26968 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2018 / Notices 

preserved for subsequent histological 

analysis. 

The hook-and-line sampling would 

take place for 30 minutes at the same 

randomly-selected, stratified stations as 

the bottom longline, while anchored. At 

each station, hook-and-line gear would 

be fished using three lines, with each 

line having two circular hooks baited 

with squid. For each fishing trip, fishers 

will randomly space their hooks on the 

line and will retain all reef fish 

collected, except for parrotfish and 

Nassau and goliath groupers, which 

would be immediately returned to the 

water. For each hook-and-line set, the 

following data would be recorded: Date; 

time of EFP vessel trips (i.e., time of 

departure and return to dock); station 

location (latitude and longitude); fishing 

time to the nearest 10 minutes; weather 

conditions; depth; total number of 

hooked fish per vessel; number, weight, 

length, reproductive condition, and 

identification of reef fish per hook-andline; and stratified habitat type or 

substrate type. Each fish will be 

identified by hook-and-line position and 

by fisher. If the habitat or substrate type 

is unknown, it will be characterized 

whenever possible using drop cameras. 

Also at each station, a camera array 

would be deployed near the bottom 

longline for 30 minutes. The use of 

high-resolution digital video allows for 

accurate and precise reef fish species 

identification, counts, and size 

measurements. 

NMFS finds this application warrants 

further consideration based on a 

preliminary review. Possible conditions 

the agency may impose on this permit, 

if it is indeed granted, include but are 

not limited to, a prohibition on 

conducting research within marine 

protected areas, marine sanctuaries, or 

special management zones, without 

additional authorization, and requiring 

compliance with best practices in the 

event of interactions with any protected 

species. NMFS may also require DNER 

complete and submit periodic catch 

report forms summarizing the amount of 

reef fish species harvested during the 

seasonal closures and within the 

exempted closed areas, as well as during 

the period of effectiveness of any issued 

EFP. Additionally, NMFS would require 

any sea turtles taken incidentally during 

the course of fishing or scientific 

research activities to be handled with 

due care to prevent injury to live 

specimens, observed for activity, and 

returned to the water. 

A final decision on issuance of the 

EFP will depend on NMFS’ review of 

public comments received on the 

application, consultations with the 

affected state(s), the Council, and the 

U.S. Coast Guard, and a determination 

that it is consistent with all applicable 

laws. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: June 5, 2018. 

Jennifer M. Wallace, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–12420 Filed 6–8–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XG108 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Unexploded 

Ordnance Investigation Survey off the 

Coast of Virginia 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorization; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from Virginia Electric and Power 

Company d/b/a Dominion Energy 

Virginia (Dominion) for authorization to 

take marine mammals incidental to 

unexploded ordnance (UXO) 

investigation surveys off the coast of 

Virginia as part of site characterization 

surveys in the area of the Research 

Lease of Submerged Lands for 

Renewable Energy Development on the 

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS–A 0497) 

(Lease Area) and coastal waters where a 

cable route corridor will be established. 

Pursuant to the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is 

requesting comments on its proposal to 

issue an incidental harassment 

authorization (IHA) to incidentally take 

marine mammals during the specified 

activities. NMFS will consider public 

comments prior to making any final 

decision on the issuance of the 

requested MMPA authorizations and 

agency responses will be summarized in 

the final notice of our decision. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than July 11, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. Physical 

comments should be sent to 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 

and electronic comments should be sent 

to ITP.Youngkin@noaa.gov. 

Instructions: NMFS is not responsible 

for comments sent by any other method, 

to any other address or individual, or 

received after the end of the comment 

period. Comments received 

electronically, including all 

attachments, must not exceed a 25- 

megabyte file size. Attachments to 

electronic comments will be accepted in 

Microsoft Word or Excel or Adobe PDF 

file formats only. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted online at 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-other-energyactivities-renewable without change. All 

personal identifying information (e.g., 

name, address) voluntarily submitted by 

the commenter may be publicly 

accessible. Do not submit confidential 

business information or otherwise 

sensitive or protected information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dale 

Youngkin, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

Electronic copies of the applications 

and supporting documents, as well as a 

list of the references cited in this 

document, may be obtained by visiting 

the internet at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-otherenergy-activities-renewable. In case of 

problems accessing these documents, 

please call the contact listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the 

MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct 

the Secretary of Commerce (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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2018 / Notices 26969 

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, or 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. 

This action is consistent with 

categories of activities identified in 

Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental 

harassment authorizations with no 

anticipated serious injury or mortality) 

of the Companion Manual for NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6A, which do 

not individually or cumulatively have 

the potential for significant impacts on 

the quality of the human environment 

and for which we have not identified 

any extraordinary circumstances that 

would preclude this categorical 

exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has 

preliminarily determined that the 

issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies 

to be categorically excluded from 

further NEPA review. We will review all 

comments submitted in response to this 

notice prior to concluding our NEPA 

process or making a final decision on 

the IHA request. 

Summary of Request 

On March 7, 2018, NMFS received a 

request from Dominion for an IHA to 

take marine mammals incidental to high 

resolution geophysical (HRG) surveys 

off the coast of Virginia. The purpose of 

these surveys are to acquire data 

regarding the potential presence of UXO 

within the proposed construction and 

operational footprints of the Coastal 

Virginia Offshore Wind (CVOW) Project 

Area in the Lease Area and export cable 

route construction corridor (Survey 

Area). A revised application was 

received on April 26, 2018. NMFS 

deemed that request to be adequate and 

complete. Dominion’s request is for take 

of nine marine mammal species by 

Level B harassment. Neither Dominion 

nor NMFS expects injury, serious injury 

or mortality to result from this activity 

and the activity is expected to last no 

more than one year, therefore, an IHA is 

appropriate. 

Description of the Proposed Activity 

Overview 

Dominion proposes to conduct marine 

site characterization surveys including 

HRG surveys to search for UXO in the 

marine environment of the 

approximately 2,135-acre Lease Area 

located offshore of Virginia (see Figure 

1–1 in the IHA application). 

Additionally, an export cable route will 

be established between the Lease Area 

and Virginia Beach, identified as the 

Export Cable Route Area (see Figure 1 

in the IHA application). See the IHA 

application for further information. The 

survey area consists of two 1-kilometer 

(km) X 1-km turbine position locations, 

a 2 km by 300 meter (m) Inter-array 

cable route connecting the two turbine 

position locations, and a 43-km X 300 

m Export Corridor Route. For the 

purpose of this IHA, the survey area is 

designated as the Lease Area and cable 

route corridors. Water depths across the 

Lease Area are estimated to range from 

approximately 8 to 40 m (26 to 131 feet 

(ft)) while the cable route corridors will 

extend to shallow water areas near 

landfall locations. Surveys would begin 

no earlier than August 1, 2018 and are 

anticipated to last for up to three 

months. 

The purpose of the marine site 

characterization surveys are to acquire 

data regarding the potential presence of 

UXO within the proposed construction 

and operational footprints of the CVOW 

Project Area (i.e., export cable 

construction corridor, inter-array cable 

area, and wind turbine positions) in 

accordance with the Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management (BOEM) guidelines 

for archaeology surveys as well as 

geophysical activities. No removal of 

ordnance would be conducted as a part 

of the activities. Underwater sound 

resulting from Dominion’s proposed 

HRG surveys for UXO have the potential 

to result in incidental take of marine 

mammals in the form of harassment. 

Dates and Duration 

Surveys will last for approximately 

three months and are anticipated to 

commence no earlier than August 1, 

2018. This schedule is based on 24-hour 

operations and includes potential down 

time due to inclement weather. Based 

on 24-hour operations, the estimated 

duration of the HRG survey activities 

would be approximately 60 days for the 

export cable route corridor and 

approximately 15 days each for the 

inter-array cable route and wind turbine 

positions. 

Specific Geographic Region 

Dominion’s survey activities will 

occur in the approximately 2,135-acre 

Research Lease Area located off the 

coast of Virginia (see Figure 1 in the 

IHA application). Additionally, a cable 

route corridor would be surveyed 

between the Lease Area and the coast of 

Virginia. The cable route corridor to be 

surveyed is anticipated to be 300 m 

wide and 43 km long. The wind turbine 

positions to be surveyed are 2 

approximately 1 km X 1 km square areas 

connected by an inter-array cable route 

that is 300 m wide and 2 km in length. 

Detailed Description of the Specified 

Activities 

Dominion’s proposed marine site 

characterization surveys include HRG 

survey activities. These activities are 

described below. 

HRG Survey Activities 

The HRG survey activities proposed 

by Dominion would include the 

following: 

• Depth sounding (multibeam 

echosounder) to determine water depths 

and general bottom topography 

(currently estimated to range from 

approximately 8 to 40 m (26 to 131 ft) 

in depth); 

• Magnetic intensity measurements 

for detecting local variations in regional 

magnetic field from geological strata and 

potential ferrous objects on and below 

the bottom; 

• Seafloor imaging (sidescan sonar 

survey) for seabed sediment 

classification purposes, to identify 

acoustic targets resting on the bottom or 

that are partially buried; 

• Shallow penetration sub-bottom 

profiler (pinger/chirp) to map the near 

surface stratigraphy (top 0 to 5 m (0 to 

16 ft) of soils below seabed); and 

• Medium penetration sub-bottom 

profiler (sparker) to map deeper 

subsurface stratigraphy as needed (soils 

down to 20 m (66 ft) below seabed). 

Table 1 identifies the representative 

survey equipment that may be used in 

support of planned HRG survey 

activities. The make and model of the 

listed HRG equipment will vary 

depending on availability but will be 

finalized as part of the survey 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
26970 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2018 / Notices 

preparations and contract negotiations 

with the survey contractor. The final 

selection of the survey equipment will 

be confirmed prior to the start of the 

HRG survey program. Any survey 

equipment selected would have 

characteristics similar to the systems 

described below, if different. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF HRG SURVEY EQUIPMENT PROPOSED FOR USE BY DOMINION

HRG system Representative HRG survey 

equipment 

Operating 

frequencies 

RMS source 

level 1

Peak source 

level 1

Beamwidth 

(degree) 

Pulse duration 

(millisec) 

Subsea Positioning/USBL .................. Sonardyne Ranger 2 USBL .............. 35–50kHz ........ 188 dBrms ........ 200 dBPeak ...... 180 1. 

Sidescan Sonar .................................. Klein 300H Sidescan Sonar .............. 445/900 kHz * .. 242 dBrms ....... 226 dBPeak ...... 0.2 0.0025 to 0.4. 

Pinger/Chirper .................................... GeoPulse Sub-Bottom Profiler .......... 1.5–19 kHz ...... 208 dBrms ....... 223.5 dBPeak ... 55 0.1 to 1. 

Sparker ............................................... Geo-Source 600/800 ......................... 50 Hz–5 kHz ... 221/217 dBrms 222/223 dBPeak 110 0.8. 

Multibeam Sonar ................................ SeaBat 7125 ...................................... 200/400 kHz * .. 221 dBrms ........ 220 dBPeak ...... 2 2 to 6. 

Medium Sub-Bottom Profiler .............. Innomar 100 ...................................... 85–115 kHz ..... 243 dBrms ........ 250 dBPeak ...... 1 0.07 to 2. 

1Source levels reported by manufacturer. 

* Operating frequencies are above all relevant marine mammal hearing thresholds, so are not assessed in this IHA. 

The HRG survey activities would be 

supported by up to two vessels. 

Assuming a maximum survey track line 

to fully cover the survey area, the 

assigned vessels will be sufficient in 

size to accomplish the survey goals in 

specific survey areas and will be 

capable of maintaining both the 

required course and survey speed of 

approximately 4.0 nautical miles per 

hour (mph) (knot (kn)) while transiting 

survey lines. 

To minimize cost, the duration of 

survey activities, and the period of 

potential impact on marine species 

while surveying, Dominion has 

proposed that HRG survey operations 

would be conducted continuously 24 

hours per day. Based on 24-hour 

operations, the estimated duration of the 

HRG survey activities would be 

approximately three months (including 

estimated weather down time) including 

60 survey days in the export cable route 

and 15 survey days each in the interarray cable route corridor and wind 

turbine positions. 

The deployment of HRG survey 

equipment, including the equipment 

planned for use during Dominion’s 

planned activity, produces sound in the 

marine environment that has the 

potential to result in harassment of 

marine mammals. Based on the 

frequency ranges and source levels of 

the potential equipment planned to be 

used in support of HRG survey activities 

(Table 1) the survey activities that have 

the potential to cause Level B 

harassment to marine mammals include 

the noise produced by the 800 kilojoule 

(kJ) Geo-Source sparker, the GeoPulse 

sub-bottom profiler (pinger), and the 

Innomar Medium 100 sub-bottom 

profiler. We note here that the operating 

frequencies for all but the Innomar 

Medium 100 sub-bottom profiler are in 

the best hearing range for all marine 

mammal species that may potentially 

occur in the project area. However, the 

Innomar Medium 100 sub-bottom 

profiler operating frequencies are 

outside of the best hearing range for 

low-frequency (LF) cetacean species 

(refer to Marine Mammal subsection 

below for more detail on marine 

mammal hearing groups). Level A 

harassment may occur at distances from 

the Innomar 100 sub-bottom profiler 

solely for high-frequency (HF) cetaceans 

(harbor porpoise), though it is very 

unlikely to occur due to the one degree 

beam width. For the LF and midfrequency (MF) cetaceans, Level A 

harassment could only potentially occur 

so close to the HRG source such that 

Level A harassment is not anticipated, 

especially in consideration of the 

hearing ranges for LF cetaceans and 

with implementation of monitoring and 

mitigation measures (described in more 

detail in the ‘‘Estimated Take’’ and 

‘‘Proposed Mitigation’’ sections below). 

Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting measures are described in 

detail later in this document (please see 

‘‘Proposed Mitigation’’ and ‘‘Proposed 

Monitoring and Reporting’’). 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activity 

Sections 3 and 4 of Dominion’s IHA 

application summarize available 

information regarding status and trends, 

distribution and habitat preferences, 

and behavior and life history, of the 

potentially affected marine mammal 

species. Additional information 

regarding population trends and threats 

may be found in NMFS’s Stock 

Assessment Reports (SAR; 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-stock-assessments) and more 

general information about these species 

(e.g., physical and behavioral 

descriptions) may be found on NMFS’s 

website (www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

species-directory). 

Table 2 lists all species with expected 

potential for occurrence in the survey 

area and summarizes information 

related to the population or stock, 

including regulatory status under the 

MMPA and Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) and potential biological removal 

(PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we 

follow Committee on Taxonomy (2017). 

PBR is defined by the MMPA as the 

maximum number of animals, not 

including natural mortalities, that may 

be removed from a marine mammal 

stock while allowing that stock to reach 

or maintain its optimum sustainable 

population (as described in NMFS’s 

SARs). While no mortality is anticipated 

or authorized here, PBR is 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’s 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’s U.S. 2017 draft SARs (e.g., 

Hayes et al., 2018). All values presented 

in Table 2 are the most recent available 

at the time of publication and are 

available in the 2017 draft SARs (Hayes 

et al., 2018). 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2018 / Notices 26971 

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMALS WITH POTENTIAL OCCURRENCE IN THE SURVEY AREA

Common name Stock 

NMFS 

MMPA 

and ESA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock 

abundance 

(CV,Nmin) 2

PBR 3 Occurrence and seasonality 

in the NW Atlantic OCS 

Toothed whales (Odontoceti) 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin 

(Lagenorhynchus acutus).

W North Atlantic ....... -; N 48,819 (0.61; 30,403) ..... 304 rare. 

Atlantic spotted dolphin (Stenella frontalis) .. W North Atlantic ....... -; N 44,715 (0.43; 31,610) ..... 316 rare. 

Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) ....... W North Atlantic, 

Southern Migratory 

Coastal.

-; Y 3,751 (0.60; 2,353) ......... 23 Common year round. 

Clymene dolphin (Stenella clymene) ............ W North Atlantic ....... -; N Unknown (unk; unk; n/a) Undet rare. 

Pantropical Spotted dolphin (Stenella 

attenuata).

W North Atlantic ....... -; N 3,333 (0.91; 1,733) ......... 17 rare. 

Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus) ............... W North Atlantic ....... -; N 18,250 (0.46; 12,619) ..... 126 rare. 

Common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) ........... W North Atlantic ....... -; N 70,184 (0.28; 55,690) ..... 557 Common year round. 

Striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba) ........ W North Atlantic ....... -; N 54,807 (0.3; 42,804) ....... 428 rare. 

Spinner Dolphin (Stenella longirostris) ......... W North Atlantic ....... -; N Unknown (unk; unk; n/a) Undet rare. 

Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) ........ Gulf of Maine/Bay of 

Fundy.

-; N 79,833 (0.32; 61,415) ..... 706 Common year round. 

Killer whale (Orcinus orca) ............................ W North Atlantic ....... -; N Unknown (unk; unk; n/a) Undet rare. 

False killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) ... W North Atlantic ....... -; Y 442 (1.06; 212) ............... 2.1 rare. 

Long-finned pilot whale (Globicephala 

melas).

W North Atlantic ....... -; Y 5,636 (0.63; 3,464) ......... 35 rare. 

Short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala 

macrorhynchus).

