,800 in\3\
airgun array 7,800 in\3\ 100 in\3\ 100 in\3\
Functional hearing group (peak SPLflat) airgun array airgun (peak airgun
(SELcum) SPLflat) (SELcum)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low frequency cetaceans (Lpk,flat: 219 dB; 256.36 dB 235.01 dB 229.46 dB 208.41 dB.
LE,LF,24h: 183 dB).............................
Mid frequency cetaceans (Lpk,flat: 230 dB; 245.59 dB 235.12 dB 229.47 dB 208.44 dB.
LE,MF,24h: 185 dB).............................
High frequency cetaceans (Lpk,flat: 202 dB; 256.26 dB 235.16 dB 229.59 dB 209.01 dB.
LE,HF,24h: 155 dB).............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In order to more realistically incorporate the Technical Guidance's
weighting functions over the seismic array's full acoustic band,
unweighted spectrum data for the Kairei's airgun array (modeled in 1
hertz (Hz) bands) was used to make adjustments (dB) to the unweighted
spectrum levels, by frequency, according to the weighting functions for
each relevant marine mammal hearing group. These adjusted/weighted
spectrum levels were then converted to pressures (micropascals) in
order to integrate them over the entire broadband spectrum, resulting
in broadband weighted source levels by hearing group that could be
directly incorporated within the User Spreadsheet (i.e., to override
the Spreadsheet's more simple weighting factor adjustment). Using the
User Spreadsheet's ``safe distance'' methodology for mobile sources
(described by Sivle et al., 2014) with the hearing group-specific
weighted source levels, and inputs assuming spherical spreading
propagation, a source velocity of 2.315 meters/second, and shot
interval of 21.59 seconds (LGL 2017), potential radial distances to
auditory injury zones were then calculated for SELcum
thresholds.
To estimate Peak SPL thresholds, LDEO performed modeling for a
single shot and then a high pass filter was applied for each hearing
group. A high pass filter is a type of band band-pass filter, which
pass frequencies within a defined range without reducing amplitude and
attenuate frequencies outside that defined range (Yost 2007). In their
IHA application (LGL 2017) UH presented modeled distances to level A
isopleths (Peak SPL) both with and without the high pass filter
applied. In the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (82 FR
34352; July 24, 2017) NMFS presented distances to the Level A
harassment thresholds for Peak SPL based on LDEO's modeling, including
the application of the high pass filter. At the time that Federal
Register notice was published, we agreed that application of the high
pass filter was appropriate, and we accepted LDEO's modeling
methodology and its application for take estimation. However, in
response to feedback we received in the form of public comments
submitted in response to that Federal Register notice (see Comments and
Responses section) we have subsequently determined that the application
of the high pass filter is, in fact, not appropriate (see Comments and
Responses section for further discussion of this issue). As such, the
estimated distances to Level A harassment isopleths (for Peak SPL)
shown in Table 6 have revised from those shown in the Federal Register
notice for the proposed IHA (82 FR 34352; July 24, 2017) to reflect no
band pass filtering.
Inputs to the User Spreadsheet are shown in Table 5; outputs from
the User Spreadsheet in the form of estimated distances to Level A
harassment isopleths are shown in Table 6. The User Spreadsheet used by
UH is shown in Table 3 of the IHA application.

Table 6--Modeled Radial Distances From R/V Kairei 7800 in\3\ Airgun Array and 100 in\3\ Airgun to Isopleths
Corresponding to Level A Harassment Thresholds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7,800 in\3\
airgun array 7,800 in\3\ 100 in\3\ 100 in\3\
Functional hearing group (peak SPLflat) airgun array airgun (peak airgun
(SELcum) SPLflat) (SELcum)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low frequency cetaceans (Lpk,flat: 219 dB; 73.8 m 752.8 m 3.3 m 4.48 m
LE,LF,24h: 183 dB).............................
Mid frequency cetaceans (Lpk,flat: 230 dB; 6.0 0.0 m 0.9 n/a
LE,MF,24h: 185 dB).............................
High frequency cetaceans (Lpk,flat: 202 dB; 516.5 m 1.7 m 24 m n/a
LE,HF,24h: 155 dB).............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note that because of some of the assumptions included in the
methods used, isopleths produced may be overestimates to some degree,
which will ultimately result in some degree of overestimate of Level A
take. However, these tools offer the best way to predict appropriate
isopleths when more sophisticated 3D modeling methods are not
available, and NMFS continues to develop ways to quantitatively refine
these tools and will qualitatively address the output where
appropriate. For mobile sources, such as UH's survey, the User
Spreadsheet predicts the closest distance at which a stationary animal
would not incur PTS if the sound source traveled by the animal in a
straight line at a constant speed.

Marine Mammal Occurrence

In this section we provide the information about the presence,
density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take
calculations.

[[Page 44573]]

The best available scientific information was considered in
conducting marine mammal exposure estimates (the basis for estimating
take). For most cetacean species, densities calculated by Bradford et
al. (2017) from summer-fall vessel-based surveys that are part of the
Hawaiian Island Cetacean Ecosystem Assessment Survey (HICEAS) were
used. The surveys were conducted by NMFS' Southwest Fisheries Science
Center (SWFSC) and Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC) in
2010 using two NOAA research vessels, one during August 13--December 1
and the other during September 2--October 29. The densities were
estimated using a multiple-covariate line-transect approach (Buckland
et al. 2001; Marques and Buckland 2004). Density estimates for pygmy
and dwarf sperm whales and spinner dolphins, which were not calculated
from the 2010 surveys, were derived from the ``Outer EEZ stratum'' of
the vessel-based HICEAS survey conducted in summer-fall 2002 by SWFSC
(Barlow 2006) using line-transect methodology (Buckland et al. 2001).
The density estimate for the false killer whale was based on the
pelagic stock density calculated by Bradford et al. (2015) using line-
transect methodology (Buckland et al. 2001).
All densities were corrected for trackline detection probability
bias (f(0)) and availability (g(0)) bias by the authors. Bradford et
al. (2017) used g(0) values estimated by Barlow (2015), whose analysis
indicated that g(0) had previously been overestimated, particularly for
high sea states. Barlow (2006) used earlier estimates of g(0), so
densities used here for pygmy and dwarf sperm whales and spinner
dolphins likely are underestimates. The density for the ``Sei or
Bryde's whale'' category identified by Bradford et al. (2017) was
allocated between sei and Bryde's whales according to their
proportionate densities. Density estimates for humpback and minke
whales were not available.
There is some uncertainty related to the estimated density data and
the assumptions used in their calculations, as with all density data
estimates. However, the approach used is based on the best available
data.

Take Calculation and Estimation

Here we describe how the information provided above is brought
together to produce a quantitative take estimate. In order to estimate
the number of marine mammals predicted to be exposed to sound levels
that would result in Level B harassment or Level A harassment, radial
distances to predicted isopleths corresponding to the Level A
harassment and Level B harassment thresholds are calculated, as
described above. We then use those distances to calculate the area(s)
around the airgun array predicted to be ensonified to sound levels that
exceed the Level A and Level B harassment thresholds. The total
ensonified area for the survey is then calculated, based on the areas
predicted to be ensonified around the array and the trackline distance.
The marine mammals predicted to occur within these respective areas,
based on estimated densities, are expected to be incidentally taken by
UH's survey.
To summarize, the estimated density of each marine mammal species
within an area (animals/km\2\) is multiplied by the daily ensonified
areas (km\2\) that correspond to the Level A and Level B harassment
thresholds for the species. The product (rounded) is the number of
instances of take for each species within one day. The number of
instances of take for each species within one day is then multiplied by
the number of survey days (plus 25 percent contingency, as described
below). The result is an estimate of the number of instances that
marine mammals are predicted to be exposed to airgun sounds above the
Level B harassment threshold and the Level A harassment threshold over
the duration of the survey. Estimated takes for all marine mammal
species are shown in Table 7.
The planned survey would occur both within the U.S. EEZ and outside
the U.S. EEZ. We authorize incidental take that is expected to occur as
a result of the survey both within and outside the U.S. EEZ.

Table 7--Numbers of Incidental Take of Marine Mammals Authorized
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
authorized
Estimated Estimated and Total Level A and
Species density (#/ authorized Estimated Authorized authorized Level B takes
1,000 km2) Level A takes Level B takes Level B takes Level A and as a
Level B takes percentage of
population
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback whale \1\...................................... 0 0 0 2 2 <0.1
Minke whale \1\......................................... 0 0 0 1 1 n/a
Bryde's whale........................................... 0.97 2 25 25 27 3.4
Sei whale............................................... 0.22 0 6 6 6 3.4
Fin whale............................................... 0.06 0 2 2 2 3.4
Blue whale \1\.......................................... 0.05 0 1 3 3 3.7
Sperm whale............................................. 1.86 0 51 51 51 1.5
Cuvier's beaked whale................................... 0.30 0 8 8 8 <0.1
Longman's beaked whale.................................. 3.11 0 85 85 85 1.9
Blainville's beaked whale............................... 1.89 0 76 76 76 3.3
Rough-toothed dolphin................................... 29.6 0 812 812 812 12.9
Bottlenose dolphin...................................... 8.99 0 246 246 246 4.1
Pantropical spotted dolphin............................. 23.3 0 639 639 639 4.0
Spinner dolphin \1\..................................... 0.83 0 23 32 32 0.9
Striped dolphin......................................... 25.0 0 685 685 685 3.3
Fraser's dolphin........................................ 21.0 0 577 577 577 3.4
Risso's dolphin......................................... 4.74 0 130 130 130 1.8
Melon-headed whale...................................... 3.54 0 97 97 97 1.7
Pygmy killer whale...................................... 4.35 0 119 119 119 3.5
False killer whale...................................... 0.60 0 16 16 16 1.0
Killer whale \1\........................................ 0.06 0 2 5 5 4.9
Short-finned pilot whale................................ 7.97 0 218 218 218 1.8
Pygmy sperm whale....................................... 3.19 7 87 87 94 7.4

[[Page 44574]]

Dwarf sperm whale....................................... 7.82 18 214 214 232 7.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The number of authorized takes (Level B harassment only) for these species has been increased from the calculated take to mean group size. Sources
for mean group sizes are as follows: blue whale (Bradford et al. 2017); minke whale (Jackson et al. 2008); humpback whale (Mobley et al. 2001);
spinner dolphin (Barlow 2006); killer whale (Bradford et al. 2017).