W North Atlantic ....... -; Y 21,515 (0.37; 15,913) ..... 159 rare. 

Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) ...... North Atlantic ........... E; Y 2,288 (0.28; 1,815) ......... 3.6 Year round in continental shelf and slope 

waters, occur seasonally to forage. 

Pygmy sperm whale 4 (Kogia breviceps) ...... W North Atlantic ....... -; N 3,785 (0.47; 2,598) ......... 26 rare. 

Dwarf sperm whale 4 (Kogia sima) ............... W North Atlantic ....... -; N 3,785 (0.47; 2,598) ......... 26 rare. 

Cuvier’s beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris) W North Atlantic ....... -; N 6,532 (0.32; 5,021) ......... 50 rare. 

Blainville’s beaked whale 5 (Mesoplodon 

densirostris).

W North Atlantic ....... -; N 7,092 (0.54; 4,632) ......... 46 rare. 

Gervais’ beaked whale 5 (Mesoplodon 

europaeus).

W North Atlantic ....... -; N 7,092 (0.54; 4,632) ......... 46 rare. 

True’s beaked whale 5 (Mesoplodon mirus) W North Atlantic ....... -; N 7,092 (0.54; 4,632) ......... 46 rare. 

Sowerby’s Beaked Whale 5 (Mesoplodon 

bidens).

W North Atlantic ....... -; N 7,092 (0.54; 4,632) ......... 46 rare. 

Melon-headed whale (Peponocephala 

electra).

W North Atlantic ....... -; N Unknown (unk; unk; n/a) Undet rare. 

Baleen whales (Mysticeti) 

Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) ... Canadian East Coast -; N 2,591 (0.81; 1,425) ......... 14 Year round in continental shelf and slope 

waters, occur seasonally to forage. 

Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) ........... W North Atlantic ....... E; Y Unknown (unk; 440) ....... 0.9 Year round in continental shelf and slope 

waters, occur seasonally to forage. 

Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) .............. W North Atlantic ....... E; Y 1,618 (0.33; 1,234) ......... 2.5 Year round in continental shelf and slope 

waters, occur seasonally to forage. 

Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) Gulf of Maine ........... -; Y 335 (0.42; 239) ............... 3.7 Common year round. 

North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena 

glacialis).

W North Atlantic ....... E; Y 458 (0; 455) .................... 1.4 Year round in continental shelf and slope 

waters, occur seasonally to forage. 

Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) ................ Nova Scotia ............. E; Y 357 (0.52; 236) ............... 0.5 Year round in continental shelf and slope 

waters, occur seasonally to forage. 

Earless seals (Phocidae) 

Gray seal 6 (Halichoerus grypus) .................. W North Atlantic ....... -; N 27,131 (0.10; 25,908) ..... 1,554 Unlikely. 

Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) ......................... W North Atlantic ....... -; N 75,834 (0.15; 66,884) ..... 2,006 Common year round. 

Hooded seal (Cystophora cristata) ............... W North Atlantic ....... -; N Unknown (unk; unk) ....... Undet rare. 

Harp seal (Phoca groenlandica) ................... North Atlantic ........... -; N Unknown (unk; unk) ....... Undet rare. 

1ESA 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 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. All values presented here are from the 2017 Draft Atlantic SARs. 3Potential biological removal, 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). 4Abundance estimate includes both dwarf and pygmy sperm whales. 

5Abundance estimate includes all species of Mesoplodon in the Atlantic. 6Abundance estimate applies to U.S. population only, actual abundance, including those occurring in Canada, is estimated at 505,000. 

All species that could potentially 

occur in the proposed survey areas are 

included in Table 2. However, the 

temporal and/or spatial occurrence for 

all but 11 of the species listed in Table 

2 is such that take of these species is not 

expected to occur, and they are not 

discussed further beyond the 

explanation provided here. Take of 

these species is not anticipated either 

because they have very low densities in 

the project area, are known to occur 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
26972 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2018 / Notices 

further offshore or further north than the 

project area, or are considered very 

unlikely to occur in the project area 

during the proposed survey due to the 

species’ seasonal occurrence in the area. 

The 11 species/stocks evaluated for 

incidental take include: North Atlantic 

right whale; humpback whale; fin 

whale; minke whale; Atlantic whitesided dolphin; common dolphin; 

bottlenose dolphin; Atlantic spotted 

dolphin; long-finned pilot whale; shortfinned pilot whale; and harbor porpoise. 

Five marine mammal species listed in 

Table 2 are listed under the ESA and are 

known to be present, at least seasonally, 

in waters of the mid-Atlantic (sperm 

whale, north Atlantic right whale, fin 

whale, blue whale, and sei whale). All 

of these species are highly migratory 

and do not spend extended periods of 

time in the localized survey area. The 

offshore waters of Virginia (including 

the survey area) are primarily used as a 

migration corridor for these species, 

particularly north Atlantic right whales, 

during seasonal movements north or 

south between feeding and breeding 

grounds (Knowlton et al., 2002; 

Firestone et al., 2008). While fin and 

north Atlantic right whales have the 

potential to occur within the survey 

area, sperm, blue, and sei whales are 

more pelagic and/or northern species 

and their presence within the survey 

area is unlikely (Waring et al., 2007; 

2010; 2012; 2013) and these species are 

therefore not considered further in this 

analysis. In addition, while stranding 

data exists for harbor and gray seals 

along the mid-Atlantic coast south of 

New Jersey, their preference for colder, 

northern waters during the survey 

period makes their presence in the 

survey area unlikely. Winter haulout 

sites for harbor seals have been 

identified within the Chesapeake Bay 

region. However, the seals are not 

present during the summer and fall 

months when the survey activities are 

planned (Waring et al., 2016). In 

addition, coastal Virginia represents the 

southern extent of the habitat range for 

gray seals, with few stranding records 

reported and sightings only occur 

during winter months as far south as 

New Jersey (Waring et al., 2016). 

Therefore pinniped species will not be 

discussed further in this analysis. 

Below is a description of the species 

that are both common in the survey area 

and that have the highest likelihood of 

occurring, at least seasonally, in the 

survey area and are thus have potential 

to be taken by the proposed activities. 

North Atlantic Right Whale 

The North Atlantic right whale ranges 

from the calving grounds in the 

southeastern United States to feeding 

grounds in New England waters and 

into Canadian waters (Waring et al., 

2016). Surveys have demonstrated the 

existence of seven areas where North 

Atlantic right whales congregate 

seasonally, including Georges Bank, 

Cape Cod, and Massachusetts Bay 

(Waring et al., 2016). In the late fall 

months (e.g. October), right whales 

generally disappear from the feeding 

grounds in the North Atlantic and move 

south to their breeding grounds. The 

proposed survey area is within the 

North Atlantic right whale migratory 

corridor. During the proposed survey 

(i.e., March through August) right 

whales may be migrating through the 

proposed survey area and the 

surrounding waters. 

The western North Atlantic 

population demonstrated overall growth 

of 2.8 percent per year between 1990 to 

2010, despite a decline in 1993 and no 

growth between 1997 and 2000 (Pace et 

al., 2017). However, since 2010 the 

population has been in decline, with a 

99.99 percent probability of a decline of 

just under 1 percent per year (Pace et 

al., 2017). Between 1990 and 2015, 

calving rates varied substantially, with 

low calving rates coinciding with all 

three periods of decline or no growth 

(Pace et al., 2017). On average, North 

Atlantic right whale calving rates are 

estimated to be roughly half that of 

southern right whales (Eubalaena 

australis) (Pace et al. 2017), which are 

increasing in abundance (NMFS 2015). 

The current abundance estimate for 

this stock is 458 individuals (Hayes et 

al., 2018). Data indicates that the 

number of adult females fell from 200 in 

2010 to 186 in 2015 while males fell 

from 283 to 272 in the same timeframe 

(Pace et al., 2017). In addition, elevated 

North Atlantic right whale mortalities 

have occurred since June 7, 2017. A 

total of 18 confirmed dead stranded 

whales (12 in Canada; 6 in the United 

States), with an additional 5 live whale 

entanglements in Canada, have been 

documented to date. This event has 

been declared an Unusual Mortality 

Event (UME). More information is 

available online at: http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/ 

2017northatlanticrightwhaleume.html. 

The lease area is part of a biologically 

important migratory area for North 

Atlantic right whales; this important 

migratory area is comprised of the 

waters of the continental shelf offshore 

the east coast of the United States and 

extends from Florida through 

Massachusetts. Given the limited spatial 

extent of the proposed survey and the 

large spatial extent of the migratory 

area, we do not expect North Atlantic 

right whale migration to be negatively 

impacted by the proposed survey. There 

is no designated critical habitat for any 

ESA-listed marine mammals in the 

proposed survey area. NMFS’ 

regulations at 50 CFR 224.105 

designated the nearshore waters of the 

Mid-Atlantic Bight as the Mid-Atlantic 

U.S. Seasonal Management Area (SMA) 

for right whales in 2008. Mandatory 

vessel speed restrictions (less than 10 

kn) are in place in that SMA from 

November 1 through April 30 to reduce 

the threat of collisions between ships 

and right whales around their migratory 

route and calving grounds. 

Humpback Whale 

Humpback whales are found 

worldwide in all oceans. The humpback 

whale population within the North 

Atlantic has been estimated to include 

approximately 11,570 individuals 

(Waring et al., 2016). Humpbacks occur 

off southern New England in all four 

seasons, with peak abundance in spring 

and summer. In winter, humpback 

whales from waters off New England, 

Canada, Greenland, Iceland, and 

Norway migrate to mate and calve 

primarily in the West Indies (including 

the Antilles, the Dominican Republic, 

the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico), 

where spatial and genetic mixing among 

these groups occurs (Waring et al., 

2015). While migrating, humpback 

whales utilize the mid-Atlantic as a 

migration pathway between calving/ 

mating grounds to the south and feeding 

grounds in the north (Waring et al. 

2007). 

Since January 2016, elevated 

humpback whale mortalities have 

occurred along the Atlantic coast from 

Maine through North Carolina. This 

event has been declared a UME. Partial 

or full necropsy examinations have been 

conducted on approximately half of the 

68 known cases. A portion of the whales 

have shown evidence of pre-mortem 

vessel strike; however, this finding is 

not consistent across all of the whales 

examined so more research is needed. 

NOAA is consulting with researchers 

that are conducting studies on the 

humpback whale populations, and these 

efforts may provide information on 

changes in whale distribution and 

habitat use that could provide 

additional insight into how these vessel 

interactions occurred. Three previous 

UMEs involving humpback whales have 

occurred since 2000, in 2003, 2005, and 

2006. More information is available at 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/ 

2017humpbackatlanticume.html. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2018 / Notices 26973 

Fin Whale 

Fin whales are common in waters of 

the U.S. Atlantic Exclusive Economic 

Zone (EEZ), principally from Cape 

Hatteras northward (Waring et al., 

2016). Fin whales are present north of 

35-degree latitude in every season and 

are broadly distributed throughout the 

western North Atlantic for most of the 

year (Waring et al., 2016). Fin whales 

are found in small groups of up to 5 

individuals (Brueggeman et al., 1987). 

The current abundance estimate for the 

western North Atlantic stock of fin 

whales is 1,618 individuals (Hayes et 

al., 2017). 

Minke Whale 

Minke whales can be found in 

temperate, tropical, and high-latitude 

waters. The Canadian East Coast stock 

can be found in the area from the 

western half of the Davis Strait (45° W) 

to the Gulf of Mexico (Waring et al., 

2016). This species generally occupies 

waters less than 100 m deep on the 

continental shelf. There appears to be a 

strong seasonal component to minke 

whale distribution in which spring to 

fall are times of relatively widespread 

and common occurrence, and when the 

whales are most abundant in New 

England waters, while during winter the 

species appears to be largely absent 

(Waring et al., 2016). 

Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin 

White-sided dolphins are found in 

temperate and sub-polar waters of the 

North Atlantic, primarily in continental 

shelf waters to the 100-m depth contour 

from central West Greenland to North 

Carolina (Waring et al., 2016). There are 

three stock units: Gulf of Maine, Gulf of 

St. Lawrence, and Labrador Sea stocks 

(Palka et al., 1997). The Gulf of Maine 

population of white-sided dolphins is 

most common in continental shelf 

waters from Hudson Canyon 

(approximately 39° N) to Georges Bank, 

and in the Gulf of Maine and lower Bay 

of Fundy. Sighting data indicate 

seasonal shifts in distribution 

(Northridge et al., 1997). During January 

to May, low numbers of white-sided 

dolphins are found from Georges Bank 

to Jeffreys Ledge (off New Hampshire), 

with even lower numbers south of 

Georges Bank, as documented by a few 

strandings collected on beaches of 

Virginia to South Carolina. From June 

through September, large numbers of 

white-sided dolphins are found from 

Georges Bank to the lower Bay of 

Fundy. From October to December, 

white-sided dolphins occur at 

intermediate densities from southern 

Georges Bank to southern Gulf of Maine 

(Payne and Heinemann 1990). Sightings 

south of Georges Bank, particularly 

around Hudson Canyon, occur year 

round but at low densities. The current 

abundance estimate for this stock is 

48,819 (Hayes et al., 2017). The main 

threat to this species is interactions with 

fisheries. 

Common Dolphin 

The common dolphin is found 

worldwide in temperate to subtropical 

seas. In the North Atlantic, short-beaked 

common dolphins are commonly found 

over the continental shelf between the 

100-m and 2000-m isobaths and over 

prominent underwater topography and 

east to the mid-Atlantic Ridge (Waring 

et al., 2016). Only the western North 

Atlantic stock may be present in the 

Lease Area. The current abundance 

estimate for this stock is 70,184 animals 

(Hayes et al., 2017). The main threat to 

this species is interactions with 

fisheries. 

Bottlenose Dolphin 

Bottlenose dolphins occur in oceans 

and peripheral seas at both tropical and 

temperate latitudes. The population of 

bottlenose dolphins in the North 

Atlantic consists of a complex mosaic of 

stocks (Waring et al., 2016). There are 

two distinct morphotypes: Migratory 

coastal and offshore. The migratory 

coastal morphotype resides in waters 

typically less than 20 m (65.6 ft) deep, 

along the inner continental shelf, 

around islands, and is continuously 

distributed south of Long Island, NY 

into the Gulf of Mexico. This migratory 

coastal population is subdivided into 

seven stocks based largely upon spatial 

distribution (Waring et al., 2016). Of 

these seven coastal stocks, the Western 

North Atlantic migratory coastal stock is 

common in the coastal continental shelf 

water off the North Carolina/Virginia 

border Waring et al., 2016). There are 

northern and southern Western North 

Atlantic migratory coastal stocks, and 

we would anticipate the southern stock 

to be present in the survey area. These 

animals move into or reside in bays, 

estuaries, lower reaches of rivers, and 

coastal waters within the approximately 

25 m depth isobath north of Cape 

Hatteras (Reeves et al., 2002; Waring et 

al., 2016). During winter, bottlenose 

dolphins are rarely observed north of 

the North Carolina/Virginia border 

(Waring et al., 2016). 

Generally, the offshore migratory 

morphotype is found exclusively 

seaward of 34 km (21 miles) and in 

waters deeper than 34 m (111.5 ft). The 

offshore population extends along the 

entire continental shelf break from 

Georges Bank to Florida during the 

spring and summer months, and has 

been observed in the Gulf of Maine 

during the late summer and fall. 

However, the range of the offshore 

morphotype south of Cape Hatteras has 

recently been found to overlap with that 

of the migratory coastal morphotype in 

water depths of 13 m (42.7 ft) (Waring 

et al., 2016; Hayes et al., 2017). The 

main threat to this species is human 

interaction due to interactions with 

commercial fisheries (Waring et al., 

2016). They have also been adversely 

affected by pollution, habitat alteration, 

boat collisions, human disturbance, and 

are subject to bioaccumulation of toxins. 

Atlantic Spotted Dolphin 

There are two species of spotted 

dolphin in the Atlantic Ocean, the 

Atlantic spotted dolphin, and the 

pantropical spotted dolphin (Perrin 

1987). Where they co-occur, the two 

species can be difficult to differentiate. 

In addition, two forms of the Atlantic 

spotted dolphin exist with one that is 

large and heavily spotted and the other 

smaller in size with less spots (Waring 

et al., 2016). The larger form is 

associated with continental shelf habitat 

while the smaller form is more pelagic, 

preferring offshore waters and waters 

around oceanic islands (Perrin, 2009; 

1994). The Atlantic spotted dolphin 

prefers tropical to warm temperate 

waters along the continental shelf 10 to 

200 m (33 to 650 ft) deep to slope waters 

greater than 500 m (1,640 ft). 

Risso’s Dolphin 

Risso’s dolphin is typically an 

offshore dolphin that is uncommon to 

see inshore (Reeves et al., 2002). Risso’s 

dolphin prefers temperate to tropical 

waters along the continental shelf edge 

and can range from Cape Hatteras to 

Georges Bank from spring through fall, 

and throughout the mid-Atlantic Bight 

out to oceanic waters during winter 

(Payne et al., 1984). Risso’s dolphins are 

usually seen in groups of 12 to 40, but 

loose aggregations of 100 to 200 or more 

are seen occasionally (Reeves et al., 

2002). 