Species with Take Estimates Less than Mean Group Size: Using the
approach described above to estimate take, the take estimates for the
blue whale, killer whale, and spinner dolphin (Table 7) were less than
the average group sizes estimated for these species. However,
information on the social structures and life histories of these
species indicates it is common for them to be encountered in groups. As
the results of take calculations support the likelihood that UH's
survey would be expected to encounter and to incidentally take these
species, and we believe it is likely that these species may be
encountered in groups, it is reasonable to conservatively assume that
one group of each of these species will be taken during the survey. We
therefore propose to authorize the take of the average (mean) group
size for the blue whale, killer whale, and spinner dolphin to account
for the possibility that UH's survey encounters a group of any of these
species (Table 7).
Species with No Available Density Data: No density data were
available for humpback and minke whales. Both species would typically
be found further north than the survey area during the time of year
that the survey is planned to occur, based on sightings data around the
Hawaiian Islands (Carretta et al. 2017). However, based on input from
subject matter experts, we believe it is reasonable to assume that both
species may be encountered by UH during the survey. Humpback whales
have typically not been observed in the project area in the fall
(Carretta et al. 2017). However, there are increasing anecdotal reports
of confirmed sightings of humpback whales from early September through
October in areas near the planned project area (pers. comm. E. Lyman,
NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, to J. Carduner, NMFS, June
20, 2017). Like humpback whales, sightings data does not indicate that
minke whales would typically be expected to be present in the project
area in the fall (Carretta et al. 2017). However, detections of minke
whales are common in passive acoustic recordings from various locations
around the main Hawaiian Islands, including during the fall (pers.
comm. E. Oleson, NOAA PIFSC, to J. Carduner, NMFS, June 20, 2017).
Additionally, as minke whales in the North Pacific do not have a
visible blow, they can be easily missed by visual observers, suggesting
a lack of sightings is likely related to misidentification or low
detection capability in poor sighting conditions (Rankin et al. 2007).
Though no density data are available, we believe it is reasonable to
conservatively assume that UH's survey may encounter and incidentally
take minke and humpback whales. We therefore propose to authorize the
take of the average (mean) group size (weighted by effort and rounded
up) for the humpback and minke whale (Table 7).
It should be noted that the take numbers shown in Table 7 are
believed to be conservative for several reasons. First, in the
calculations of estimated take, 25 percent has been added in the form
of operational survey days (equivalent to adding 25 percent to the line
km to be surveyed) to account for the possibility of additional seismic
operations associated with airgun testing, and repeat coverage of any
areas where initial data quality is sub-standard. Additionally, marine
mammals would be expected to move away from a sound source that
represents an aversive stimulus. However, the extent to which marine
mammals would move away from the sound source is difficult to quantify
and is therefore not accounted for in take estimates shown in Table 7.
Level A take estimates (Table 7) have been revised from the take
estimates provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA
(82 FR 34352; July 24, 2017) based on our decision to rely on modeled
distances to Level A harassment isopleths for Peak SPL (Table 6)
without band pass filtering applied, as described above. The only
species for which Level A take numbers were affected by this revision
were the pygmy sperm whale and dwarf sperm whale (Level A takes changed
from 0 to 7 and from 0 to 18, respectively).

Mitigation

In order to issue an IHA under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA,
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to such
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on
such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of such species or stock for taking for certain
subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS
regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to
include information about the availability and feasibility (economic
and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such
activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact upon the affected species or stocks and their habitat (50 CFR
216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, we
carefully consider two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat.
This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being
mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the
likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented
(probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as
planned) the likelihood of effective implementation (probability
implemented as planned); and
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant
implementation, which may consider such things as cost, impact on
operations, and, in the case

[[Page 44575]]

of a military readiness activity, personnel safety, practicality of
implementation, and impact on the effectiveness of the military
readiness activity.
UH has reviewed mitigation measures employed during seismic
research surveys authorized by NMFS under previous incidental
harassment authorizations, as well as recommended best practices in
Richardson et al. (1995), Pierson et al. (1998), Weir and Dolman
(2007), Nowacek et al. (2013), Wright (2014), and Wright and Cosentino
(2015), and has incorporated a suite of mitigation measures into their
project description based on the above sources.
To reduce the potential for disturbance from acoustic stimuli
associated with the activities, UH will implement the following
mitigation measures for marine mammals:
(1) Vessel-based visual mitigation monitoring;
(2) Vessel-based passive acoustic monitoring;
(3) Establishment of an exclusion zone;
(4) Power down procedures;
(5) Shutdown procedures;
(6) Ramp-up procedures; and
(7) Ship strike avoidance measures.

Vessel-Based Visual Mitigation Monitoring

Protected Species Observer (PSO) observations will take place
during all daytime airgun operations and nighttime start ups (if
applicable) of the airguns. Airgun operations will be suspended when
marine mammals are observed within, or about to enter, designated
Exclusion Zones (as described below). PSOs will also watch for marine
mammals near the vessel for at least 30 minutes prior to the planned
start of airgun operations. PSOs will monitor the entire extent of the
modeled Level B harassment zone (Table 4) (or, as far as they are able
to see, if they cannot see to the extent of the estimated Level B
harassment zone). Observations will also be made during daytime periods
when the Kairei is underway without seismic operations, such as during
transits, to allow for comparison of sighting rates and behavior with
and without airgun operations and between acquisition periods.
During seismic operations, a minimum of four visual PSOs will be
based aboard the Kairei. PSOs will be appointed by JAMSTEC with NMFS
approval. During the majority of seismic operations, two PSOs will
monitor for marine mammals around the seismic vessel. Use of two
simultaneous observers will increase the effectiveness of detecting
marine mammals around the source vessel. However, during meal times,
only one PSO may be on duty. PSO(s) would be on duty in shifts of
duration no longer than 4 hours. Other crew will also be instructed to
assist in detecting marine mammals and in implementing mitigation
requirements (if practical). Before the start of the seismic survey,
the crew will be given additional instruction in detecting marine
mammals and implementing mitigation requirements. The Kairei is a
suitable platform for marine mammal observations. When stationed on the
observation platform, PSOs will have a good view around the entire
vessel. During daytime, the PSO(s) will scan the area around the vessel
systematically with reticle binoculars (e.g., 7x50 Fujinon), Big-eye
binoculars (25x150), and with the naked eye.
The PSOs must have no tasks other than to conduct observational
effort, record observational data, and communicate with and instruct
relevant vessel crew with regard to the presence of marine mammals and
mitigation requirements. PSO resumes will be provided to NMFS for
approval. At least two PSOs must have a minimum of 90 days at-sea
experience working as PSOs during a high energy seismic survey, with no
more than eighteen months elapsed since the conclusion of the at-sea
experience. One ``experienced'' visual PSO will be designated as the
lead for the entire protected species observation team. The lead will
coordinate duty schedules and roles for the PSO team and serve as
primary point of contact for the vessel operator. The lead PSO will
devise the duty schedule such that ``experienced'' PSOs are on duty
with those PSOs with appropriate training but who have not yet gained
relevant experience, to the maximum extent practicable.
The PSOs must have successfully completed relevant training,
including completion of all required coursework and passing a written
and/or oral examination developed for the training program, and must
have successfully attained a bachelor's degree from an accredited
college or university with a major in one of the natural sciences and a
minimum of 30 semester hours or equivalent in the biological sciences
and at least one undergraduate course in math or statistics. The
educational requirements may be waived if the PSO has acquired the
relevant skills through alternate training, including (1) secondary
education and/or experience comparable to PSO duties; (2) previous work
experience conducting academic, commercial, or government-sponsored
marine mammal surveys; or (3) previous work experience as a PSO; the
PSO should demonstrate good standing and consistently good performance
of PSO duties.
In summary, a typical daytime cruise will have scheduled two
observers (visual) on duty from the observation platform, and an
acoustic observer on the passive acoustic monitoring system.

Vessel-Based Passive Acoustic Mitigation Monitoring

Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) will take place to complement the
visual monitoring program. Visual monitoring typically is not effective
during periods of poor visibility or at night, and even with good
visibility, is unable to detect marine mammals when they are below the
surface or beyond visual range. Acoustic monitoring can be used in
addition to visual observations to improve detection, identification,
and localization of cetaceans. The acoustic monitoring will serve to
alert visual observers (if on duty) when vocalizing cetaceans are
detected. It is only useful when marine mammals vocalize, but it can be
effective either by day or by night and does not depend on good
visibility. It will be monitored in real time so that visual observers
can be alerted when marine mammals are detected acoustically.
The PAM system consists of hardware (i.e., hydrophones) and
software. The ``wet end'' of the system consists of a towed hydrophone
array that is connected to the vessel by a tow cable. A deck cable will
connect the tow cable to the electronics unit on board where the
acoustic station, signal conditioning, and processing system would be
located. The acoustic signals received by the hydrophones are
amplified, digitized, and then processed by the software.
At least one acoustic PSO (in addition to the four visual PSOs)
will be on board. The towed hydrophones would be monitored 24 hours per
day (either by the acoustic PSO or by a visual PSO trained in the PAM
system if the acoustic PSO is on break) while at the seismic survey
area during airgun operations, and during most periods when the Kairei
is underway while the airguns are not operating. However, PAM may not
be possible if damage occurs to the array or back-up systems during
operations. One PSO will monitor the acoustic detection system at any
one time, in shifts no longer than six hours, by listening to the
signals via headphones and/or speakers and watching the real-time
spectrographic display for frequency ranges produced by cetaceans.

[[Page 44576]]

When a vocalization is detected, while visual observations are in
progress, the acoustic PSO will contact the visual PSOs immediately, to
alert them to the presence of marine mammals (if they have not already
been detected visually), in order to facilitate a power down or shut
down, if required. The information regarding the marine mammal acoustic
detection will be entered into a database.

Exclusion Zone and Buffer Zone

An exclusion zone (EZ) is a defined area within which occurrence of
a marine mammal triggers mitigation action intended to reduce the
potential for certain outcomes, e.g., auditory injury, disruption of
critical behaviors. The PSOs will establish a minimum EZ with a 500 m
radius for the full array. The 500 m EZ will be based on radial
distance from any element of the airgun array (rather than being based
on the center of the array or around the vessel itself). With certain
exceptions (described below), if a marine mammal appears within,
enters, or appears on a course to enter this zone, the acoustic source
will be powered down (see Power Down Procedures below). In addition to
the 500 m EZ for the full array, a 100 m exclusion zone will be
established for the single 100 in\3\ airgun. With certain exceptions
(described below), if a marine mammal appears within, enters, or
appears on a course to enter this zone the acoustic source will be shut
down entirely (see Shutdown Procedures below). Additionally, power down
of the full array will last no more than 30 minutes maximum at any
given time; thus the array will be shut down entirely if, after 30
minutes of power down, a marine mammal remains inside the 500 m EZ.
Potential radial distances to auditory injury zones were calculated
on the basis of maximum peak pressure using values provided by the
applicant (Table 6). The 500 m radial distance of the standard EZ is
intended to be precautionary in the sense that it would be expected to
contain sound exceeding peak pressure injury criteria for all cetacean
hearing groups, while also providing a consistent, reasonably
observable zone within which PSOs would typically be able to conduct
effective observational effort. Although significantly greater
distances may be observed from an elevated platform under good
conditions, we believe that 500 m is likely regularly attainable for
PSOs using the naked eye during typical conditions.
An appropriate EZ based on cumulative sound exposure level
(SELcum) criteria would be dependent on the animal's applied
hearing range and how that overlaps with the frequencies produced by
the sound source of interest (i.e., via marine mammal auditory
weighting functions) (NMFS, 2016), and may be larger in some cases than
the zones calculated on the basis of the peak pressure thresholds (and
larger than 500 m) depending on the species in question and the
characteristics of the specific airgun array. In particular, the EZ
radii would be larger for low-frequency cetaceans, because their most
susceptible hearing range overlaps the low frequencies produced by
airguns, but the zones would remain very small for mid-frequency
cetaceans (i.e., including the ``small delphinoids'' described below),
whose range of best hearing largely does not overlap with frequencies
produced by airguns.
Consideration of exclusion zone distances is inherently an
essentially instantaneous proposition--a rule or set of rules that
requires mitigation action upon detection of an animal. This indicates
that consideration of peak pressure thresholds is most relevant, as
compared with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds, as the latter
requires that an animal accumulate some level of sound energy exposure
over some period of time (e.g., 24 hours). A PSO aboard a mobile source
will typically have no ability to monitor an animal's position relative
to the acoustic source over relevant time periods for purposes of
understanding whether auditory injury is likely to occur on the basis
of cumulative sound exposure and, therefore, whether action should be
taken to avoid such potential. Therefore, definition of an exclusion
zone based on SELcum thresholds is of questionable relevance
given relative motion of the source and receiver (i.e., the animal).
Cumulative SEL thresholds are likely more relevant for purposes of
modeling the potential for auditory injury than they are for informing
real-time mitigation. We recognize the importance of the accumulation
of sound energy to an understanding of the potential for auditory
injury and that it is likely that, at least for low-frequency
cetaceans, some potential auditory injury is likely impossible to
mitigate and should be considered for authorization.
In summary, our intent in prescribing a standard exclusion zone
distance is to (1) encompass zones for most species within which
auditory injury could occur on the basis of instantaneous exposure; (2)
provide additional protection from the potential for more severe
behavioral reactions (e.g., panic, antipredator response) for marine
mammals at relatively close range to the acoustic source; (3) provide
consistency for PSOs, who need to monitor and implement the exclusion
zone; and (4) to define a distance within which detection probabilities
are reasonably high for most species under typical conditions.
Our use of 500 m as the EZ is a reasonable combination of factors.
This zone is expected to contain all potential auditory injury for all
cetaceans (high-frequency, mid-frequency and low-frequency functional
hearing groups) as assessed against peak pressure thresholds (NMFS,
2016) (Table 6), and to contain all potential auditory injury for high-
frequency and mid-frequency cetaceans as assessed against
SELcum thresholds (NMFS, 2016) (Table 6), It has also proven
to be practicable through past implementation in seismic surveys
conducted for the oil and gas industry in the Gulf of Mexico (as
regulated by BOEM pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
(OCSLA) (43 U.S.C. 1331-1356)). In summary, a practicable criterion
such as this has the advantage of simplicity while still providing in
most cases a zone larger than relevant auditory injury zones, given
realistic movement of source and receiver.
The PSOs will also establish and monitor a 1,000 m buffer zone.
During use of the acoustic source, occurrence of marine mammals within
the buffer zone (but outside the exclusion zone) will be communicated
to the vessel operator to prepare for potential power down or shutdown
of the acoustic source. The buffer zone is discussed further under Ramp
Up Procedures below. PSOs will monitor the entire extent of the modeled
Level B harassment zone (Table 4) (or, as far as they are able to see,
if they cannot see to the extent of the estimated Level B harassment
zone).