Long-Finned and Short-Finned Pilot 

Whales 

The two species of pilot whales in the 

western Atlantic are difficult to 

differentiate. Therefore, both species are 

presented together, since much of the 

data is generalized for these species. 

Both species are generally found along 

the edge of the continental shelf at 

depths of 100 to 1,000 m (330 to 3,300 

ft) in areas of high reliefs or submerged 

banks. In the western North Atlantic, 

long-finned pilot whales are pelagic, 

occurring in especially high densities in 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
26974 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2018 / Notices 

winter and spring over the continental 

slope, then moving inshore and onto the 

shelf in summer and fall following 

squid and mackerel populations (Reeves 

et al., 2002). Short-finned pilot whales 

prefer tropical, subtropical and warm 

temperate waters (Olsen, 2009). The 

short-finned pilot whale ranges from 

New Jersey south through Florida, the 

northern Gulf of Mexico, and the 

Caribbean (Warring et al., 2011). 

Populations for both of these species 

overlap between North Carolina and 

New Jersey (Waring et al., 2012; 2011) 

Harbor Porpoise 

In the Lease Area, only the Gulf of 

Maine/Bay of Fundy stock may be 

present. This stock is found in U.S. and 

Canadian Atlantic waters and is 

concentrated in the northern Gulf of 

Maine and southern Bay of Fundy 

region, generally in waters less than 150 

m deep (Waring et al., 2016). They are 

seen from the coastline to deep waters 

(>1,800 m; Westgate et al. 1998), 

although the majority of the population 

is found over the continental shelf 

(Waring et al., 2016). Average group size 

for this stock in the Bay of Fundy is 

approximately four individuals (Palka 

2007). The current abundance estimate 

for this stock is 79,883 (Hayes et al., 

2017). The main threat to this species is 

interactions with fisheries, with 

documented take in the U.S. northeast 

sink gillnet, mid-Atlantic gillnet, and 

northeast bottom trawl fisheries and in 

the Canadian herring weir fisheries 

(Waring et al., 2016). 

Marine Mammal Hearing 

Hearing is the most important sensory 

modality for marine mammals 

underwater, and exposure to 

anthropogenic sound can have 

deleterious effects. To appropriately 

assess the potential effects of exposure 

to sound, it is necessary to understand 

the frequency ranges marine mammals 

are able to hear. Current data indicate 

that not all marine mammal species 

have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., 

Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and 

Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). 

To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007) 

recommended that marine mammals be 

divided into functional hearing groups 

based on directly measured or estimated 

hearing ranges on the basis of available 

behavioral response data, audiograms 

derived using auditory evoked potential 

techniques, anatomical modeling, and 

other data. Note that no direct 

measurements of hearing ability have 

been successfully completed for 

mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency 

cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2016) 

described generalized hearing ranges for 

these marine mammal hearing groups. 

Generalized hearing ranges were chosen 

based on the approximately 65 decibels 

(dB) threshold from the normalized 

composite audiograms, with the 

exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower 

bound was deemed to be biologically 

implausible and the lower bound from 

Southall et al. (2007) retained. The 

functional groups and the associated 

frequencies are indicated below (note 

that these frequency ranges correspond 

to the range for the composite group, 

with the entire range not necessarily 

reflecting the capabilities of every 

species within that group): 

• Low-frequency cetaceans 

(mysticetes): Generalized hearing is 

estimated to occur between 

approximately 7 Hertz (Hz) and 35 

kilohertz (kHz); 

• Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger 

toothed whales, beaked whales, and 

most delphinids): Generalized hearing is 

estimated to occur between 

approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz; 

• High-frequency cetaceans 

(porpoises, river dolphins, and members 

of the genera Kogia and 

Cephalorhynchus; including two 

members of the genus Lagenorhynchus, 

on the basis of recent echolocation data 

and genetic data): Generalized hearing is 

estimated to occur between 

approximately 275 Hz and 160 kHz. 

• Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true 

seals): Generalized hearing is estimated 

to occur between approximately 50 Hz 

to 86 kHz; 

The pinniped functional hearing 

group was modified from Southall et al. 

(2007) on the basis of data indicating 

that phocid species have consistently 

demonstrated an extended frequency 

range of hearing compared to otariids, 

especially in the higher frequency range 

(Hemila ̈ et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 

2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013). 

For more detail concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 

please see NMFS (2016) for a review of 

available information. Eleven marine 

mammal species (all cetacean species) 

have the reasonable potential to cooccur with the proposed survey 

activities. Please refer to Table 2. Of the 

species that may be present, four are 

classified as low-frequency cetaceans 

(i.e., all mysticete species), six are 

classified as mid-frequency cetaceans 

(i.e., all delphinid species), and one is 

classified as a high-frequency cetacean 

(i.e., harbor porpoise). 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

This section includes a summary and 

discussion of the ways that components 

of the specified activity may impact 

marine mammals and their habitat. The 

‘‘Estimated Take’’ section later in this 

document includes a quantitative 

analysis of the number of individuals 

that are expected to be taken by this 

activity. The ‘‘Negligible Impact 

Analysis and Determination’’ section 

considers the content of this section, the 

‘‘Estimated Take’’ section, and the 

‘‘Proposed Mitigation’’ section, to draw 

conclusions regarding the likely impacts 

of these activities on the reproductive 

success or survivorship of individuals 

and how those impacts on individuals 

are likely to impact marine mammal 

species or stocks. 

Background on Sound 

Sound is a physical phenomenon 

consisting of minute vibrations that 

travel through a medium, such as air or 

water, and is generally characterized by 

several variables. Frequency describes 

the sound’s pitch and is measured in Hz 

or kHz, while sound level describes the 

sound’s intensity and is measured in 

dB. Sound level increases or decreases 

exponentially with each dB of change. 

The logarithmic nature of the scale 

means that each 10-dB increase is a 10- 

fold increase in acoustic power (and a 

20-dB increase is then a 100-fold 

increase in power). A 10-fold increase in 

acoustic power does not mean that the 

sound is perceived as being 10 times 

louder, however. Sound levels are 

compared to a reference sound pressure 

(micro Pascal) to identify the medium. 

For air and water, these reference 

pressures are ‘‘re: 20 micro Pascals 

(mPa)’’ and ‘‘re: 1 mPa,’’ respectively. 

Root mean square (rms) is the quadratic 

mean sound pressure over the duration 

of an impulse. Rms is calculated by 

squaring all of the sound amplitudes, 

averaging the squares, and then taking 

the square root of the average (Urick 

1975). Rms accounts for both positive 

and negative values; squaring the 

pressures makes all values positive so 

that they may be accounted for in the 

summation of pressure levels. This 

measurement is often used in the 

context of discussing behavioral effects, 

in part because behavioral effects, 

which often result from auditory cues, 

may be better expressed through 

averaged units rather than by peak 

pressures. 

When sound travels (propagates) from 

its source, its loudness decreases as the 

distance traveled by the sound 

increases. Thus, the loudness of a sound 

at its source is higher than the loudness 

of that same sound one km away. 

Acousticians often refer to the loudness 

of a sound at its source (typically 

referenced to one m from the source) as 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2018 / Notices 26975 

the source level and the loudness of 

sound elsewhere as the received level 

(i.e., typically the receiver). For 

example, a humpback whale 3 km from 

a device that has a source level of 230 

dB may only be exposed to sound that 

is 160 dB loud, depending on how the 

sound travels through water (e.g., 

spherical spreading (6 dB reduction 

with doubling of distance) was used in 

this example). As a result, it is 

important to understand the difference 

between source levels and received 

levels when discussing the loudness of 

sound in the ocean or its impacts on the 

marine environment. 

As sound travels from a source, its 

propagation in water is influenced by 

various physical characteristics, 

including water temperature, depth, 

salinity, and surface and bottom 

properties that cause refraction, 

reflection, absorption, and scattering of 

sound waves. Oceans are not 

homogeneous and the contribution of 

each of these individual factors is 

extremely complex and interrelated. 

The physical characteristics that 

determine the sound’s speed through 

the water will change with depth, 

season, geographic location, and with 

time of day (as a result, in actual active 

sonar operations, crews will measure 

oceanic conditions, such as sea water 

temperature and depth, to calibrate 

models that determine the path the 

sonar signal will take as it travels 

through the ocean and how strong the 

sound signal will be at a given range 

along a particular transmission path). As 

sound travels through the ocean, the 

intensity associated with the wavefront 

diminishes, or attenuates. This decrease 

in intensity is referred to as propagation 

loss, also commonly called transmission 

loss. 

Acoustic Impacts 

Geophysical (HRG) surveys may 

temporarily impact marine mammals in 

the area due to elevated in-water sound 

levels. Marine mammals are continually 

exposed to many sources of sound. 

Naturally occurring sounds such as 

lightning, rain, sub-sea earthquakes, and 

biological sounds (e.g., snapping 

shrimp, whale songs) are widespread 

throughout the world’s oceans. Marine 

mammals produce sounds in various 

contexts and use sound for various 

biological functions including, but not 

limited to: (1) Social interactions; (2) 

foraging; (3) orientation; and (4) 

predator detection. Interference with 

producing or receiving these sounds 

may result in adverse impacts. Audible 

distance, or received levels of sound 

depend on the nature of the sound 

source, ambient noise conditions, and 

the sensitivity of the receptor to the 

sound (Richardson et al., 1995). Type 

and significance of marine mammal 

reactions to sound are likely dependent 

on a variety of factors including, but not 

limited to, (1) the behavioral state of the 

animal (e.g., feeding, traveling, etc.); (2) 

frequency of the sound; (3) distance 

between the animal and the source; and 

(4) the level of the sound relative to 

ambient conditions (Southall et al., 

2007). 

When considering the influence of 

various kinds of sound on the marine 

environment, it is necessary to 

understand that different kinds of 

marine life are sensitive to different 

frequencies of sound. Current data 

indicate that not all marine mammal 

species have equal hearing capabilities 

(Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and 

Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). 

Animals are less sensitive to sounds 

at the outer edges of their functional 

hearing range and are more sensitive to 

a range of frequencies within the middle 

of their functional hearing range. For 

mid-frequency cetaceans, functional 

hearing estimates occur between 

approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz with 

best hearing estimated to occur between 

approximately 10 to less than 100 kHz 

(Finneran et al., 2005 and 2009, 

Natchtigall et al., 2005 and 2008; Yuen 

et al., 2005; Popov et al., 2011; and 

Schlundt et al., 2011). 

Hearing Impairment 

Marine mammals may experience 

temporary or permanent hearing 

impairment when exposed to loud 

sounds. Hearing impairment is 

classified by temporary threshold shift 

(TTS) and permanent threshold shift 

(PTS). PTS is considered auditory injury 

(Southall et al., 2007) and occurs in a 

specific frequency range and amount. 

Irreparable damage to the inner or outer 

cochlear hair cells may cause PTS; 

however, other mechanisms are also 

involved, such as exceeding the elastic 

limits of certain tissues and membranes 

in the middle and inner ears and 

resultant changes in the chemical 

composition of the inner ear fluids 

(Southall et al., 2007). There are no 

empirical data for onset of PTS in any 

marine mammal; therefore, PTS-onset 

must be estimated from TTS-onset 

measurements and from the rate of TTS 

growth with increasing exposure levels 

above the level eliciting TTS-onset. PTS 

is presumed to be likely if the hearing 

threshold is reduced by ≥40 dB (that is, 

40 dB of TTS). 

Threshold Shift 

Marine mammals exposed to highintensity sound, or to lower-intensity 

sound for prolonged periods, can 

experience hearing threshold shift (TS), 

which is the loss of hearing sensitivity 

at certain frequency ranges (Finneran, 

2015). TS can be permanent (PTS), in 

which case the loss of hearing 

sensitivity is not fully recoverable, or 

temporary (TTS), in which case the 

animal’s hearing threshold would 

recover over time (Southall et al., 2007). 

Repeated sound exposure that leads to 

TTS could cause PTS. In severe cases of 

PTS, there can be total or partial 

deafness, while in most cases the animal 

has an impaired ability to hear sounds 

in specific frequency ranges (Kryter, 

1985). 

When PTS occurs, there is physical 

damage to the sound receptors in the ear 

(i.e., tissue damage), whereas TTS 

represents primarily tissue fatigue and 

is reversible (Southall et al., 2007). In 

addition, other investigators have 

suggested that TTS is within the normal 

bounds of physiological variability and 

tolerance and does not represent 

physical injury (e.g., Ward, 1997). 

Therefore, NMFS does not consider TTS 

to constitute auditory injury. 

Relationships between TTS and PTS 

thresholds have not been studied in 

marine mammals, and there is no PTS 

data for cetaceans, but such 

relationships are assumed to be similar 

to those in humans and other terrestrial 

mammals. PTS typically occurs at 

exposure levels at least several dB above 

(a 40-dB threshold shift approximates 

PTS onset; e.g., Kryter et al., 1966; 

Miller, 1974) that inducing mild TTS (a 

6-dB threshold shift approximates TTS 

onset; e.g., Southall et al., 2007). Based 

on data from terrestrial mammals, a 

precautionary assumption is that the 

PTS thresholds for impulse sounds 

(such as impact pile driving pulses as 

received close to the source) are at least 

6 dB higher than the TTS threshold on 

a peak-pressure basis and PTS 

cumulative sound exposure level 

thresholds are 15 to 20 dB higher than 

TTS cumulative sound exposure level 

thresholds (Southall et al., 2007). Given 

the higher level of sound or longer 

exposure duration necessary to cause 

PTS as compared with TTS, it is 

considerably less likely that PTS could 

occur. 

TTS is the mildest form of hearing 

impairment that can occur during 

exposure to sound (Kryter, 1985). While 

experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold 

rises, and a sound must be at a higher 

level in order to be heard. In terrestrial 

and marine mammals, TTS can last from 

minutes or hours to days (in cases of 

strong TTS). In many cases, hearing 

sensitivity recovers rapidly after 

exposure to the sound ends. Few data 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
26976 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2018 / Notices 

on sound levels and durations necessary 

to elicit mild TTS have been obtained 

for marine mammals. 

Marine mammal hearing plays a 

critical role in communication with 

conspecifics, and interpretation of 

environmental cues for purposes such 

as predator avoidance and prey capture. 

Depending on the degree (elevation of 

threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery 

time), and frequency range of TTS, and 

the context in which it is experienced, 

TTS can have effects on marine 

mammals ranging from discountable to 

serious. For example, a marine mammal 

may be able to readily compensate for 

a brief, relatively small amount of TTS 

in a non-critical frequency range that 

occurs during a time where ambient 

noise is lower and there are not as many 

competing sounds present. 

Alternatively, a larger amount and 

longer duration of TTS sustained during 

time when communication is critical for 

successful mother/calf interactions 

could have more serious impacts. 

Currently, TTS data only exist for four 

species of cetaceans (bottlenose dolphin 

(Tursiops truncatus), beluga whale 

(Delphinapterus leucas), harbor 

porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise 

(Neophocoena asiaeorientalis)) and 

three species of pinnipeds (northern 

elephant seal, harbor seal, and 

California sea lion) exposed to a limited 

number of sound sources (i.e., mostly 

tones and octave-band noise) in 

laboratory settings (Finneran, 2015). 

TTS was not observed in trained spotted 

(Phoca largha) and ringed (Pusa hispida) 

seals exposed to impulsive noise at 

levels matching previous predictions of 

TTS onset (Reichmuth et al., 2016). 

Additionally, the existing marine 

mammal TTS data come from a limited 

number of individuals within these 

species. There are no data available on 

noise-induced hearing loss for 

mysticetes. For summaries of data on 

TTS in marine mammals or for further 

discussion of TTS onset thresholds, 

please see Southall et al., (2007), 

Finneran and Jenkins (2012), Finneran 

(2015), and NMFS (2016). 

Animals in the survey area during the 

HRG surveys are unlikely to incur TTS 

hearing impairment due to the 

characteristics of the sound sources, 

which include fairly low source levels 

and generally very short pulses and 

duration of the sound. Even for highfrequency cetacean species (e.g., harbor 

porpoises), which may have increased 

sensitivity to TTS (Lucke et al., 2009; 

Kastelein et al., 2012b), individuals 

would have to make a very close 

approach and also remain very close to 

vessels operating these sources in order 

to receive multiple exposures at 

relatively high levels, as would be 

necessary to cause TTS. Intermittent 

exposures—as would occur due to the 

brief, transient signals produced by 

these sources—require a higher 

cumulative sound exposure level (SEL) 

to induce TTS than would continuous 

exposures of the same duration (i.e., 

intermittent exposure results in lower 

levels of TTS) (Mooney et al., 2009a; 

Finneran et al., 2010). Moreover, most 

marine mammals would more likely 

avoid a loud sound source rather than 

swim in such close proximity as to 

result in TTS. Kremser et al., (2005) 

noted that the probability of a cetacean 

swimming through the area of exposure 

when a sub-bottom profiler emits a 

pulse is small—because if the animal 

was in the area, it would have to pass 

the transducer at close range in order to 

be subjected to sound levels that could 

cause TTS and would likely exhibit 

avoidance behavior to the area near the 

transducer rather than swim through at 

such a close range. Further, the 

restricted beam shape of the sub-bottom 

profiler and other HRG survey 

equipment makes it unlikely that an 

animal would be exposed more than 

briefly during the passage of the vessel. 

Boebel et al., (2005) concluded similarly 

for single and multibeam echosounders 

and, more recently, Lurton (2016) 

conducted a modeling exercise and 

concluded similarly that likely potential 

for acoustic injury from these types of 

systems is negligible but that behavioral 

response cannot be ruled out. Animals 

may avoid the area around the survey 

vessels, thereby reducing exposure. Any 

disturbance to marine mammals is 

likely to be in the form of temporary 

avoidance or alteration of opportunistic 

foraging behavior near the survey 

location. For similar reasons, and with 

implementation of mitigation measures, 

animals in the survey area during the 

HRG surveys are unlikely to incur PTS 

hearing impairment; however, a small 

number of PTS takes are evaluated for 

authorization as discussed in more 

detail in the Estimated Take section. 

Masking 

Masking is the obscuring of sounds of 

interest to an animal by other sounds, 

typically at similar frequencies. Marine 

mammals are highly dependent on 

sound, and their ability to recognize 

sound signals amid other sound is 

important in communication and 

detection of both predators and prey 

(Tyack 2000). Background ambient 

sound may interfere with or mask the 

ability of an animal to detect a sound 

signal even when that signal is above its 

absolute hearing threshold. Even in the 

absence of anthropogenic sound, the 

marine environment is often loud. 

Natural ambient sound includes 

contributions from wind, waves, 

precipitation, other animals, and (at 

frequencies above 30 kHz) thermal 

sound resulting from molecular 

agitation (Richardson et al., 1995). 

Background sound may also include 

anthropogenic sound, and masking of 

natural sounds can result when human 

activities produce high levels of 

background sound. Conversely, if the 

background level of underwater sound 

is high (e.g., on a day with strong wind 

and high waves), an anthropogenic 

sound source would not be detectable as 

far away as would be possible under 

quieter conditions and would itself be 

masked. Ambient sound is highly 

variable on continental shelves 

(Myrberg 1978; Desharnais et al., 1999). 

This results in a high degree of 

variability in the range at which marine 

mammals can detect anthropogenic 

sounds. 

Although masking is a phenomenon 

which may occur naturally, the 

introduction of loud anthropogenic 

sounds into the marine environment at 

frequencies important to marine 

mammals increases the severity and 

frequency of occurrence of masking. For 

example, if a baleen whale is exposed to 

continuous low-frequency sound from 

an industrial source, this would reduce 

the size of the area around that whale 

within which it can hear the calls of 

another whale. The components of 

background noise that are similar in 

frequency to the signal in question 

primarily determine the degree of 

masking of that signal. In general, little 

is known about the degree to which 

marine mammals rely upon detection of 

sounds from conspecifics, predators, 

prey, or other natural sources. In the 

absence of specific information about 

the importance of detecting these 

natural sounds, it is not possible to 

predict the impact of masking on marine 

mammals (Richardson et al., 1995). In 

general, masking effects are expected to 

be less severe when sounds are transient 

than when they are continuous. 

Masking is typically of greater concern 

for those marine mammals that utilize 

low-frequency communications, such as 

baleen whales, because of how far lowfrequency sounds propagate. 

Marine mammal communications 

would not likely be masked appreciably 

by the proposed HRG equipment signals 

given the directionality of the signal and 

the brief period when an individual 

mammal is likely to be within its beam. 

Non-Auditory Physical Effects (Stress) 

Classic stress responses begin when 

an animal’s central nervous system 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2018 / Notices 26977 

perceives a potential threat to its 

homeostasis. That perception triggers 

stress responses regardless of whether a 

stimulus actually threatens the animal; 

the mere perception of a threat is 

sufficient to trigger a stress response 

(Moberg 2000; Seyle 1950). Once an 

animal’s central nervous system 

perceives a threat, it mounts a biological 

response or defense that consists of a 

combination of the four general 

biological defense responses: Behavioral 

responses, autonomic nervous system 

responses, neuroendocrine responses, or 

immune responses. 

In the case of many stressors, an 

animal’s first and sometimes most 

economical (in terms of biotic costs) 

response is behavioral avoidance of the 

potential stressor or avoidance of 

continued exposure to a stressor. An 

animal’s second line of defense to 

stressors involves the sympathetic part 

of the autonomic nervous system and 

the classical ‘‘fight or flight’’ response 

which includes the cardiovascular 

system, the gastrointestinal system, the 

exocrine glands, and the adrenal 

medulla to produce changes in heart 

rate, blood pressure, and gastrointestinal 

activity that humans commonly 

associate with ‘‘stress.’’ These responses 

have a relatively short duration and may 

or may not have significant long-term 

effect on an animal’s welfare. 

An animal’s third line of defense to 

stressors involves its neuroendocrine 

systems; the system that has received 

the most study has been the 

hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal system 

(also known as the HPA axis in 

mammals). Unlike stress responses 

associated with the autonomic nervous 

system, virtually all neuro-endocrine 

functions that are affected by stress— 

including immune competence, 

reproduction, metabolism, and 

behavior—are regulated by pituitary 

hormones. Stress-induced changes in 

the secretion of pituitary hormones have 

been implicated in failed reproduction 

(Moberg 1987; Rivier 1995), altered 

metabolism (Elasser et al., 2000), 

reduced immune competence (Blecha 

2000), and behavioral disturbance. 

Increases in the circulation of 

glucocorticosteroids (cortisol, 

corticosterone, and aldosterone in 

marine mammals; see Romano et al., 

2004) have been equated with stress for 

many years. 

The primary distinction between 

stress (which is adaptive and does not 

normally place an animal at risk) and 

distress is the biotic cost of the 

response. During a stress response, an 

animal uses glycogen stores that can be 

quickly replenished once the stress is 

alleviated. In such circumstances, the 

cost of the stress response would not 

pose a risk to the animal’s welfare. 

However, when an animal does not have 

sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the 

energetic costs of a stress response, 

energy resources must be diverted from 

other biotic function, which impairs 

those functions that experience the 

diversion. For example, when mounting 

a stress response diverts energy away 

from growth in young animals, those 

animals may experience stunted growth. 

When mounting a stress response 

diverts energy from a fetus, an animal’s 

reproductive success and its fitness will 

suffer. In these cases, the animals will 

have entered a pre-pathological or 

pathological state which is called 

‘‘distress’’ (Seyle 1950) or ‘‘allostatic 

loading’’ (McEwen and Wingfield 2003). 

This pathological state will last until the 

animal replenishes its biotic reserves 

sufficient to restore normal function. 

Note that these examples involved a 

long-term (days or weeks) stress 

response exposure to stimuli. 

Relationships between these 

physiological mechanisms, animal 

behavior, and the costs of stress 

responses have also been documented 

fairly well through controlled 

experiments; because this physiology 

exists in every vertebrate that has been 

studied, it is not surprising that stress 

responses and their costs have been 

documented in both laboratory and freeliving animals (for examples see, 

Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 1998; 

Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et al., 

2004; Lankford et al., 2005; Reneerkens 

et al., 2002; Thompson and Hamer, 

2000). Information has also been 

collected on the physiological responses 

of marine mammals to exposure to 

anthropogenic sounds (Fair and Becker 

2000; Romano et al., 2002). For 

example, Rolland et al., (2012) found 

that noise reduction from reduced ship 

traffic in the Bay of Fundy was 

associated with decreased stress in 

North Atlantic right whales. 

Studies of other marine animals and 

terrestrial animals would also lead us to 

expect some marine mammals to 

experience physiological stress 

responses and, perhaps, physiological 

responses that would be classified as 

‘‘distress’’ upon exposure to high 

frequency, mid-frequency and lowfrequency sounds. For example, Jansen 

(1998) reported on the relationship 

between acoustic exposures and 

physiological responses that are 

indicative of stress responses in humans 

(for example, elevated respiration and 

increased heart rates). Jones (1998) 

reported on reductions in human 

performance when faced with acute, 

repetitive exposures to acoustic 

disturbance. Trimper et al., (1998) 

reported on the physiological stress 

responses of osprey to low-level aircraft 

noise while Krausman et al., (2004) 

reported on the auditory and physiology 

stress responses of endangered Sonoran 

pronghorn to military overflights. Smith 

et al., (2004a, 2004b), for example, 

identified noise-induced physiological 

transient stress responses in hearingspecialist fish (i.e., goldfish) that 

accompanied short- and long-term 

hearing losses. Welch and Welch (1970) 

reported physiological and behavioral 

stress responses that accompanied 

damage to the inner ears of fish and 

several mammals. 

Hearing is one of the primary senses 

marine mammals use to gather 

information about their environment 

and to communicate with conspecifics. 

Although empirical information on the 

relationship between sensory 

impairment (TTS, PTS, and acoustic 

masking) on marine mammals remains 

limited, it seems reasonable to assume 

that reducing an animal’s ability to 

gather information about its 

environment and to communicate with 

other members of its species would be 

stressful for animals that use hearing as 

their primary sensory mechanism. 

Therefore, we assume that acoustic 

exposures sufficient to trigger onset PTS 

or TTS would be accompanied by 

physiological stress responses because 

terrestrial animals exhibit those 

responses under similar conditions 

(NRC 2003). More importantly, marine 

mammals might experience stress 

responses at received levels lower than 

those necessary to trigger onset TTS. 

Based on empirical studies of the time 

required to recover from stress 

responses (Moberg 2000), we also 

assume that stress responses are likely 

to persist beyond the time interval 

required for animals to recover from 

TTS and might result in pathological 

and pre-pathological states that would 

be as significant as behavioral responses 

to TTS. 

In general, there are few data on the 

potential for strong, anthropogenic 

underwater sounds to cause nonauditory physical effects in marine 

mammals. The available data do not 

allow identification of a specific 

exposure level above which nonauditory effects can be expected 

(Southall et al., 2007). There is no 

definitive evidence that any of these 

effects occur even for marine mammals 

in close proximity to an anthropogenic 

sound source. In addition, marine 

mammals that show behavioral 

avoidance of survey vessels and related 

sound sources are unlikely to incur nonauditory impairment or other physical 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
26978 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2018 / Notices 

effects. NMFS does not expect that the 

generally short-term, intermittent, and 

transitory HRG activities would create 

conditions of long-term, continuous 

noise and chronic acoustic exposure 

leading to long-term physiological stress 

responses in marine mammals. 

Behavioral Disturbance 

Behavioral disturbance may include a 

variety of effects, including subtle 

changes in behavior (e.g., minor or brief 

avoidance of an area or changes in 

vocalizations), more conspicuous 

changes in similar behavioral activities, 

and more sustained and/or potentially 

severe reactions, such as displacement 

from or abandonment of high-quality 

habitat. Behavioral responses to sound 

are highly variable and context-specific 

and any reactions depend on numerous 

intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., 

species, state of maturity, experience, 

current activity, reproductive state, 

auditory sensitivity, time of day), as 

well as the interplay between factors 

(e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et 

al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007; Weilgart, 

2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral 

reactions can vary not only among 

individuals but also within an 

individual, depending on previous 

experience with a sound source, 

context, and numerous other factors 

(Ellison et al., 2012), and can vary 

depending on characteristics associated 

with the sound source (e.g., whether it 

is moving or stationary, number of 

sources, distance from the source). 

Please see Appendices B–C of Southall 

et al., (2007) for a review of studies 

involving marine mammal behavioral 

responses to sound. 

Habituation can occur when an 

animal’s response to a stimulus wanes 

with repeated exposure, usually in the 

absence of unpleasant associated events 

(Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most 

likely to habituate to sounds that are 

predictable and unvarying. It is 

important to note that habituation is 

appropriately considered as a 

‘‘progressive reduction in response to 

stimuli that are perceived as neither 

aversive nor beneficial,’’ rather than as, 

more generally, moderation in response 

to human disturbance (Bejder et al., 

2009). The opposite process is 

sensitization, when an unpleasant 

experience leads to subsequent 

responses, often in the form of 

avoidance, at a lower level of exposure. 

As noted, behavioral state may affect the 

type of response. For example, animals 

that are resting may show greater 

behavioral change in response to 

disturbing sound levels than animals 

that are highly motivated to remain in 

an area for feeding (Richardson et al., 

1995; NRC 2003; Wartzok et al., 2003). 

Controlled experiments with captive 

marine mammals have shown 

pronounced behavioral reactions, 

including avoidance of loud sound 

sources (Ridgway et al., 1997; Finneran 

et al., 2003). Observed responses of wild 

marine mammals to loud, pulsed sound 

sources (typically seismic airguns or 

acoustic harassment devices) have been 

varied but often consist of avoidance 

behavior or other behavioral changes 

suggesting discomfort (Morton and 

Symonds, 2002; see also Richardson et 

al., 1995; Nowacek et al., 2007). 

Available studies show wide variation 

in response to underwater sound; 

therefore, it is difficult to predict 

specifically how any given sound in a 

particular instance might affect marine 

mammals perceiving the signal. If a 

marine mammal does react briefly to an 

underwater sound by changing its 

behavior or moving a small distance, the 

impacts of the change are unlikely to be 

significant to the individual, et al., one 

the stock or population. However, if a 

sound source displaces marine 

mammals from an important feeding or 

breeding area for a prolonged period, 

impacts on individuals and populations 

could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and 

Bejder, 2007; Weilgart 2007; NRC 2005). 

However, there are broad categories of 

potential response, which we describe 

in greater detail here, that include 

alteration of dive behavior, alteration of 

foraging behavior, effects to breathing, 

interference with or alteration of 

vocalization, avoidance, and flight. 

Changes in dive behavior can vary 

widely and may consist of increased or 

decreased dive times and surface 

intervals as well as changes in the rates 

of ascent and descent during a dive (e.g., 

Frankel and Clark 2000; Costa et al., 

2003; Ng and Leung 2003; Nowacek et 

al., 2004; Goldbogen et al., 2013a,b). 

Variations in dive behavior may reflect 

interruptions in biologically significant 

activities (e.g., foraging) or they may be 

of little biological significance. The 

impact of an alteration to dive behavior 

resulting from an acoustic exposure 

depends on what the animal is doing at 

the time of the exposure and the type 

and magnitude of the response. 

Disruption of feeding behavior can be 

difficult to correlate with anthropogenic 

sound exposure, so it is usually inferred 

by observed displacement from known 

foraging areas, the appearance of 

secondary indicators (e.g., bubble nets 

or sediment plumes), or changes in dive 

behavior. As for other types of 

behavioral response, the frequency, 

duration, and temporal pattern of signal 

presentation, as well as differences in 

species sensitivity, are likely 

contributing factors to differences in 

response in any given circumstance 

(e.g., Croll et al., 2001; Nowacek et al.; 

2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et 

al., 2007). A determination of whether 

foraging disruptions incur fitness 

consequences would require 

information on or estimates of the 

energetic requirements of the affected 

individuals and the relationship 

between prey availability, foraging effort 

and success, and the life history stage of 

the animal. 

Variations in respiration naturally 

vary with different behaviors and 

alterations to breathing rate as a 

function of acoustic exposure can be 

expected to co-occur with other 

behavioral reactions, such as a flight 

response or an alteration in diving. 

However, respiration rates in and of 

themselves may be representative of 

annoyance or an acute stress response. 

Various studies have shown that 

respiration rates may either be 

unaffected or could increase, depending 

on the species and signal characteristics, 

again highlighting the importance in 

understanding species differences in the 

tolerance of underwater noise when 

determining the potential for impacts 

resulting from anthropogenic sound 

exposure (e.g., Kastelein et al., 2001, 

2005b, 2006; Gailey et al., 2007). 

Marine mammals vocalize for 

different purposes and across multiple 

modes, such as whistling, echolocation 

click production, calling, and singing. 

Changes in vocalization behavior in 

response to anthropogenic noise can 

occur for any of these modes and may 

result from a need to compete with an 

increase in background noise or may 

reflect increased vigilance or a startle 

response. For example, in the presence 

of potentially masking signals, 

humpback whales and killer whales 

have been observed to increase the 

length of their songs (Miller et al., 2000; 

Fristrup et al., 2003; Foote et al., 2004), 

while right whales have been observed 

to shift the frequency content of their 

calls upward while reducing the rate of 

calling in areas of increased 

anthropogenic noise (Parks et al., 

2007b). In some cases, animals may 

cease sound production during 

production of aversive signals (Bowles 

et al., 1994). 

Avoidance is the displacement of an 

individual from an area or migration 

path as a result of the presence of a 

sound or other stressors, and is one of 

the most obvious manifestations of 

disturbance in marine mammals 

(Richardson et al., 1995). For example, 

gray whales are known to change 

direction—deflecting from customary 

migratory paths—in order to avoid noise 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2018 / Notices 26979 

from seismic surveys (Malme et al., 

1984). Avoidance may be short-term, 

with animals returning to the area once 

the noise has ceased (e.g., Bowles et al., 

1994; Goold 1996; Stone et al., 2000; 

Morton and Symonds, 2002; Gailey et 

al., 2007). Longer-term displacement is 

possible, however, which may lead to 

changes in abundance or distribution 

patterns of the affected species in the 

affected region if habituation to the 

presence of the sound does not occur 

(e.g., Blackwell et al., 2004; Bejder et al., 

2006; Teilmann et al., 2006). 