Power Down Procedures

A power down involves decreasing the number of airguns in use such
that the radius of the mitigation zone is decreased to the extent that
marine mammals are no longer in, or about to enter, the 500 m EZ.
During a power down, one 100-in\3\ airgun would be operated. The
continued operation of one 100-in\3\ airgun is intended to alert marine
mammals to the presence of the seismic vessel in the area, and to allow
them to leave the area of the seismic vessel if they choose. In
contrast, a shutdown occurs when all airgun activity is suspended
(shutdown procedures are discussed below). If a marine mammal is
detected outside the 500 m EZ but appears likely to enter the 500 m EZ,
the airguns will be powered

[[Page 44577]]

down before the animal is within the 500 m EZ. Likewise, if a mammal is
already within the 500 m EZ when first detected, the airguns will be
powered down immediately. During a power down of the airgun array, the
100-in\3\ airgun will be operated.
Following a power down, airgun activity will not resume until the
marine mammal has cleared the 500 m EZ. The animal will be considered
to have cleared the 500 m EZ if the following conditions have been met:

It is visually observed to have departed the 500 m EZ, or
it has not been seen within the 500 m EZ for 15 min in the
case of small odontocetes, or
it has not been seen within the 500 m EZ for 30 min in the
case of mysticetes and large odontocetes, including sperm, pygmy sperm,
dwarf sperm, and beaked whales.

This power down requirement will be in place for all marine
mammals, with the exception of small delphinoids under certain
circumstances. As defined here, the small delphinoid group is intended
to encompass those members of the Family Delphinidae most likely to
voluntarily approach the source vessel for purposes of interacting with
the vessel and/or airgun array (e.g., bow riding). This exception to
the power down requirement will apply solely to specific genera of
small dolphins--Steno, Tursiops, Stenella and Lagenodelphis--and will
only apply if the animals were traveling, including approaching the
vessel. If, for example, an animal or group of animals is stationary
for some reason (e.g., feeding) and the source vessel approaches the
animals, the power down requirement applies. An animal with sufficient
incentive to remain in an area rather than avoid an otherwise aversive
stimulus could either incur auditory injury or disruption of important
behavior. If there is uncertainty regarding identification (i.e.,
whether the observed animal(s) belongs to the group described above) or
whether the animals are traveling, the power down will be implemented.
We include this small delphinoid exception because power-down/
shutdown requirements for small delphinoids under all circumstances
represent practicability concerns without likely commensurate benefits
for the animals in question. Small delphinoids are generally the most
commonly observed marine mammals in the specific geographic region and
would typically be the only marine mammals likely to intentionally
approach the vessel. As described below, auditory injury is extremely
unlikely to occur for mid-frequency cetaceans (e.g., delphinids), as
this group is relatively insensitive to sound produced at the
predominant frequencies in an airgun pulse while also having a
relatively high threshold for the onset of auditory injury (i.e.,
permanent threshold shift). Please see Potential Effects of the
Specified Activity on Marine Mammals above for further discussion of
sound metrics and thresholds and marine mammal hearing.
A large body of anecdotal evidence indicates that small delphinoids
commonly approach vessels and/or towed arrays during active sound
production for purposes of bow riding, with no apparent effect observed
in those delphinoids (e.g., Barkaszi et al., 2012). The potential for
increased shutdowns resulting from such a measure would require the
Kairei to revisit the missed track line to reacquire data, resulting in
an overall increase in the total sound energy input to the marine
environment and an increase in the total duration over which the survey
is active in a given area. Although other mid-frequency hearing
specialists (e.g., large delphinoids) are no more likely to incur
auditory injury than are small delphinoids, they are much less likely
to approach vessels. Therefore, retaining a power-down/shutdown
requirement for large delphinoids would not have similar impacts in
terms of either practicability for the applicant or corollary increase
in sound energy output and time on the water. We do anticipate some
benefit for a power-down/shutdown requirement for large delphinoids in
that it simplifies somewhat the total range of decision-making for PSOs
and may preclude any potential for physiological effects other than to
the auditory system as well as some more severe behavioral reactions
for any such animals in close proximity to the source vessel.
At any distance, power down of the acoustic source will also be
required upon observation of a large whale (i.e., sperm whale or any
baleen whale) with a calf, or upon observation of an aggregation of
large whales of any species (i.e., sperm whale or any baleen whale)
that does not appear to be traveling (e.g., feeding, socializing,
etc.). These are the only two potential situations that would require
power down of the array for marine mammals observed beyond the 500 m
EZ.
A power down could occur for no more than 30 minutes maximum at any
given time. If, after 30 minutes of the array being powered down,
marine mammals had not cleared the 500 m EZ (as described above), a
shutdown of the array will be implemented (see Shut Down Procedures,
below). Power down is only allowed in response to the presence of
marine mammals within the designated EZ. Thus, the single 100 in\3\
airgun, which will be operated during power downs, may not be operated
continuously throughout the night or during transits from one line to
another.