A flight response is a dramatic change 

in normal movement to a directed and 

rapid movement away from the 

perceived location of a sound source. 

The flight response differs from other 

avoidance responses in the intensity of 

the response (e.g., directed movement, 

rate of travel). Relatively little 

information on flight responses of 

marine mammals to anthropogenic 

signals exist, although observations of 

flight responses to the presence of 

predators have occurred (Connor and 

Heithaus, 1996). The result of a flight 

response could range from brief, 

temporary exertion and displacement 

from the area where the signal provokes 

flight to, in extreme cases, marine 

mammal strandings (Evans and 

England, 2001). However, it should be 

noted that response to a perceived 

predator does not necessarily invoke 

flight (Ford and Reeves, 2008) and 

whether individuals are solitary or in 

groups may influence the response. 

Behavioral disturbance can also 

impact marine mammals in more subtle 

ways. Increased vigilance may result in 

costs related to diversion of focus and 

attention (i.e., when a response consists 

of increased vigilance, it may come at 

the cost of decreased attention to other 

critical behaviors such as foraging or 

resting). These effects have generally not 

been demonstrated for marine 

mammals, but studies involving fish 

and terrestrial animals have shown that 

increased vigilance may substantially 

reduce feeding rates (e.g., Beauchamp 

and Livoreil, 1997; Fritz et al., 2002; 

Purser and Radford, 2011). In addition, 

chronic disturbance can cause 

population declines through reduction 

of fitness (e.g., decline in body 

condition) and subsequent reduction in 

reproductive success, survival, or both 

(e.g., Harrington and Veitch, 1992; Daan 

et al., 1996; Bradshaw et al., 1998). 

However, Ridgway et al., (2006) 

reported that increased vigilance in 

bottlenose dolphins exposed to sound 

over a five-day period did not cause any 

sleep deprivation or stress effects. 

Many animals perform vital functions, 

such as feeding, resting, traveling, and 

socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour 

cycle). Disruption of such functions 

resulting from reactions to stressors 

such as sound exposure are more likely 

to be significant if they last more than 

one diel cycle or recur on subsequent 

days (Southall et al., 2007). 

Consequently, a behavioral response 

lasting less than one day and not 

recurring on subsequent days is not 

considered particularly severe unless it 

could directly affect reproduction or 

survival (Southall et al., 2007). Note that 

there is a difference between multi-day 

substantive behavioral reactions and 

multi-day anthropogenic activities. For 

example, just because an activity lasts 

for multiple days does not necessarily 

mean that individual animals are either 

exposed to activity-related stressors for 

multiple days or, further, exposed in a 

manner resulting in sustained multi-day 

substantive behavioral responses. 

Marine mammals are likely to avoid 

the HRG survey activity, especially the 

naturally shy harbor porpoise, while 

some dolphin species might be attracted 

to them out of curiosity. However, 

because the sub-bottom profilers and 

other HRG survey equipment operate 

from a moving vessel, and the maximum 

radius to the Level B harassment 

threshold is relatively small, the area 

and time that this equipment would be 

affecting a given location is very small. 

Further, once an area has been 

surveyed, it is not likely that it will be 

surveyed again, thereby reducing the 

likelihood of repeated HRG-related 

impacts within the survey area. 

We have also considered the potential 

for severe behavioral responses such as 

stranding and associated indirect injury 

or mortality from Dominion’s use of 

HRG survey equipment, on the basis of 

a 2008 mass stranding of approximately 

100 melon-headed whales in a 

Madagascar lagoon system. An 

investigation of the event indicated that 

use of a high-frequency mapping system 

(12-kHz multibeam echosounder) was 

the most plausible and likely initial 

behavioral trigger of the event, while 

providing the caveat that there is no 

unequivocal and easily identifiable 

single cause (Southall et al., 2013). The 

investigatory panel’s conclusion was 

based on (1) very close temporal and 

spatial association and directed 

movement of the survey with the 

stranding event; (2) the unusual nature 

of such an event coupled with 

previously documented apparent 

behavioral sensitivity of the species to 

other sound types (Southall et al., 2006; 

Brownell et al., 2009); and (3) the fact 

that all other possible factors considered 

were determined to be unlikely causes. 

Specifically, regarding survey patterns 

prior to the event and in relation to 

bathymetry, the vessel transited in a 

north-south direction on the shelf break 

parallel to the shore, ensonifying large 

areas of deep-water habitat prior to 

operating intermittently in a 

concentrated area offshore from the 

stranding site; this may have trapped 

the animals between the sound source 

and the shore, thus driving them 

towards the lagoon system. The 

investigatory panel systematically 

excluded or deemed highly unlikely 

nearly all potential reasons for these 

animals leaving their typical pelagic 

habitat for an area extremely atypical for 

the species (i.e., a shallow lagoon 

system). Notably, this was the first time 

that such a system has been associated 

with a stranding event. The panel also 

noted several site- and situation-specific 

secondary factors that may have 

contributed to the avoidance responses 

that led to the eventual entrapment and 

mortality of the whales. Specifically, 

shoreward-directed surface currents and 

elevated chlorophyll levels in the area 

preceding the event may have played a 

role (Southall et al., 2013). The report 

also notes that prior use of a similar 

system in the general area may have 

sensitized the animals and also 

concluded that, for odontocete 

cetaceans that hear well in higher 

frequency ranges where ambient noise is 

typically quite low, high-power active 

sonars operating in this range may be 

more easily audible and have potential 

effects over larger areas than low 

frequency systems that have more 

typically been considered in terms of 

anthropogenic noise impacts. It is, 

however, important to note that the 

relatively lower output frequency, 

higher output power, and complex 

nature of the system implicated in this 

event, in context of the other factors 

noted here, likely produced a fairly 

unusual set of circumstances that 

indicate that such events would likely 

remain rare and are not necessarily 

relevant to use of lower-power, higherfrequency systems more commonly used 

for HRG survey applications. The risk of 

similar events recurring may be very 

low, given the extensive use of active 

acoustic systems used for scientific and 

navigational purposes worldwide on a 

daily basis and the lack of direct 

evidence of such responses previously 

reported. 

Tolerance 

Numerous studies have shown that 

underwater sounds from industrial 

activities are often readily detectable by 

marine mammals in the water at 

distances of many km. However, other 

studies have shown that marine 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
26980 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2018 / Notices 

mammals at distances more than a few 

km away often show no apparent 

response to industrial activities of 

various types (Miller et al., 2005). This 

is often true even in cases when the 

sounds must be readily audible to the 

animals based on measured received 

levels and the hearing sensitivity of that 

mammal group. Although various 

baleen whales, toothed whales, and (less 

frequently) pinnipeds have been shown 

to react behaviorally to underwater 

sound from sources such as airgun 

pulses or vessels under some 

conditions, at other times, mammals of 

all three types have shown no overt 

reactions (e.g., Malme et al., 1986; 

Richardson et al., 1995; Madsen and 

Mohl 2000; Croll et al., 2001; Jacobs and 

Terhune 2002; Madsen et al., 2002; 

Miller et al., 2005). 

Vessel Strike 

Ship strikes of marine mammals can 

cause major wounds, which may lead to 

the death of the animal. An animal at 

the surface could be struck directly by 

a vessel, a surfacing animal could hit 

the bottom of a vessel, or a vessel’s 

propeller could injure an animal just 

below the surface. The severity of 

injuries typically depends on the size 

and speed of the vessel (Knowlton and 

Kraus 2001; Laist et al., 2001; 

Vanderlaan and Taggart 2007). 

The most vulnerable marine mammals 

are those that spend extended periods of 

time at the surface in order to restore 

oxygen levels within their tissues after 

deep dives (e.g., the sperm whale). In 

addition, some baleen whales, such as 

the North Atlantic right whale, seem 

generally unresponsive to vessel sound, 

making them more susceptible to vessel 

collisions (Nowacek et al., 2004). These 

species are primarily large, slow moving 

whales. Smaller marine mammals (e.g., 

bottlenose dolphin) move quickly 

through the water column and are often 

seen riding the bow wave of large ships. 

Marine mammal responses to vessels 

may include avoidance and changes in 

dive pattern (NRC 2003). 

An examination of all known ship 

strikes from all shipping sources 

(civilian and military) indicates vessel 

speed is a principal factor in whether a 

vessel strike results in death (Knowlton 

and Kraus 2001; Laist et al., 2001; 

Jensen and Silber 2003; Vanderlaan and 

Taggart 2007). In assessing records with 

known vessel speeds, Laist et al., (2001) 

found a direct relationship between the 

occurrence of a whale strike and the 

speed of the vessel involved in the 

collision. The authors concluded that 

most deaths occurred when a vessel was 

traveling in excess of 24.1 km/h (14.9 

mph; 13 kn). Given the slow vessel 

speeds and predictable course necessary 

for data acquisition, ship strike is 

unlikely to occur during the geophysical 

surveys. Marine mammals would be 

able to easily avoid the survey vessel 

due to the slow vessel speed. Further, 

Dominion would implement measures 

(e.g., protected species monitoring, 

vessel speed restrictions and separation 

distances; see Proposed Mitigation 

Measures) set forth in the BOEM lease 

to reduce the risk of a vessel strike to 

marine mammal species in the survey 

area. 

Marine Mammal Habitat 

There are no feeding areas, rookeries 

or mating grounds known to be 

biologically important to marine 

mammals within the proposed project 

area. We are not aware of any available 

literature on impacts to marine mammal 

prey from HRG survey equipment. 

However, as the HRG survey equipment 

introduces noise to the marine 

environment, there is the potential for it 

to result in avoidance of the area around 

the HRG survey activities on the part of 

marine mammal prey. Any avoidance of 

the area on the part of marine mammal 

prey would be expected to be short term 

and temporary. Because of the 

temporary nature of the disturbance, the 

availability of similar habitat and 

resources (e.g., prey species) 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. 

Impacts on marine mammal habitat 

from the proposed activities will be 

temporary, insignificant, and 

discountable. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes proposed 

for authorization through this IHA, 

which will inform both NMFS’ 

consideration of ‘‘small numbers’’ and 

the negligible impact determination. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, 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 be by Level B 

harassment only, as use of the HRG 

equipment has the potential to result in 

disruption of behavioral patterns for 

individual marine mammals. NMFS has 

determined take by Level A harassment 

is not an expected outcome of the 

proposed activity as discussed in greater 

detail below. As described previously, 

no mortality or serious injury is 

anticipated or proposed to be authorized 

for this activity. Below we describe how 

the take is estimated for this project. 

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 proposed take 

estimate. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

NMFS uses 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 PTS of some degree (equated to 

Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment—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 sound source (e.g., 

frequency, predictability, duty cycle); 

the environment (e.g., bathymetry); and 

the receiving animals (hearing, 

motivation, experience, demography, 

behavioral context); therefore can be 

difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007, 

Ellison et al., 2011). NMFS uses a 

generalized acoustic threshold based on 

received level to estimate the onset of 

Level B (behavioral) harassment. NMFS 

predicts that marine mammals may be 

behaviorally harassed when exposed to 

underwater anthropogenic noise above 

received levels 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) for 

non-explosive impulsive (e.g., seismic 

HRG equipment) or intermittent (e.g., 

scientific sonar) sources. Dominion’s 

proposed activity includes the use of 

impulsive sources. Therefore, the 160 

dB re 1 mPa (rms) criteria is applicable 

for analysis of Level B harassment. 

Level A harassment—NMFS’ 

Technical Guidance for Assessing the 

Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2018 / Notices 26981 

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) as a result of 

exposure to noise from two different 

types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). 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. 

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: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ 

acoustics/guidelines.htm. As described 

above, Dominion’s proposed activity 

includes the use of intermittent and 

impulsive sources 

TABLE 3—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT IN MARINE MAMMALS

Hearing group 

PTS onset thresholds 

Impulsive * Non-impulsive 

Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans ........................................... Lpk,flat: 219 dB; LE,LF,24h: 183 dB ......................................... LE,LF,24h: 199 dB. 

Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans ........................................... Lpk,flat: 230 dB; LE,MF,24h: 185 dB ........................................ LE,MF,24h: 198 dB. 

High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans .......................................... Lpk,flat: 202 dB; LE,HF,24h: 155 dB ........................................ LE,HF,24h: 173 dB. 

Phocid Pinnipeds (PW); (Underwater) .................................. Lpk,flat: 218 dB; LE,PW,24h: 185 dB ........................................ LE,PW,24h: 201 dB. 

Otariid Pinnipeds (OW); (Underwater) .................................. Lpk,flat: 232 dB; LE,OW,24h: 203 dB ....................................... LE,OW,24h: 219 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. 

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 proposed survey would entail the 

use of HRG survey equipment. The 

distance to the isopleth corresponding 

to the threshold for Level B harassment 

was calculated for all HRG survey 

equipment with the potential to result 

in harassment of marine mammals (see 

Table 1). Of the HRG survey equipment 

planned for use that has the potential to 

result in harassment of marine 

mammals, acoustic modeling indicated 

the Innomar Medium 100 sub-bottom 

profiler would be expected to produce 

sound that would propagate the furthest 

in the water (Table 4); therefore, for the 

purposes of the take calculation, it was 

assumed this equipment would be 

active during the entirety of the survey. 

Thus the distance to the isopleth 

corresponding to the threshold for Level 

B harassment for the Innomar Medium 

100 sub-bottom profiler (100 m; Table 4) 

was used as the basis of the Level B take 

calculation for all marine mammals. 

TABLE 4—PREDICTED RADIAL DISTANCES (m) FROM HRG SOURCES TO ISOPLETHS CORRESPONDING TO LEVEL B 

HARASSMENT THRESHOLD

HRG system HRG survey equipment 

Modeled distance 

to threshold 

(160 dB re 1 μPa) 

Pinger/Chirper ........................................................................ GeoPulse sub-bottom profiler ................................................ <5 m 

Sparker .................................................................................. Geo-Source 800 sparker ....................................................... <20 m 

Medium penetration sub-bottom profiler ............................... Innomar Medium 100 sub-bottom profiler ............................. *<100 m 

* We note here that the Innomar Medium 100 sub-bottom profiler operating frequencies (85–115 kHz) are beyond the best hearing capabilities 

of LF cetaceans (7–35 kHz), but as this sound source provides the largest Level B isopleth, this information was used to calculate the zone of influence and estimate take for all species. 

Predicted distances to Level A 

harassment isopleths, which vary based 

on marine mammal functional hearing 

groups (Table 5), were also calculated 

by Dominion. The updated acoustic 

thresholds for impulsive sounds (such 

as HRG survey equipment) contained in 

the Technical Guidance (NMFS, 2016) 

were presented as dual metric acoustic 

thresholds using both SELcum and peak 

sound pressure level (SPL) 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 calculating 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
26982 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2018 / Notices 

to facilitate the estimation of take 

numbers. Dominion used the NMFS 

optional User Spreadsheet to calculate 

distances to Level A harassment 

isopleths (see Appendix A of the IHA 

application). Modeled distances to 

isopleths corresponding to Level A 

harassment thresholds for the proposed 

HRG equipment and marine mammal 

hearing groups are shown in Table 5. 

TABLE 5—MODELED RADIAL DISTANCES (m) TO ISOPLETHS CORRESPONDING TO LEVEL A HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS

Functional hearing group 

(Level A harassment thresholds) PTS onset Lateral distance (m) 

GeoPulse Sub-Bottom Profiler 

Low frequency cetaceans ..................................................... 219 dBpeak/ ........................................................................... — 

183 dB SELcum .................................................................... <1 

Mid frequency cetaceans ...................................................... 230 dBpeak/ ........................................................................... — 

185 dB SELcum .................................................................... — 

High frequency cetaceans ..................................................... 202 dBpeak/ ........................................................................... <1 

155 dB SELcum .................................................................... 16 

Phocid Pinnipeds (Underwater) ............................................ 218 dBpeak/ ........................................................................... — 

185 dB SELcum .................................................................... <1 

Geo-Source 800 Sparker 

Low frequency cetaceans ..................................................... 219 dBpeak/ ........................................................................... — 

183 dB SELcum .................................................................... 5 

Mid frequency cetaceans ...................................................... 230 dBpeak/ ........................................................................... — 

185 dB SELcum .................................................................... <1 

High frequency cetaceans ..................................................... 202 dBpeak/ ........................................................................... <1 

155 dB SELcum .................................................................... 24 

Phocid Pinnipeds (Underwater) ............................................ 218 dBpeak/ ........................................................................... — 

185 dB SELcum .................................................................... 3 

Innomar Medium 100 Sub-Bottom Profiler 

Low frequency cetaceans ..................................................... 219 dBpeak/ ........................................................................... <1 

183 dB SELcum .................................................................... N/A 

Mid frequency cetaceans ...................................................... 230 dBpeak/ ........................................................................... <1 

185 dB SELcum .................................................................... — 

High frequency cetaceans ..................................................... 202 dBpeak/ ........................................................................... <5 

155 dB SELcum .................................................................... <50 

Phocid Pinnipeds (Underwater) ............................................ 218 dBpeak/ ........................................................................... <1 

185 dB SELcum .................................................................... N/A 

Note: Peak SPL is unweighted (flat weighted), whereas the cumulative SEL criterion is M-weighted for the given marine mammal hearing 

group. 