Shut Down Procedures

The single 100-in\3\ operating airgun will be shut down if a marine
mammal is seen within or approaching the 100 m EZ for the single 100-
in\3\ airgun. Shutdown will be implemented if (1) an animal enters the
100 m EZ of the single 100-in\3\ airgun after a power down has been
initiated, or (2) an animal is initially seen within the 100 m EZ of
the single 100-in\3\ airgun when more than one airgun (typically the
full array) is operating. Airgun activity will not resume until the
marine mammal has cleared the 500 m EZ. Criteria for judging that the
animal has cleared the EZ will be as described above. A shutdown of the
array will be implemented if, after 30 minutes of the array being
powered down, marine mammals have not cleared the 500 m EZ (as
described above).
The shutdown requirement, like the power down requirement, will be
waived for dolphins of the following genera: Steno, Tursiops, Stenella
and Lagenodelphis. The shutdown waiver only applies if the animals are
traveling, including approaching the vessel. If animals are stationary
and the source vessel approaches the animals, the shutdown requirement
would apply. If there is uncertainty regarding identification (i.e.,
whether the observed animal(s) belongs to the group described above) or
whether the animals are traveling, the shutdown would be implemented. A
shutdown will be implemented if a North Pacific right whale is sighted,
regardless of the distance from the Kairei. Ramp-up procedures would
not be initiated until the right whale has not been seen at any
distance for 30 minutes.

Ramp-Up Procedures

Ramp-up of an acoustic source is intended to provide a gradual
increase in sound levels following a power down or shutdown, enabling
animals to move away from the source if the signal is sufficiently
aversive prior to its reaching full intensity. The ramp-up procedure
involves a step-wise increase in the number of airguns firing and total
array volume until all operational airguns are activated and the full
volume is achieved. Ramp-up will be required after the array is powered
down or

[[Page 44578]]

shutdown due to mitigation. If the airgun array has been shut down for
reasons other than mitigation (e.g., mechanical difficulty) for a
period of less than 30 minutes, it may be activated again without ramp-
up if PSOs have maintained constant visual and acoustic observation and
no visual detections of any marine mammal have occurred within the
buffer zone and no acoustic detections have occurred.
Ramp-up will begin by activating a single airgun of the smallest
volume in the array and would continue in stages by doubling the number
of active elements at the commencement of each stage, with each stage
of approximately the same duration.
If airguns have been powered down or shut down due to PSO detection
of a marine mammal within or approaching the 500 m EZ, ramp-up will not
be initiated until all marine mammals have cleared the EZ, during the
day or night. Visual and acoustic PSOs are required to monitor during
ramp-up. If a marine mammal were detected by visual PSOs within or
approaching the 500 m EZ during ramp-up, a power down (or shut down if
appropriate) would be implemented as though the full array were
operational. Criteria for clearing the EZ would be as described above.
Thirty minutes of pre-clearance observation are required prior to
ramp-up for any power down or shutdown of longer than 30 minutes (i.e.,
if the array were shut down during transit from one line to another).
This 30 minute pre-clearance period may occur during any vessel
activity (i.e., transit). If a marine mammal is observed within or
approaching the 500 m EZ during this pre-clearance period, ramp-up will
not be initiated until all marine mammals have cleared the EZ. Criteria
for clearing the EZ will be as described above.
Ramp-up will be planned to occur during periods of good visibility
when possible. However, ramp-up will be allowed at night and during
poor visibility if the 500 m EZ and 1,000 m buffer zone have been
monitored by visual PSOs for 30 minutes prior to ramp-up and if
acoustic monitoring has occurred for 30 minutes prior to ramp-up with
no acoustic detections during that period.
The operator will be required to notify a designated PSO of the
planned start of ramp-up as agreed-upon with the lead PSO. A designated
PSO must be notified again immediately prior to initiating ramp-up
procedures and the operator must receive confirmation from the PSO to
proceed. The operator must provide information to PSOs documenting that
appropriate procedures were followed. Following deactivation of the
array for reasons other than mitigation, the operator will be required
to communicate the near-term operational plan to the lead PSO with
justification for any planned nighttime ramp-up.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, NMFS
has determined that the mitigation measures provide the means effecting
the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and
their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating
grounds, and areas of similar significance.