— indicates not expected to be measureable to regulatory threshold at any appreciable distance. 

N/A indicates not applicable as the HRG sound source is outside the effective marine mammal hearing range. 

In this case, due to the very small 

estimated distances to Level A 

harassment thresholds for all marine 

mammal functional hearing groups, 

based on both SELcum and peak SPL 

(Table 5), and in consideration of the 

proposed mitigation measures, 

including marine mammal exclusion 

zones to avoid Level A harassment (see 

the Proposed Mitigation section for 

more detail) NMFS has determined that 

the likelihood of Level A take of marine 

mammals occurring as a result of the 

proposed survey is so low as to be 

discountable. However, to be 

conservative, Dominion has requested 

small amounts of Level A incidental 

take for bottlenose, common, and 

Atlantic white-sided dophins to 

specifically allow survey activities to 

continue, understanding the proclivity 

of these species to approach vessels to 

bow and/or wake ride and closely 

investigate active survey gear. 

Calculated distances presented in Table 

5 indicates Level A PTS onset occurring 

at distances less than one m of the 

sound source (if at all) for midfrequency cetaceans such as delphinids, 

and the applicant has calculated take 

based on a 5 m zone as an even more 

conservative measure for Level A take. 

However, due to the small Level A 

isopleth and the fact that animals are 

not likely to remain within this small 

zone for long enough to incur PTS, 

NMFS is not proposing to authorize 

Level A take for these species/stocks. 

We note that because of some of the 

assumptions included in the methods 

used, isopleths produced may be 

overestimates to some degree. The 

acoustic sources proposed for use in 

Dominion’s survey do not radiate sound 

equally in all directions but were 

designed instead to focus acoustic 

energy directly toward the sea floor. 

Therefore, the acoustic energy produced 

by these sources is not received equally 

in all directions around the source but 

is instead concentrated along some 

narrower plane depending on the 

beamwidth of the source. For example, 

in the case of the Innomar Medium 100 

sub-bottom profiler, the beamwidth is 

only one degree. However, the 

calculated distances to isopleths do not 

account for this directionality of the 

sound source and are therefore 

conservative. For mobile sources, such 

as the proposed 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. In addition to the 

conservative estimation of calculated 

distances to isopleths associated with 

the Innomar Medium 100 sub-bottom 

profiler, calculated takes may be 

conservative due to the fact that this 

sound source operates at frequencies 

beyond the best hearing capabilities of 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2018 / Notices 26983 

LF cetaceans, but calculated takes for all 

species were based on the isopleths 

associated with this sound source. As 

discussed above, the Innomar Medium 

100 sub-bottom profiler operates at 

frequencies between 85 and 115 kHz 

and the best hearing range of LF 

cetaceans is between 7 and 35 kHz. 

Therefore, we would not expect that 

take of LF cetaceans would likely occur 

due to the use of this equipment 

because it operates beyond their hearing 

capabilities, but takes were estimated 

based on these isopleths due to the fact 

that the largest distances were 

associated with this equipment. 

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. 

The best available scientific 

information was considered in 

conducting marine mammal exposure 

estimates (the basis for estimating take). 

For cetacean species, densities 

calculated by Roberts et al. (2016) were 

used. The density data presented by 

Roberts et al. (2016) incorporates aerial 

and shipboard line-transect survey data 

from NMFS and from other 

organizations collected over the period 

1992–2014. Roberts et al. (2016) 

modeled density from 8 physiographic 

and 16 dynamic oceanographic and 

biological covariates, and controlled for 

the influence of sea state, group size, 

availability bias, and perception bias on 

the probability of making a sighting. In 

general, NMFS considers the models 

produced by Roberts et al. (2016) to be 

the best available source of data 

regarding cetacean density in the 

Atlantic Ocean. More information, 

including the model results and 

supplementary information for each 

model, is available online at: 

seamap.env.duke.edu/models/Duke-ECGOM-2015/. 

For the purposes of the take 

calculations, density data from Roberts 

et al. (2016) were mapped within the 

boundary of the survey area for each 

survey segment (i.e., the Lease Area 

survey segment and the cable route area 

survey segment; See Figure 1 in the IHA 

application) using a geographic 

information system. Monthly density 

data for all cetacean species potentially 

taken by the proposed survey was 

available via Roberts et al. (2016). 

Monthly mean density within the 

survey area, as provided in Roberts et al. 

(2016), were averaged by season (i.e., 

Summer (June, July, August), and Fall 

(September, October, November)) to 

provide seasonal density estimates. The 

highest average seasonal density as 

reported by Roberts et al. (2016), for 

each species, was used based on the 

planned survey dates of August through 

October. 

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 harassment, radial distances to 

predicted isopleths corresponding to 

harassment thresholds are calculated, as 

described above. Those distances are 

then used to calculate the area(s) around 

the HRG survey equipment predicted to 

be ensonified to sound levels that 

exceed harassment thresholds. The area 

estimated to be ensonified to relevant 

thresholds in a single day of the survey 

is then calculated, based on areas 

predicted to be ensonified around the 

HRG survey equipment and estimated 

trackline distance traveled per day by 

the survey vessel. The estimated daily 

vessel track line distance was 

determined using the estimated average 

speed of the vessel (4 kn) multiplied by 

24 (to account for the 24 hour 

operational period of the survey). Using 

the maximum distance to the regulatory 

threshold criteria (Tables 4 and 5) and 

estimated daily track line distance of 

approximately 177.8 km (110.5 mi), it 

was estimated that an area of 35.59 km2

(13.74 mi2) per day would be ensonified 

to the largest Level B harassment 

threshold, and 1.78 km2 (0.69 mi2) per 

day would be ensonifed to the Level A 

harassment threshold (largest threshold 

of 155 dB SELcum for HF cetaceans was 

used) (Table 6). 

TABLE 6—ESTIMATED TRACK LINE DISTANCE PER DAY (km) AND AREA (km2) ESTIMATED TO BE ENSONIFIED TO LEVEL B 

HARASSMENT THRESHOLD PER DAY

Estimated track line distance per day 

(km) 

Estimated area 

ensonified to 

Level A harassment 

threshold per day 

(km2) 

Estimated area 

ensonified to 

Level B harassment 

threshold per day 

(km2) 

177.8 .................................................................................................................................................... 1.78 35.59 

The number of marine mammals 

expected to be incidentally taken per 

day is then calculated by estimating the 

number of each species predicted to 

occur within the daily ensonified area, 

using estimated marine mammal 

densities as described above. In this 

case, estimated marine mammal density 

values varied between the turbine 

positions, inter-array cable route 

corridor survey areas, and export cable 

route corridors; therefore, the estimated 

number of each species taken per survey 

day was calculated separately for the 

these survey areas. Estimated numbers 

of each species taken per day are then 

multiplied by the number of survey 

days to generate an estimate of the total 

number of each species expected to be 

taken over the duration of the survey. In 

this case, as the estimated number of 

each species taken per day varied 

depending on survey area (turbine 

positions, inter-array cable route, and 

export cable route corridor), the number 

of each species taken per day in each 

respective survey area was multiplied 

by the number of survey days 

anticipated in each survey area (i.e., 15 

survey days each in the turbine position 

location and inter-array cable route, and 

60 survey days in the export cable route 

corridor portion of the survey) to get a 

total number of takes per species in each 

respective survey area. 

As described above, due to the very 

small estimated distances to Level A 

harassment thresholds (based on both 

SELcum and peak SPL; Table 5), and in 

consideration of the proposed 

mitigation measures, the likelihood of 

the proposed survey resulting in take in 

the form of Level A harassment is 

considered so unlikely as to be 

discountable. Proposed take numbers 

are shown in Table 7. As described 

above, the zone of influence (ZOI) were 

calculated based on the sound source 

with the largest isopleths to the 

regulatory thresholds (the Innomar 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
26984 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2018 / Notices 

Medium 100 sub-bottom profiler) 

without consideration of the fact that 

this equipment operates beyond the best 

hearing capability of LF cetaceans, so 

calculated takes of these species are 

likely to be overestimates due to the fact 

that we would not necessarily expect LF 

cetaceans to be harassed by sound 

produced by this equipment. 

TABLE 7—NUMBERS OF POTENTIAL INCIDENTAL TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS CALCULATED AND PROPOSED FOR LEVEL B 

HARASSMENT AUTHORIZATION

Species 

Turbine positions Export cable route Inter-array cable route Totals 

Max. 

seasonal 

density a

(#/1,000 km2) 

Calculated 

takes 

Max. 

seasonal 

density a

(#/1,000 km2) 

Calculated 

takes 

Max. 

seasonal 

density a

(#/1,000 km2) 

Calculated 

takes 

Adjusted 

take 

% of 

population 

North Atlantic right whale ...................... 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 b 0 0.00 

Humpback whale ................................... 0.02 0.10 0.02 0.39 0.02 0.10 1 0.30 

Fin whale ............................................... 0.11 0.57 0.11 2.28 0.11 0.57 b 0 0.00 

Minke whale .......................................... 0.03 0.14 0.03 0.58 0.03 0.14 c 10 0.39 

Bottlenose dolphin—N Coastal Migratory ..................................................... 13.99 74.69 13.99 298.77 13.99 74.69 d e 350 9.33 

Bottlenose dolphin—Offshore ............... 13.99 74.69 13.99 298.77 13.99 74.69 d e 350 9.33 

Atlantic spotted dolphin ......................... 0.90 4.80 1.23 26.29 0.90 4.80 c 300 0.67 

Common dolphin ................................... 2.50 13.35 2.50 53.40 2.50 13.35 d 400 0.57 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin .................. 0.39 2.08 0.39 8.30 0.39 2.08 c 200 0.41 

Risso’s dolphin ...................................... 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0 0.00 

Short-finned/long-finned pilot whale ...... 0.06 0.31 0.02 0.53 0.06 0.31 e 15 0.27 

Harbor porpoise .................................... 0.27 1.45 0.23 4.91 0.27 1.45 8 0.01 

a Density values from Duke University (Roberts et al., 2016). b Proposed mitigation (exclusion zone) will prevent take. c Value increased to reflect typical group size. 

d Calculated take has been modified to account for increases in actual sighting data to date (Ocean Wind LLC, 2017) based on similar project activities. e Take adjusted to account for possible overlap of the Western North Atlantic southern migratory coastal and offshore stocks (assume a 50 percent of each stock). 

Proposed 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 relative 

cost and impact on operations. 

Proposed Mitigation Measures 

With NMFS’ input during the 

application process, and as per the 

BOEM Lease, Dominion is proposing the 

following mitigation measures during 

the proposed marine site 

characterization surveys. 

Marine Mammal Exclusion and Watch 

Zones 

Marine mammal exclusion zones (EZ) 

will be established around the HRG 

survey equipment and monitored by 

protected species observers (PSO) 

during HRG surveys as follows: 

• 50 m (164.0 ft) EZ for harbor 

porpoises, which is the extent of the 

largest calculated distance to the 

potential for onset of PTS (Level A 

harassment); 

• 100 m (328.1 ft) EZ for ESA-listed 

large whales (i.e., fin whales), which is 

the largest calculated distance to the 

potential for behavioral harassment 

(Level B behavioral harassment); and 

• 500 m (1,640.4 ft) EZ for North 

Atlantic right whales. 

In addition, PSOs will visually 

monitor to the extent of the Level B 

zone (100 m (328.1 ft)) for all other 

marine mammal species not listed 

above. 

Visual Monitoring 

Visual monitoring of the established 

exclusion and monitoring zones will be 

performed by qualified and NMFSapproved PSOs. It will be the 

responsibility of the Lead PSO on duty 

to communicate the presence of marine 

mammals as well as to communicate 

and enforce the action(s) that are 

necessary to ensure mitigation and 

monitoring requirements are 

implemented as appropriate. PSOs will 

be equipped with binoculars and have 

the ability to estimate distances to 

marine mammals located in proximity 

to the vessel and/or exclusion zone 

using range finders. Reticulated 

binoculars will also be available to PSOs 

for use as appropriate based on 

conditions and visibility to support the 

siting and monitoring of marine species. 

Digital single-lens reflex camera 

equipment will be used to record 

sightings and verify species 

identification. During surveys 

conducted at night, night-vision 

equipment and infrared technology will 

be available for PSO use. 

Pre-Clearance of the Exclusion Zone 

For all HRG survey activities, 

Dominion would implement a 30- 

minute pre-clearance period of the 

relevant EZs prior to the initiation of 

HRG survey equipment. During this 

period the EZs would be monitored by 

PSOs, using the appropriate visual 

technology for a 30-minute period. HRG 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2018 / Notices 26985 

survey equipment would not be 

initiated if marine mammals are 

observed within or approaching the 

relevant EZs during this pre-clearance 

period. If a marine mammal were 

observed within or approaching the 

relevant EZ during the pre-clearance 

period, ramp-up would not begin until 

the animal(s) has been observed exiting 

the EZ or until an additional time 

period has elapsed with no further 

sighting of the animal (15 minutes for 

small delphinoid cetaceans and 

pinnipeds and 30 minutes for all other 

species). This pre-clearance requirement 

would include small delphinoids that 

approach the vessel (e.g., bow ride). 

PSOs would also continue to monitor 

the zone for 30 minutes after survey 

equipment is shut down or survey 

activity has concluded. 

Ramp-Up of Survey Equipment 

Where technically feasible, a ramp-up 

procedure would be used for HRG 

survey equipment capable of adjusting 

energy levels at the start or re-start of 

HRG survey activities. The ramp-up 

procedure would be used at the 

beginning of HRG survey activities in 

order to provide additional protection to 

marine mammals near the survey area 

by allowing them to vacate the area 

prior to the commencement of survey 

equipment use at full energy. A rampup would begin with the power of the 

smallest acoustic equipment at its 

lowest practical power output 

appropriate for the survey. When 

technically feasible the power would 

then be gradually turned up and other 

acoustic sources added in way such that 

the source level would increase 

gradually. 

Shutdown Procedures 

If a marine mammal is observed 

within or approaching the relevant EZ 

(as described above) an immediate 

shutdown of the survey equipment is 

required. Subsequent restart of the 

survey equipment may only occur after 

the animal(s) has either been observed 

exiting the relevant EZ or until an 

additional time period has elapsed with 

no further sighting of the animal (15 

minutes for delphinoid cetaceans and 

pinnipeds and 30 minutes for all other 

species). HRG survey equipment may be 

allowed to continue operating if small 

delphinids voluntarily approach the 

vessel (e.g., to bow ride) when HRG 

survey equipment is operating. 

If the HRG equipment shuts down for 

reasons other than mitigation (i.e., 

mechanical or electronic failure) 

resulting in the cessation of the survey 

equipment for a period greater than 20 

minutes, a 30 minute pre-clearance 

period (as described above) would 

precede the restart of the HRG survey 

equipment. If the pause is less than less 

than 20 minutes, the equipment may be 

restarted as soon as practicable at its full 

operational level only if visual surveys 

were continued diligently throughout 

the silent period and the EZs remained 

clear of marine mammals during that 

entire period. If visual surveys were not 

continued diligently during the pause of 

20 minutes or less, a 30-minute preclearance period (as described above) 

would precede the re-start of the HRG 

survey equipment. Following a 

shutdown, HRG survey equipment may 

be restarted following pre-clearance of 

the zones as described above. 

Vessel Strike Avoidance 

Dominion will ensure that vessel 

operators and crew maintain a vigilant 

watch for cetaceans and pinnipeds by 

slowing down or stopping the vessel to 

avoid striking marine mammals. Survey 

vessel crew members responsible for 

navigation duties will receive sitespecific training on marine mammal 

sighting/reporting and vessel strike 

avoidance measures. Vessel strike 

avoidance measures will include, but 

are not limited to, the following, as 

required in the BOEM lease, except 

under circumstances when complying 

with these requirements would put the 

safety of the vessel or crew at risk: 

• All vessel operators and crew will 

maintain vigilant watch for cetaceans 

and pinnipeds, and slow down or stop 

their vessel to avoid striking these 

protected species; 

• All vessel operators will comply 

with 10 kn (18.5 km/hr) or less speed 

restrictions in any DMA. This applies to 

all vessels operating at any time of year. 

In addition (if applicable, as surveys are 

not anticipated to occur during this time 

of year), vessels over 19.8 m (65 ft) 

operating from November 1 through 

April 30 will operate at speeds of 10 kn 

or less; 

• All vessel operators will reduce 

vessel speed to 10 kn (18.5 km/hr) or 

less when any large whale, any mother/ 

calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages of 

non-delphinoid cetaceans are observed 

near (within 100 m (330 ft)) an 

underway vessel; 

• All survey vessels will maintain a 

separation distance of 500 m (1640 ft) or 

greater from any sighted North Atlantic 

right whale; 

• If underway, vessels must steer a 

course away from any sighted North 

Atlantic right whale at 10 kn (18.5 km/ 

hr) or less until the 500 m (1640 ft) 

minimum separation distance has been 

established. If a North Atlantic right 

whale is sighted in a vessel’s path, or 

within 500 m (1640 ft)) to an underway 

vessel, the underway vessel must reduce 

speed and shift the engine to neutral. 

Engines will not be engaged until the 

North Atlantic right whale has moved 

outside of the vessel’s path and beyond 

500 m. If stationary, the vessel must not 

engage engines until the North Atlantic 

right whale has moved beyond 100 m; 

• All vessels will maintain a 

separation distance of 100 m (330 ft) or 

greater from any sighted non-delphinoid 

cetacean. If sighted, the vessel 

underway must reduce speed and shift 

the engine to neutral, and must not 

engage the engines until the nondelphinoid cetacean has moved outside 

of the vessel’s path and beyond 100 m. 

If a survey vessel is stationary, the 

vessel will not engage engines until the 

non-delphinoid cetacean has moved out 

of the vessel’s path and beyond 100 m; 

• All vessels will maintain a 

separation distance of 100 m or greater 

from any sighted non-delphinoid 

cetacean. If sighted, the vessel 

underway must reduce speed and shift 

the engine to neutral, and must not 

engage the engines until the nondelphinoid cetacean has moved outside 

of the vessel’s path and beyond 100 m. 

If a survey vessel is stationary, the 

vessel will not engage the engines until 

the non-delphinoid cetacean has moved 

out of the vessel’s path and beyond 100 

m. 

• Any vessel underway remain 

parallel to a sighted delphinoid 

cetacean’s course whenever possible, 

and avoid excessive speed or abrupt 

changes in direction. Any vessel 

underway reduces vessel speed to 10 kn 

(18.5 km/hr) or less when pods 

(including mother/calf pairs) or large 

assemblages of delphinoid cetaceans are 

observed. Vessels may not adjust course 

and speed until the delphinoid 

cetaceans have moved beyond 50 m 

and/or the abeam of the underway 

vessel; 

• All vessels underway will not 

divert or alter course in order to 

approach any whale, delphinoid 

cetacean, or pinniped. Any vessel 

underway will avoid excessive speed or 

abrupt changes in direction to avoid 

injury to the sighted cetacean or 

pinniped; and 

• All vessels will maintain a 

separation distance of 50 m (164 ft) or 

greater from any sighted pinniped. 

Seasonal Operating Requirements 

Between watch shifts, members of the 

monitoring team will consult NMFS’ 

North Atlantic right whale reporting 

systems for the presence of North 

Atlantic right whales throughout survey 

operations. The proposed survey 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
26986 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2018 / Notices 

activities will occur in the vicinity of 

the Right Whale Mid-Atlantic SMA 

located at the mouth of the Chesapeake 

Bay. However, the proposed survey start 

date in August, 2018 is outside of the 

seasonal mandatory speed restriction 

period for this SMA (November 1 

through April 30). Members of the 

monitoring team will monitor the NMFS 

North Atlantic right whale reporting 

systems for the establishment of a 

Dynamic Management Area (DMA). If 

NMFS should establish a DMA in the 

survey area, within 24 hours of the 

establishment of the DMA Dominion 

will work with NMFS to shut down 

and/or alter the survey activities as 

needed to avoid right whales to the 

extent possible. 

The proposed mitigation measures are 

designed to avoid the already low 

potential for injury in addition to some 

Level B harassment, and to minimize 

the potential for vessel strikes. There are 

no known marine mammal feeding 

areas, rookeries, or mating grounds in 

the survey area that would otherwise 

potentially warrant increased mitigation 

measures for marine mammals or their 

habitat (or both). The proposed survey 

would occur in an area that has been 

identified as a biologically important 

area for migration for North Atlantic 

right whales. However, given the small 

spatial extent of the survey area relative 

to the substantially larger spatial extent 

of the right whale migratory area, the 

survey is not expected to appreciably 

reduce migratory habitat nor to 

negatively impact the migration of 

North Atlantic right whales, thus 

additional mitigation to address the 

proposed survey’s occurrence in North 

Atlantic right whale migratory habitat is 

not warranted. Further, we believe the 

proposed mitigation measures are 

practicable for the applicant to 

implement. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, NMFS 

has preliminarily determined that the 

proposed mitigation measures provide 

the means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the affected 

species or stocks and their habitat, 

paying particular attention to rookeries, 

mating grounds, and areas of similar 

significance. 

Proposed 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 proposed 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); and 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Proposed Monitoring Measures 

As described above, visual monitoring 

of the EZs and monitoring zone will be 

performed by qualified and NMFSapproved PSOs. Observer qualifications 

will include direct field experience on 

a marine mammal observation vessel 

and/or aerial surveys and completion of 

a PSO training program, as appropriate. 

As proposed by the applicant and 

required by BOEM, an observer team 

comprising a minimum of four NMFSapproved PSOs operating in shifts, will 

be employed by Dominion during the 

proposed surveys. PSOs will work in 

shifts such that no one monitor will 

work more than 4 consecutive hours 

without a 2 hour break or longer than 

12 hours during any 24-hour period. 

During daylight hours the PSOs will 

rotate in shifts of one on and three off, 

while during nighttime operations PSOs 

will work in pairs. During ramp-up 

procedures, two PSOs will be required. 

Each PSO will monitor 360 degrees of 

the field of vision. 

Also as described above, PSOs will be 

equipped with binoculars and have the 

ability to estimate distances to marine 

mammals located in proximity to the 

vessel and/or exclusion zone using 

range finders. Reticulated binoculars 

will also be available to PSOs for use as 

appropriate based on conditions and 

visibility to support the siting and 

monitoring of marine species. Digital 

single-lens reflex camera equipment 

will be used to record sightings and 

verify species identification. During 

night operations, night-vision 

equipment, and infrared technology will 

be used to increase the ability to detect 

marine mammals. Position data will be 

recorded using hand-held or vessel 

global positioning system (GPS) units 

for each sighting. Observations will take 

place from the highest available vantage 

point on the survey vessel. General 360- 

degree scanning will occur during the 

monitoring periods, and target scanning 

by the PSO will occur when alerted of 

a marine mammal presence. 

Data on all PSO observations will be 

recorded based on standard PSO 

collection requirements. This will 

include dates and locations of survey 

operations; time of observation, location 

and weather; details of the sightings 

(e.g., species, age classification (if 

known), numbers, behavior); and details 

of any observed ‘‘taking’’ (behavioral 

disturbances). The data sheet will be 

provided to NMFS for review and 

approval prior to the start of survey 

activities. In addition, prior to initiation 

of survey work, all crew members will 

undergo environmental training, a 

component of which will focus on the 

procedures for sighting and protection 

of marine mammals. A briefing will also 

be conducted between the survey 

supervisors and crews, the PSOs, and 

Dominion. The purpose of the briefing 

will be to establish responsibilities of 

each party, define the chains of 

command, discuss communication 

procedures, provide an overview of 

monitoring purposes, and review 

operational procedures. 

Proposed Reporting Measures 

Dominion will provide the following 

reports as necessary during survey 

activities: 

• The Applicant will contact NMFS 

within 24 hours of the commencement 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2018 / Notices 26987 

of survey activities and again within 24 

hours of the completion of the activity. 

• Notification of Injured or Dead 

Marine Mammals—In the unanticipated 

event that the specified HRG activities 

lead to an injury of a marine mammal 

(Level A harassment) or mortality (e.g., 

ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or 

entanglement), Dominion would 

immediately cease the specified 

activities and report the incident to the 

Chief of the Permits and Conservation 

Division, Office of Protected Resources 

and the NMFS Greater Atlantic 

Stranding Coordinator. The report 

would include the following 

information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the incident; 

• Name and type of vessel involved; 

• Vessel’s speed during and leading 

up to the incident; 

• Description of the incident; 

• Status of all sound source use in the 

24 hours preceding the incident; 

• Water depth; 

• Environmental conditions (e.g., 

wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea 

state, cloud cover, and visibility); 

• Description of all marine mammal 

observations in the 24 hours preceding 

the incident; 

• Species identification or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Fate of the animal(s); and 

• Photographs or video footage of the 

animal(s) (if equipment is available). 

Activities would not resume until 

NMFS is able to review the 

circumstances of the event. NMFS 

would work with Dominion to minimize 

reoccurrence of such an event in the 

future. Dominion would not resume 

activities until notified by NMFS. 

In the event that Dominion discovers 

an injured or dead marine mammal and 

determines that the cause of the injury 

or death is unknown and the death is 

relatively recent (i.e., in less than a 

moderate state of decomposition), 

Dominion would immediately report the 

incident to the Chief of the Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources and the NMFS 

Greater Atlantic Stranding Coordinator. 

The report would include the same 

information identified in the paragraph 

above. Activities would be able to 

continue while NMFS reviews the 

circumstances of the incident. NMFS 

would work with Dominion to 

determine if modifications in the 

activities are appropriate. 

In the event that Dominion discovers 

an injured or dead marine mammal and 

determines that the injury or death is 

not associated with or related to the 

activities authorized in the IHA (e.g., 

previously wounded animal, carcass 

with moderate to advanced 

decomposition, or scavenger damage), 

Dominion would report the incident to 

the Chief of the Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, and the NMFS 

Greater Atlantic Regional Stranding 

Coordinator, within 24 hours of the 

discovery. Dominion would provide 

photographs or video footage (if 

available) or other documentation of the 

stranded animal sighting to NMFS. 

Dominion may continue its operations 

under such a case. 

Within 90 days after completion of 

survey activities, a final technical report 

will be provided to NMFS that fully 

documents the methods and monitoring 

protocols, summarizes the data recorded 

during monitoring, estimates the 

number of marine mammals estimated 

to have been taken during survey 

activities, and provides an 

interpretation of the results and 

effectiveness of all mitigation and 

monitoring. Any recommendations 

made by NMFS must be addressed in 

the final report prior to acceptance by 

NMFS. 

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. 

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’s 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 Tables 

8 and 9, given that NMFS expects the 

anticipated effects of the proposed 

survey to be similar in nature. 

NMFS does not anticipate that serious 

injury or mortality would occur as a 

result of Dominion’s proposed survey, 

even in the absence of proposed 

mitigation. Thus the proposed 

authorization does not authorize any 

serious injury or mortality. As discussed 

in the Potential Effects section, nonauditory physical effects and vessel 

strike are not expected to occur. 

We expect that most potential 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 previously in 

this document (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. In addition to 

being temporary and short in overall 

duration, the acoustic footprint of the 

proposed survey is small relative to the 

overall distribution of the animals in the 

area and their use of the area. Feeding 

behavior is not likely to be significantly 

impacted, as no areas of biological 

significance for marine mammal feeding 

are known to exist in the survey area. 

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 feeding 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 rookeries or 

mating or calving areas known to be 

biologically important to marine 

mammals within the proposed project 

area. The proposed survey area is within 

a biologically important migratory area 

for North Atlantic right whales (effective 

March-April and November-December) 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
26988 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2018 / Notices 

that extends from Massachusetts to 

Florida (LaBrecque, et al., 2015). Off the 

coast of Virginia, this biologically 

important migratory area extends from 

the coast to the just beyond the shelf 

break. Due to the fact that that the 

proposed survey is temporary and short 

in overall duration, and the fact that the 

spatial acoustic footprint of the 

proposed survey is very small relative to 

the spatial extent of the available 

migratory habitat in the area, North 

Atlantic right whale migration is not 

expected to be impacted by the 

proposed survey. 

The proposed mitigation measures are 

expected to reduce the number and/or 

severity of takes by (1) giving animals 

the opportunity to move away from the 

sound source before HRG survey 

equipment reaches full energy; (2) 

preventing animals from being exposed 

to sound levels that may otherwise 

result in injury. Additional vessel strike 

avoidance requirements will further 

mitigate potential impacts to marine 

mammals during vessel transit to and 

within the survey area. 

NMFS concludes that exposures to 

marine mammal species and stocks due 

to Dominion’s proposed survey would 

result in only short-term (temporary and 

short in duration) effects to individuals 

exposed. Marine mammals 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 proposed take estimates to impact 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our preliminary determination that the 

impacts resulting from this activity are 

not expected to adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival: 

• No mortality or serious injury is 

anticipated or authorized; 

• The anticipated impacts of the 

proposed activity on marine mammals 

would limited to temporary behavioral 

changes due to avoidance of the area 

around the survey vessel; 

• The availability of alternate areas of 

similar habitat value for marine 

mammals to temporarily vacate the 

survey area during the proposed survey 

to avoid exposure to sounds from the 

activity; 

• The proposed project area does not 

contain areas of significance for feeding, 

mating or calving; 

• Effects on species that serve as prey 

species for marine mammals from the 

proposed survey are not expected; 

• The proposed mitigation measures, 

including visual and acoustic 

monitoring 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 

proposed monitoring and mitigation 

measures, NMFS preliminarily finds 

that the total marine mammal take from 

the proposed 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 and so, 

in practice, where estimated numbers 

are available, NMFS compares the 

number of individuals taken to the most 

appropriate estimation of abundance of 

the relevant species or stock in our 

determination of whether 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. 

The numbers of marine mammals that 

we propose for authorization to be 

taken, for all species and stocks, would 

be considered small relative to the 

relevant stocks or populations (less than 

10 percent of bottlenose dolphin stocks, 

and less than 1 percent of each of the 

other species and stocks). See Tables 7 

and 8. Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the proposed activity 

(including the proposed mitigation and 

monitoring measures) and the 

anticipated take of marine mammals, 

NMFS preliminarily finds that small 

numbers of marine mammals will be 

taken relative to the population size of 

the affected species or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

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 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (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. 

The NMFS Office of Protected 

Resources is proposing mitigation to 

avoid the incidental take of the species 

of marine mammals which are likely to 

be present and are listed under the ESA: 

The North Atlantic right and fin whales. 

Therefore, consultation under section 7 

of the ESA is not required. 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes to issue 

an IHA to Dominion for conducting 

UXO surveys offshore Virginia and 

along the export cable routes from the 

date of issuance for a period of one year, 

provided the previously mentioned 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

requirements are incorporated. This 

section contains a draft of the IHA itself. 

The wording contained in this section is 

proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if 

issued). 

1. This IHA is valid for a period of 

one year from the date of issuance. 

2. This IHA is valid only for UXO 

survey activities utilizing HRG survey 

equipment, as specified in the IHA 

application, in the Atlantic Ocean. 

3. General Conditions 

(a) A copy of this IHA must be in the 

possession of Dominion Energy Virginia 

(Dominion), the vessel operator and 

other relevant personnel, the lead PSO, 

and any other relevant designees of 

Dominion operating under the authority 

of this IHA. 

(b) The species authorized for taking 

are listed in Table 8. The taking is 

limited to the species and numbers 

listed in Tables 8 and 9. Any taking of 

species not listed in Tables 8 and 9, or 

exceeding the authorized amounts 

listed, is prohibited and may result in 

the modification, suspension, or 

revocation of this IHA. 

(c) The taking by injury, serious injury 

or death of any species of marine 

mammal is prohibited and may result in 

the modification, suspension, or 

revocation of this IHA. 

(d) Dominion shall ensure that the 

vessel operator and other relevant vessel 

personnel are briefed on all 

responsibilities, communication 

procedures, marine mammal monitoring 

protocols, operational procedures, and 

IHA requirements prior to the start of 

survey activity, and when relevant new 

personnel join the survey operations. 

4. Mitigation Requirements—the 

holder of this Authorization is required 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2018 / Notices 26989 

to implement the following mitigation 

measures: 

(a) Dominion shall use at least four (4) 

NMFS-approved protected species 

observers (PSOs) during HRG surveys. 

The PSOs must have no tasks other than 

to conduct observational effort, record 

observational data, and communicate 

with and instruct relevant vessel crew 

with regard to the presence of marine 

mammals and mitigation requirements. 

PSO resumes shall be provided to 

NMFS for approval prior to 

commencement of the survey. 

(b) Visual monitoring must begin no 

less than 30 minutes prior to initiation 

of survey equipment and must continue 

until 30 minutes after use of survey 

equipment ceases. 

(c) Exclusion Zones and Watch 

Zone—PSOs shall establish and monitor 

marine mammal Exclusion Zones and 

Watch Zones. PSOs shall monitor a 

marine mammal Watch Zone that shall 

encompass an area 500 m from the 

survey equipment to encompass the 

exclusion zone for North Atlantic right 

whales. PSOs shall document and 

record the behavior of all marine 

mammals observed within the Watch 

Zone. The Exclusion Zones are as 

follows: 

(i) A 50 m Exclusion Zone for harbor 

porpoises; 

(ii) a 100 m Exclusion Zone for large 

ESA-listed whales, except North 

Atlantic right whales (i.e., fin whales); 

and 

(iii) a 500 m Exclusion Zone for North 

Atlantic right whales. 

(d) Shutdown requirements—If a 

marine mammal is observed within, 

entering, or approaching the relevant 

Exclusion Zones as described under 4(c) 

while geophysical survey equipment is 

operational, the geophysical survey 

equipment must be immediately shut 

down. 

(i) Any PSO on duty has the authority 

to call for shutdown of survey 

equipment. When there is certainty 

regarding the need for mitigation action 

on the basis of visual detection, the 

relevant PSO(s) must call for such 

action immediately. 

(ii) If a species for which 

authorization has not been granted, or, 

a species for which authorization has 

been granted but the authorized number 

of takes have been met, approaches or 

is observed within 100 m of the survey 

equipment, shutdown must occur. 

(iii) When a shutdown is called for by 

a PSO, the shutdown must occur and 

any dispute resolved only following 

shutdown. 