Monitoring and Reporting

In order to issue an IHA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, requirements pertaining to
the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that requests for
authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the
necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased
knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on
populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the
action area. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well
as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required
monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution,
density).
Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2)
affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas).
Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative),
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors.
How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1)
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2)
populations, species, or stocks.
Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of
marine mammal habitat).
Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
UH submitted a marine mammal monitoring and reporting plan in
section XIII of their IHA application. Monitoring that is designed
specifically to facilitate mitigation measures, such as monitoring of
the EZ to inform potential power downs or shutdowns of the airgun
array, are described above and are not repeated here.
UH's monitoring and reporting plan includes the following measures:

Vessel-Based Visual Monitoring

As described above, PSO observations will take place during daytime
airgun operations and nighttime start ups (if applicable) of the
airguns. During seismic operations, at least four visual PSOs would be
based aboard the Kairei. PSOs will be appointed by JAMSTEC with NMFS
approval. During the majority of seismic operations, two PSOs will
monitor for marine mammals around the seismic vessel. Use of two
simultaneous observers would increase the effectiveness of detecting
animals around the source vessel. However, during meal times, only one
PSO may be on duty. PSOs will be on duty in shifts of duration no
longer than 4 hours. Other crew will also be instructed to assist in
detecting marine mammals and in implementing mitigation requirements
(if practical). During daytime, PSOs will scan the area around the
vessel systematically with reticle binoculars (e.g., 7x50 Fujinon),
Big-eye binoculars (25x150), and with the naked eye.
PSOs will record data to estimate the numbers of marine mammals
exposed to various received sound levels and to document apparent
disturbance reactions or lack thereof. Data will be used to estimate
numbers of animals potentially `taken' by harassment (as defined in the
MMPA). They will also provide information needed to order a power down
or shutdown of airguns when a marine mammal is within or near the EZ.
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 airguns or vessel (e.g., none, avoidance,

[[Page 44579]]

approach, paralleling, etc.), and behavioral pace.
2. Time, location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel, sea
state, visibility, and sun glare.
All observations and power downs or shutdowns will be recorded in a
standardized format. Data will be entered into an electronic database.
The accuracy of the data entry will be verified by computerized data
validity checks as the data are entered and by subsequent manual
checking of the database. 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. The time,
location, heading, speed, activity of the vessel, sea state,
visibility, and sun glare 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.
Results from the vessel-based observations will provide:
1. The basis for real-time mitigation (airgun power down or 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 and turtles in the area where the seismic study is conducted.
4. Information to compare the distance and distribution of marine
mammals and turtles relative to the source vessel at times with and
without seismic activity.
5. Data on the behavior and movement patterns of marine mammals and
turtles seen at times with and without seismic activity.

Vessel-Based Passive Acoustic Monitoring

PAM will take place to complement the visual monitoring program as
described above. Please see the Mitigation section above for a
description of the PAM system and the acoustic PSO's duties. The
acoustic PSO will record data collected via the PAM system, including
the following: An acoustic encounter identification number, whether it
was linked with a visual sighting, date, time when first and last heard
and whenever any additional information was recorded, position and
water depth when first detected, bearing if determinable, species or
species group (e.g., unidentified dolphin, sperm whale), types and
nature of sounds heard (e.g., clicks, continuous, sporadic, whistles,
creaks, burst pulses, strength of signal, etc.), and any other notable
information. Acoustic detections will also be recorded for further
analysis.

Reporting

A report will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the end of
the cruise. The report will describe the operations that were conducted
and sightings of marine mammals near the operations. The report will
provide full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation
pertaining to all monitoring. The 90-day report will summarize the
dates and locations of seismic operations, and all marine mammal
sightings (dates, times, locations, activities, associated seismic
survey activities). The report will also include estimates of the
number and nature of exposures that occurred above the harassment
threshold based on PSO observations.

Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination

NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough
information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to
considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be
``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the
likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context
of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location,
migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness
of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of
estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population
status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS' implementing
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other
past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this
analysis via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as
reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and
growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or
ambient noise levels).
To avoid repetition, our analysis applies to all the species listed
in Table 1, given that NMFS expects the anticipated effects of the
planned seismic survey to be similar in nature. Where there are
meaningful differences between species or stocks, or groups of species,
in anticipated individual responses to activities, impact of expected
take on the population due to differences in population status, or
impacts on habitat, NMFS has identified species-specific factors to
inform the analysis.
NMFS does not anticipate that serious injury or mortality would
occur as a result of UH's survey, even in the absence of mitigation.
Thus the authorization does not authorize any mortality. Non-auditory
physical effects, stranding, and vessel strike are not expected to
occur.
We authorize a limited number of instances of Level A harassment of
three marine mammal species (Table 7). However, we believe that any PTS
incurred in marine mammals as a result of the activity would be in the
form of only a small degree of PTS and not total deafness that would
not be likely to affect the fitness of any individuals, because of the
constant movement of both the Kairei and of the marine mammals in the
project area, as well as the fact that the vessel is not expected to
remain in any one area in which individual marine mammals would be
expected to concentrate for an extended period of time (i.e., since the
duration of exposure to loud sounds will be relatively short). Also, as
described above, we expect that marine mammals would be likely to move
away from a sound source that represents an aversive stimulus,
especially at levels that would be expected to result in PTS, given
sufficient notice of the Kairei's approach due to the vessel's
relatively low speed when conducting the survey. We expect that the
majority of takes would be in the form of short-term Level B behavioral
harassment in the form of temporary avoidance of the area or decreased
foraging (if such activity were occurring), reactions that are
considered to be of low severity and with no lasting biological
consequences (e.g., Southall et al., 2007).
Potential impacts to marine mammal habitat were discussed in the
Federal Register noticed for the proposed IHA (82 FR 34352; July 24,
2017) (see Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine
Mammals and their Habitat). Marine mammal habitat may be impacted by
elevated sound levels, but these impacts would be temporary. Feeding
behavior is not likely to be significantly impacted, as marine mammals
appear to be less likely to exhibit behavioral reactions or

[[Page 44580]]

avoidance responses while engaged in feeding activities (Richardson et
al., 1995). Prey species are mobile and are broadly distributed
throughout the project area; therefore, marine mammals that may be
temporarily displaced during survey activities are expected to be able
to resume foraging once they have moved away from areas with disturbing
levels of underwater noise. Because of the temporary nature of the
disturbance, the availability of similar habitat and resources in the
surrounding area, and the lack of important or unique marine mammal
habitat, the impacts to marine mammals and the food sources that they
utilize are not expected to cause significant or long-term consequences
for individual marine mammals or their populations. In addition, there
are no mating or calving areas known to be biologically important to
marine mammals within the project area.
The activity is expected to impact a very small percentage of all
marine mammal stocks that would be affected by UH's survey (less than
two percent for all marine mammal stocks). Additionally, the acoustic
``footprint'' of the survey would be very small relative to the ranges
of all marine mammals that would potentially be affected. Sound levels
would increase in the marine environment in a relatively small area
surrounding the vessel compared to the range of the marine mammals
within the survey area. The seismic array would be active 24 hours per
day throughout the duration of the survey. However, the very brief
overall duration of the survey (5.5 days) would further limit potential
impacts that may occur as a result of the activity.
The mitigation measures are expected to reduce the number and/or
severity of takes by allowing for detection of marine mammals in the
vicinity of the vessel by visual and acoustic observers, and by
minimizing the severity of any potential exposures via power downs and/
or shutdowns of the airgun array. Based on previous monitoring reports
for substantially similar activities that have been previously
authorized by NMFS, we expect that the mitigation will be effective in
preventing at least some extent of potential PTS in marine mammals that
may otherwise occur in the absence of mitigation.
Of the marine mammal species under our jurisdiction that are likely
to occur in the project area, the following species are listed as
endangered under the ESA: blue, fin, sei, and sperm whales. There are
currently insufficient data to determine population trends for blue,
fin, sei, and sperm whales (Carretta et al., 2016); however, we are
authorizing very small numbers of takes for these species (Table 7),
relative to their population sizes, therefore we do not expect
population-level impacts to any of these species. The other marine
mammal species that may be taken by harassment during UH's seismic
survey are not listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. There
is no designated critical habitat for any ESA-listed marine mammals
within the project area; and of the non-listed marine mammals for which
we propose to authorize take, none are considered ``depleted'' or
``strategic'' by NMFS under the MMPA.
NMFS concludes that exposures to marine mammal species and stocks
due to UH's seismic survey would result in only short-term (temporary
and short in duration) effects to individuals exposed. Animals may
temporarily avoid the immediate area, but are not expected to
permanently abandon the area. Major shifts in habitat use,
distribution, or foraging success are not expected. NMFS does not
anticipate the take estimates to impact annual rates of recruitment or
survival.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily
support our determination that the impacts resulting from this activity
are not expected to adversely affect the marine mammal species or
stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
No mortality is anticipated or authorized;
The anticipated impacts of the activity on marine mammals
would primarily be temporary behavioral changes due to avoidance of the
area around the survey vessel. The relatively short duration of the
survey (5.5 days) would further limit the potential impacts of any
temporary behavioral changes that would occur;
PTS is only anticipated to occur for one species and the
number of instances of PTS that may occur are expected to be very small
in number (Table 7). Instances of PTS that are incurred in marine
mammals would be of a low level, due to constant movement of the vessel
and of the marine mammals in the area, and the nature of the survey
design (not concentrated in areas of high marine mammal concentration);
The availability of alternate areas of similar habitat
value for marine mammals to temporarily vacate the survey area during
the survey to avoid exposure to sounds from the activity;
The project area does not contain areas of significance
for mating or calving;
The potential adverse effects on fish or invertebrate
species that serve as prey species for marine mammals from the survey
would be temporary and spatially limited;
The mitigation measures, including visual and acoustic
monitoring, power-downs, and shutdowns, are expected to minimize
potential impacts to marine mammals.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the monitoring and mitigation
measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from the planned
activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal
species or stocks.

Small Numbers

As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be
authorized under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified
activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not
define small numbers; so, in practice, where estimated numbers are
available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most
appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in
our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small
numbers of marine mammals. Additionally, other qualitative factors may
be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of
the activities. Table 7 provides numbers of take by Level A harassment
and Level B harassment authorized. These are the numbers we use for
purposes of the small numbers analysis.
The numbers of marine mammals that we authorize to be taken, for
all species and stocks, would be considered small relative to the
relevant stocks or populations (approximately 13 percent for rough-
toothed dolphin, and less than 8 percent for all other species and
stocks). For the blue whale, killer whale, humpback whale, minke whale
and spinner dolphin we propose to authorize take resulting from a
single exposure of one group of each species or stock, as appropriate
(using best available information on mean group size for these species
or stocks). We believe that a single incident of take of one group of
any of these species represents take of small numbers for that species
Based on the analysis contained herein of the activity (including
the mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of
marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be

[[Page 44581]]

taken relative to the population size of the affected species or
stocks.

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination

There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine
mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has
determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would
not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such
species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any
action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated
critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs,
NMFS consults internally, in this case with the ESA Interagency
Cooperation Division, whenever we propose to authorize take for
endangered or threatened species.
We (the NMFS OPR Permits and Conservation Division) are authorizing
the incidental take of four species of marine mammals which are listed
under the ESA: The sei, fin, blue and sperm whale. Under Section 7 of
the ESA, we initiated consultation with the NMFS OPR Interagency
Cooperation Division for the issuance of this IHA. In September, 2017,
the NMFS OPR Interagency Cooperation Division issued a Biological
Opinion with an incidental take statement, which concluded that the
issuance of the IHA was not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of sei, fin, blue and sperm whales. The Biological Opinion
also concluded that the issuance of the IHA would not destroy or
adversely modify designated critical habitat for these species.

Authorization

NMFS has issued an IHA to the University of Hawaii for the
potential harassment of small numbers of 24 marine mammal species
incidental to a marine geophysical survey in the central Pacific Ocean,
provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring and reporting
requirements are incorporated.

Dated: September 19, 2017.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-20362 Filed 9-22-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.