(iv) Upon implementation of a 

shutdown, survey equipment may be 

reactivated when all marine mammals 

have been confirmed by visual 

observation to have exited the relevant 

Exclusion Zone or an additional time 

period has elapsed with no further 

sighting of the animal that triggered the 

shutdown (15 minutes for small 

delphinoid cetaceans and pinnipeds 

and 30 minutes for all other species). 

(v) If geophysical equipment shuts 

down for reasons other than mitigation 

(i.e., mechanical or electronic failure) 

resulting in the cessation of the survey 

equipment for a period of less than 20 

minutes, the equipment may be 

restarted as soon as practicable if visual 

surveys were continued diligently 

throughout the silent period and the 

relevant Exclusion Zones are confirmed 

by PSOs to have remained clear of 

marine mammals during the entire 20 

minute period. If visual surveys were 

not continued diligently during the 

pause of 20 minutes or less, a 30 minute 

pre-clearance period shall precede the 

restart of the geophysical survey 

equipment as described in 4(e). If the 

period of shutdown for reasons other 

than mitigation is greater than 20 

minutes, a pre-clearance period shall 

precede the restart of the geophysical 

survey equipment as described in 4(e). 

(e) Pre-clearance observation—30 

minutes of pre-clearance observation 

shall be conducted prior to initiation of 

geophysical survey equipment. 

geophysical survey equipment shall not 

be initiated if marine mammals are 

observed within or approaching the 

relevant Exclusion Zones as described 

under 4(d) during the pre-clearance 

period. If a marine mammal is observed 

within or approaching the relevant 

Exclusion Zone during the pre-clearance 

period, geophysical survey equipment 

shall not be initiated until the animal(s) 

is confirmed by visual observation to 

have exited the relevant Exclusion Zone 

or until an additional time period has 

elapsed with no further sighting of the 

animal (15 minutes for small delphinoid 

cetaceans and pinnipeds and 30 

minutes for all other species). 

(f) Ramp-up—when technically 

feasible, survey equipment shall be 

ramped up at the start or re-start of 

survey activities. Ramp-up will begin 

with the power of the smallest acoustic 

equipment at its lowest practical power 

output appropriate for the survey. When 

technically feasible the power will then 

be gradually turned up and other 

acoustic sources added in way such that 

the source level would increase 

gradually. 

(g) Vessel Strike Avoidance—Vessel 

operator and crew must maintain a 

vigilant watch for all marine mammals 

and slow down or stop the vessel or 

alter course, as appropriate, to avoid 

striking any marine mammal, unless 

such action represents a human safety 

concern. Survey vessel crew members 

responsible for navigation duties shall 

receive site-specific training on marine 

mammal sighting/reporting and vessel 

strike avoidance measures. Vessel strike 

avoidance measures shall include the 

following, except under circumstances 

when complying with these 

requirements would put the safety of the 

vessel or crew at risk: 

(i) The vessel operator and crew shall 

maintain vigilant watch for cetaceans 

and pinnipeds, and slow down or stop 

the vessel to avoid striking marine 

mammals; 

(ii) The vessel operator will reduce 

vessel speed to 10 kn (18.5 km/hr) or 

less when any large whale, any mother/ 

calf pairs, whale or dolphin pods, or 

larger assemblages of non-delphinoid 

cetaceans are observed near (within 100 

m (330 ft)) an underway vessel; 

(iii) The survey vessel will maintain 

a separation distance of 500 m (1640 ft) 

or greater from any sighted North 

Atlantic right whale; 

(iv) If underway, the vessel must steer 

a course away from any sighted North 

Atlantic right whale at 10 kn (18.5 km/ 

hr) or less until the 500 m (1640 ft) 

minimum separation distance has been 

established. If a North Atlantic right 

whale is sighted in a vessel’s path, or 

within 100 m (330 ft) to an underway 

vessel, the underway vessel must reduce 

speed and shift the engine to neutral. 

Engines will not be engaged until the 

North Atlantic right whale has moved 

outside of the vessel’s path and beyond 

100 m. If stationary, the vessel must not 

engage engines until the North Atlantic 

right whale has moved beyond 100 m; 

(v) The vessel will maintain a 

separation distance of 100 m (330 ft) or 

greater from any sighted non-delphinoid 

cetacean. If sighted, the vessel 

underway must reduce speed and shift 

the engine to neutral, and must not 

engage the engines until the nondelphinoid cetacean has moved outside 

of the vessel’s path and beyond 100 m. 

If a survey vessel is stationary, the 

vessel will not engage engines until the 

non-delphinoid cetacean has moved out 

of the vessel’s path and beyond 100 m; 

(vi) The vessel will maintain a 

separation distance of 50 m (164 ft) or 

greater from any sighted delphinoid 

cetacean. Any vessel underway remain 

parallel to a sighted delphinoid 

cetacean’s course whenever possible, 

and avoid excessive speed or abrupt 

changes in direction. Any vessel 

underway reduces vessel speed to 10 kn 

(18.5 km/hr) or less when pods 

(including mother/calf pairs) or large 

assemblages of delphinoid cetaceans are 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
26990 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2018 / Notices 

observed. Vessels may not adjust course 

and speed until the delphinoid 

cetaceans have moved beyond 50 m 

and/or the abeam of the underway 

vessel; 

(vii) All vessels underway will not 

divert or alter course in order to 

approach any whale, delphinoid 

cetacean, or pinniped. Any vessel 

underway will avoid excessive speed or 

abrupt changes in direction to avoid 

injury to the sighted cetacean or 

pinniped; and 

(viii) All vessels will maintain a 

separation distance of 50 m (164 ft) or 

greater from any sighted pinniped. 

(ix) The vessel operator will comply 

with 10 kn (18.5 km/hr) or less speed 

restrictions in any Seasonal 

Management Area per NMFS guidance. 

(x) If NMFS should establish a 

Dynamic Management Area (DMA) in 

the area of the survey, within 24 hours 

of the establishment of the DMA, DWW 

shall contact the NMFS Office of 

Protected Resources to determine 

whether survey location and/or 

activities should be altered to avoid 

North Atlantic right whales. 

5. Monitoring Requirements—The 

Holder of this Authorization is required 

to conduct marine mammal visual 

monitoring during geophysical survey 

activity. Monitoring shall be conducted 

in accordance with the following 

requirements: 

(a) A minimum of four NMFSapproved PSOs, operating in shifts, 

shall be employed by Dominion during 

geophysical surveys. 

(b) Observations shall take place from 

the highest available vantage point on 

the survey vessel. General 360-degree 

scanning shall occur during the 

monitoring periods, and target scanning 

by PSOs will occur when alerted of a 

marine mammal presence. 

(c) PSOs shall be equipped with 

binoculars and have the ability to 

estimate distances to marine mammals 

located in proximity to the vessel and/ 

or Exclusion Zones using range finders. 

Reticulated binoculars will also be 

available to PSOs for use as appropriate 

based on conditions and visibility to 

support the sighting and monitoring of 

marine species. Digital single-lens reflex 

camera equipment will be used to 

record sightings and verify species 

identification. 

(d) During night surveys, night-vision 

equipment and infrared technology 

shall be used. Specifications for nightvision and infrared equipment shall be 

provided to NMFS for review and 

acceptance prior to start of surveys. 

(e) PSOs operators shall work in shifts 

such that no one monitor will work 

more than 4 consecutive hours without 

a 2 hour break or longer than 12 hours 

during any 24-hour period. During 

daylight hours the PSOs shall rotate in 

shifts of 1 on and 3 off. During rampup procedures and nighttime operations 

PSOs shall work in pairs. 

(f) Position data shall be recorded 

using hand-held or vessel global 

positioning system (GPS) units for each 

sighting. 

(g) A briefing shall be conducted 

between survey supervisors and crews, 

PSOs, and Dominion to establish 

responsibilities of each party, define 

chains of command, discuss 

communication procedures, provide an 

overview of monitoring purposes, and 

review operational procedures. 

(h) PSO Qualifications shall include 

direct field experience on a marine 

mammal observation vessel and/or 

aerial surveys. 

(i) Data on all PSO observations shall 

be recorded based on standard PSO 

collection requirements. PSOs must use 

standardized data forms, whether hard 

copy or electronic. The following 

information shall be reported: 

(i) PSO names and affiliations 

(ii) Dates of departures and returns to 

port with port name 

(iii) Dates and times (Greenwich Mean 

Time) of survey effort and times 

corresponding with PSO effort 

(iv) Vessel location (latitude/ 

longitude) when survey effort begins 

and ends; vessel location at beginning 

and end of visual PSO duty shifts 

(v) Vessel heading and speed at 

beginning and end of visual PSO duty 

shifts and upon any line change 

(vi) Environmental conditions while 

on visual survey (at beginning and end 

of PSO shift and whenever conditions 

change significantly), including wind 

speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, 

Beaufort wind force, swell height, 

weather conditions, cloud cover, sun 

glare, and overall visibility to the 

horizon 

(vii) Factors that may be contributing 

to impaired observations during each 

PSO shift change or as needed as 

environmental conditions change (e.g., 

vessel traffic, equipment malfunctions) 

(viii) Survey activity information, 

such as acoustic source power output 

while in operation, number and volume 

of airguns operating in the array, tow 

depth of the array, and any other notes 

of significance (i.e., pre-ramp-up survey, 

ramp-up, shutdown, testing, shooting, 

ramp-up completion, end of operations, 

streamers, etc.) 

(ix) If a marine mammal is sighted, 

the following information should be 

recorded: 

(A) Watch status (sighting made by 

PSO on/off effort, opportunistic, crew, 

alternate vessel/platform); 

(B) PSO who sighted the animal; 

(C) Time of sighting; 

(D) Vessel location at time of sighting; 

(E) Water depth; 

(F) Direction of vessel’s travel 

(compass direction); 

(G) Direction of animal’s travel 

relative to the vessel; 

(H) Pace of the animal; 

(I) Estimated distance to the animal 

and its heading relative to vessel at 

initial sighting; 

(J) Identification of the animal (e.g., 

genus/species, lowest possible 

taxonomic level, or unidentified); also 

note the composition of the group if 

there is a mix of species; 

(K) Estimated number of animals 

(high/low/best) ; 

(L) Estimated number of animals by 

cohort (adults, yearlings, juveniles, 

calves, group composition, etc.); 

(M) Description (as many 

distinguishing features as possible of 

each individual seen, including length, 

shape, color, pattern, scars or markings, 

shape and size of dorsal fin, shape of 

head, and blow characteristics); 

(N) Detailed behavior observations 

(e.g., number of blows, number of 

surfaces, breaching, spyhopping, diving, 

feeding, traveling; as explicit and 

detailed as possible; note any observed 

changes in behavior); 

(O) Animal’s closest point of 

approach and/or closest distance from 

the center point of the acoustic source; 

(P) Platform activity at time of 

sighting (e.g., deploying, recovering, 

testing, data acquisition, other); and 

(Q) Description of any actions 

implemented in response to the sighting 

(e.g., delays, shutdown, ramp-up, speed 

or course alteration, etc.) and time and 

location of the action. 

6. Reporting—a technical report shall 

be provided to NMFS within 90 days 

after completion of survey activities that 

fully documents the methods and 

monitoring protocols, summarizes the 

data recorded during monitoring, 

estimates the number of marine 

mammals that may have been taken 

during survey activities, describes the 

effectiveness of the various mitigation 

techniques and provides an 

interpretation of the results and 

effectiveness of all monitoring tasks. 

Any recommendations made by NMFS 

shall be addressed in the final report 

prior to acceptance by NMFS. 

(a) Reporting injured or dead marine 

mammals: 

(i) In the event that the specified 

activity clearly causes the take of a 

marine mammal in a manner not 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2018 / Notices 26991 

prohibited by this IHA (if issued), such 

as serious injury or mortality, Dominion 

shall immediately cease the specified 

activities and immediately report the 

incident to NMFS. The report must 

include the following information: 

(A) Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the incident; 

(B) Vessel’s speed during and leading 

up to the incident; 

(C) Description of the incident; 

(D) Status of all sound source use in 

the 24 hours preceding the incident; 

(E) Water depth; 

(F) Environmental conditions (e.g., 

wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea 

state, cloud cover, and visibility); 

(G) Description of all marine mammal 

observations in the 24 hours preceding 

the incident; 

(H) Species identification or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

(I) Fate of the animal(s); and 

(J) Photographs or video footage of the 

animal(s). 

Activities shall not resume until 

NMFS is able to review the 

circumstances of the prohibited take. 

NMFS will work with Dominion to 

determine what measures are necessary 

to minimize the likelihood of further 

prohibited take and ensure MMPA 

compliance. Dominion may not resume 

their activities until notified by NMFS. 

(ii) In the event that Dominion 

discovers an injured or dead marine 

mammal, and the lead PSO determines 

that the cause of the injury or death is 

unknown and the death is relatively 

recent (e.g., in less than a moderate state 

of decomposition), Dominion shall 

immediately report the incident to 

NMFS. The report must include the 

same information identified in 

condition 6(b)(i) of this IHA. Activities 

may continue while NMFS reviews the 

circumstances of the incident. NMFS 

will work with Dominion to determine 

whether additional mitigation measures 

or modifications to the activities are 

appropriate. 

(iii) In the event that Dominion 

discovers an injured or dead marine 

mammal, and the lead PSO determines 

that the injury or death is not associated 

with or related to the specified activities 

(e.g., previously wounded animal, 

carcass with moderate to advanced 

decomposition, or scavenger damage), 

Dominion shall report the incident to 

NMFS within 24 hours of the discovery. 

Dominion shall provide photographs or 

video footage or other documentation of 

the sighting to NMFS. 

7. This Authorization may be 

modified, suspended or withdrawn if 

the holder fails to abide by the 

conditions prescribed herein, or if 

NMFS determines the authorized taking 

is having more than a negligible impact 

on the species or stock of affected 

marine mammals. 

Request for Public Comments 

We request comment on our analyses, 

the draft authorization, and any other 

aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHA 

for the proposed marine site 

characterization surveys. Please include 

with your comments any supporting 

data or literature citations to help 

inform our final decision on the request 

for MMPA authorization. 

On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may 

issue a one-year renewal IHA without 

additional notice when (1) another year 

of identical or nearly identical activities 

as described in the Specified Activities 

section is planned, or (2) the activities 

would not be completed by the time the 

IHA expires and renewal would allow 

completion of the activities beyond that 

described in the Dates and Duration 

section, provided all of the following 

conditions are met: 

• A request for renewal is received no 

later than 60 days prior to expiration of 

the current IHA. 

• The request for renewal must 

include the following: 

(1) An explanation that the activities 

to be conducted beyond the initial dates 

either are identical to the previously 

analyzed activities or include changes 

so minor (e.g., reduction in pile size) 

that the changes do not affect the 

previous analyses, take estimates, or 

mitigation and monitoring 

requirements; and 

(2) A preliminary monitoring report 

showing the results of the required 

monitoring to date and an explanation 

showing that the monitoring results do 

not indicate impacts of a scale or nature 

not previously analyzed or authorized. 

• Upon review of the request for 

renewal, the status of the affected 

species or stocks, and any other 

pertinent information, NMFS 

determines that there are no more than 

minor changes in the activities, the 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

remain the same and appropriate, and 

the original findings remain valid. 

Dated: June 6, 2018. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–12471 Filed 6–8–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army 

Board of Visitors, United States 

Military Academy (USMA) 

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice of committee meeting. 

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act of 

1972, the Government in the Sunshine 

Act of 1976, the Department of Defense 

announces that the following Federal 

advisory committee meeting will take 

place. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

Monday, July 9, 2018, Time 8:00 a.m.– 

11:00 a.m. Members of the public 

wishing to attend the meeting will be 

required to show a government photo ID 

upon entering West Point in order to 

gain access to the meeting location. All 

members of the public are subject to 

security screening. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in 

the Haig Room, Jefferson Hall, West 

Point, New York 10996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. 

Deadra K. Ghostlaw, the Designated 

Federal Officer for the committee, in 

writing at: Secretary of the General Staff, 

ATTN: Deadra K. Ghostlaw, 646 Swift 

Road, West Point, NY 10996; by email 

at: deadra.ghostlaw@usma.edu or BoV@

usma.edu; or by telephone at (845) 938– 

4200. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

committee meeting is being held under 

the provisions of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., 

Appendix, as amended), the 

Government in the Sunshine Act of 

1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 

41 CFR 102–3.150. The USMA BoV 

provides independent advice and 

recommendations to the President of the 

United States on matters related to 

morale, discipline, curriculum, 

instruction, physical equipment, fiscal 

affairs, academic methods, and any 

other matters relating to the Academy 

that the Board decides to consider. 

Purpose of the Meeting: This is the 

2018 Summer Meeting of the USMA 

BoV. Members of the Board will be 

provided updates on Academy issues. 

Agenda: Introduction; Board Business; 

Superintendent Introduction: Mission, 

Vision, and Priorities; Strategic 

Imperative 1—Develop Leaders of 

Character: Developing Leaders of 

Character, Update on changes to CCDP 

(Cadet Character Development Plan), 

Annual Assessment; Strategic 

Imperative 2—Foster Relevance and 

Preeminence: Build Diverse and 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES