30480 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XG144 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to a Marine 

Geophysical Survey in the North 

Pacific Ocean 

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 the Lamont-Doherty Earth 

Observatory of Columbia University 

(L–DEO) for authorization to take 

marine mammals incidental to a marine 

geophysical survey in the North Pacific 

Ocean. 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 authorization and 

agency responses will be summarized in 

the final notice of our decision. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than July 30, 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.Pauline@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 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/node/ 

23111 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: Rob 

Pauline, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, (301) 427–8401. Electronic 

copies of the application and supporting 

documents, as well as a list of the 

references cited in this document, may 

be obtained online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/node/23111. 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 

resulting from the specified activity that 

cannot be reasonably expected to, and is 

not reasonably likely to, adversely affect 

the species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

The MMPA states that the term ‘‘take’’ 

means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or 

attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill 

any marine mammal. 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) 

has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has 

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering (Level B 

harassment). 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an 

incidental harassment authorization) 

with respect to potential impacts on the 

human environment. 

Accordingly, NMFS plans to adopt 

the National Science Foundation’s EA, 

provided our independent evaluation of 

the document finds that it includes 

adequate information analyzing the 

effects on the human environment of 

issuing the IHA. 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 16, 2018, NMFS received a 

request from the L–DEO for an IHA to 

take marine mammals incidental to 

conducting a marine geophysical survey 

in the North Pacific Ocean. L–DEO 

submitted a revised application on June 

11, 2018. On June 13, 2018 we deemed 

L–DEO’s application for authorization to 

be adequate and complete. L–DEO’s 

request is for take of small numbers of 

39 species of marine mammals by Level 

A and Level B harassment. Underwater 

sound associated with airgun use may 

result in the behavioral harassment or 

auditory injury of marine mammals in 

the ensonified areas. Mortality is not an 

anticipated outcome of airgun surveys 

such as this, and, therefore, an IHA is 

appropriate. The planned activity is not 

expected to exceed one year, hence, we 

do not expect subsequent MMPA 

incidental harassment authorizations 

would be issued for this particular 

activity. 

Description of Proposed Activity 

Overview 

The specified activity consists of two 

high-energy seismic surveys conducted 

at different locations in the North 

Pacific Ocean. Researchers from 

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory 

(L–DEO) and University of Hawaii, with 

funding from the U.S. National Science 

Foundation (NSF), in collaboration with 

researchers from United States 

Geological Survey (USGS), Oxford 

University, and GEOMAR Helmholtz 

Centre for Ocean Research Kiel 

(GEOMAR), propose to conduct the 

surveys from the Research Vessel (R/V) 

Marcus G. Langseth (Langseth) in the 

North Pacific Ocean. The NSF-owned 

Langseth is operated by Columbia 

University’s L–DEO under an existing 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 30481 

Cooperative Agreement. The first 

proposed seismic survey would occur in 

the vicinity of the Main Hawaiian 

Islands, and a subsequent survey would 

take place at the Emperor Seamounts in 

2019. The proposed timing for the 

Hawaii survey is summer/early fall 

2018; the timing for the Emperor 

Seamounts survey would likely be 

spring/early summer 2019. Both surveys 

would use a 36-airgun towed array with 

a total discharge volume of ∼6,600 in3. 

The main goal of the surveys 

proposed by L–DEO and the University 

of Hawaii is to gain fundamental insight 

into the formation and evaluation of 

Hawaiian-Emperor Seamount chain, and 

inform a more comprehensive 

assessment of geohazards for the 

Hawaiian Islands region. 

Dates and Duration 

The Hawaii survey would be expected 

to last for 36 days, including ∼19 days 

of seismic operations, 11 days of 

equipment deployment/retrieval, ∼3 

days of operational contingency time 

(e.g., weather delays, etc.), and ∼3 days 

of transit. The Langseth would leave out 

of and return to port in Honolulu during 

summer (likely mid-August) 2018. The 

Emperor Seamounts survey would be 

expected to last 42 days, including ∼13 

days of seismic operations, ∼11 days of 

equipment deployment/retrieval, ∼5.5 

days of operational contingency time, 

and 12.5 days of transit. The Langseth 

would leave Honolulu and return to 

port likely in Adak or Dutch Harbor, 

Alaska. The dates for this cruise have 

not yet been determined, although late 

spring/early summer 2019 is most 

likely. 

Specific Geographic Region 

The specified activity consists of two 

seismic surveys in the North Pacific 

Ocean—one at the Main Hawaiian 

Islands (Fig. 1 in application) and the 

other at the Emperor Seamounts (Fig. 2 

in application). The proposed Hawaii 

survey would occur within ∼18–24° N, 

∼153–160° W, and the proposed 

Emperor Seamounts survey would occur 

within ∼43–48° N, ∼166–173° E. The 

Hawaiian–Emperor Seamount chain is a 

mostly undersea mountain range in the 

Pacific Ocean that reaches above sea 

level in Hawaii. It is composed of the 

Hawaiian ridge, consisting of the islands 

of the Hawaiian chain northwest to Kure 

Atoll, and the Emperor Seamounts: 

Together they form a vast underwater 

mountain region of islands and 

intervening seamounts, atolls, shallows, 

banks and reefs along a line trending 

southeast to northwest beneath the 

northern Pacific Ocean. The seamount 

chain, containing over 80 identified 

undersea volcanoes, stretches over 5,800 

kilometers (km) or 3,600 miles (mi) from 

the Aleutian Trench in the far northwest 

Pacific to the Lo1ihi seamount, the 

youngest volcano in the chain, which 

lies about 35 km (22 mi) southeast of the 

Island of Hawaii. The Emperor 

Seamounts seismic survey location is 

located approximately 4,100 km (2,200 

mi) northwest of the Hawaii seismic 

survey location. 

Representative survey tracklines are 

shown in Figures 1 and 2 in the 

application. As described further in this 

document, however, some deviation in 

actual track lines, including order of 

survey operations, could be necessary 

for reasons such as science drivers, poor 

data quality, inclement weather, or 

mechanical issues with the research 

vessel and/or equipment. Thus, for the 

Emperor Seamounts survey, the 

tracklines could occur anywhere within 

the coordinates noted above and 

illustrated by the box in the inset map 

on Figure 2. The tracklines for the 

Hawaii survey could shift slightly, but 

would stay within the coordinates noted 

above and general vicinity of 

representative lines depicted in Figure 

1. Water depths in the proposed Hawaii 

survey area range from ∼700 to more 

than 5,000 m. The water depths in the 

Emperor Seamounts survey area range 

from 1,500–6,000 m. The proposed 

Hawaii seismic survey would be 

conducted within the U.S. exclusive 

economic zone (EEZ); the Emperor 

Seamounts survey would take place in 

International Waters. 

Detailed Description of Specific Activity 

The procedures to be used for the 

proposed surveys would be similar to 

those used during previous seismic 

surveys by L–DEO and would use 

conventional seismic methodology. The 

surveys would involve one source 

vessel, the Langseth, which is owned by 

NSF and operated on its behalf by 

Columbia University’s L–DEO. The 

Langseth would deploy an array of 36 

airguns as an energy source with a total 

volume of ∼6,600 in3. The receiving 

system would consist of OBSs and a 

single hydrophone streamer 15 km in 

length and OBSs. As the airgun arrays 

are towed along the survey lines, the 

hydrophone streamer would transfer the 

data to the on-board processing system, 

and the OBSs would receive and store 

the returning acoustic signals internally 

for later analysis. 

The proposed study consists of two 

seismic surveys in the North Pacific 

Ocean. There would be a total of four 

seismic transects for the Hawaii 

survey—two North (N)-South (S) 

tracklines (Lines 1 and 2), and two East 

(E)-West (W) tracklines (Lines 3 and 4). 

An optional trackline (Line 5) could be 

acquired instead of Line 4 (Fig. 1). Lines 

1 and 2 would be acquired twice— 

seismic refraction data would be 

acquired first, followed by multichannel 

seismic (MCS) reflection data. Only 

MCS reflection profiling would occur 

along Lines 3, 4, or 5. The location of 

the E-W tracklines (Lines 3, 4, or 5) 

could shift from what is currently 

depicted in Figure 1 depending on the 

science objectives; however, the E-W 

lines would remain in water >3,200 m 

deep. 

The Langseth would first deploy 70 

ocean bottom seismometers (OBS)s 

required for the refraction profiling—the 

vessel would transit from Honolulu to 

the north end of Line 2, deploy 35 OBSs 

along Line 2, ∼15 km apart, and then 

transit to the south end of Line 1 to 

deploy 35 OBSs (∼15 km apart) along 

Line 1. The streamer and airgun array 

would then be deployed. Refraction data 

would then be acquired from north to 

south on Line 1 followed by MCS 

profiling along the same line. If Lines 3 

and 4 are to be surveyed (preferred 

option), MCS profiles would then be 

acquired along Line 3, followed by 

refraction data acquisition in a northsouth direction along Line 2, followed 

by MCS profiles along Line 2 from south 

to north. The vessel would then acquire 

MCS profiles from the north end of Line 

2 to the west end of Line 4, and along 

Line 4. After seismic acquisition ceases, 

the streamer, airgun source, and all 

OBSs would be recovered by the 

Langseth. 

There would be three seismic 

transects for the Emperor Seamounts 

survey (Fig. 2). Data would be acquired 

twice along the two OBS lines—once for 

seismic refraction data and once for 

MCS reflection profiling. Only MCS 

reflection profiling would occur along 

the third transect that connects the two 

OBS lines. The Langseth would first 

acquire MCS reflection data for all three 

lines—from north to south, then along 

the connecting transect, and from west 

to east. After recovering the streamer 

and airgun array, the Langseth would 

deploy 32 OBSs required for the 

refraction profiling from east to west 

along the first line. After seismic 

acquisition along the first OBS line from 

west to east, the OBSs would be 

recovered and re-deployed along the 

second OBS line, which would then be 

surveyed from north to south. The 

Langseth would then recover all OBSs, 

the streamer, and the airgun array. 

In addition to the operations of the 

airgun array, a multibeam echosounder 

(MBES), a sub-bottom profiler (SBP), 

and an Acoustic Doppler Current 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2
30482 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 

Profiler (ADCP) would be operated from 

the Langseth continuously during the 

seismic surveys, but not during transit 

to and from the survey areas. All 

planned geophysical data acquisition 

activities would be conducted by 

L–DEO with on-board assistance by the 

scientists who have proposed the 

studies. The vessel would be selfcontained, and the crew would live 

aboard the vessel. 

During the two surveys, the Langseth 

would tow the full array, consisting of 

four strings with 36 airguns (plus 4 

spares) and a total volume of ∼6,600 in3. 

The 4-string array would be towed at a 

depth of 12 m, and the shot intervals 

would range from 50 m for MCS 

acquisition and 150 m for OBS 

acquisition. To retrieve OBSs, an 

acoustic release transponder (pinger) is 

used to interrogate the instrument at a 

frequency of 8–11 kHz, and a response 

is received at a frequency of 11.5–13 

kHz. The burn-wire release assembly is 

then activated, and the instrument is 

released to float to the surface from the 

anchor which is not retrieved. 

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 the Specified Activity 

Section 4 of the IHA application 

summarizes available information 

regarding status and trends, distribution 

and habitat preferences, and behavior 

and life history of the potentially 

affected species. More general 

information about these species (e.g., 

physical and behavioral descriptions) 

may be found on NMFS’ website 

(https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/findspecies). 

Table 1 lists all species with expected 

potential for occurrence in the North 

Pacific Ocean and summarizes 

information related to the population, 

including regulatory status under the 

MMPA and ESA. Some of the 

populations of marine mammals 

considered in this document occur 

within the U.S. EEZ and are therefore 

assigned to stocks and are assessed in 

NMFS’ Stock Assessment Reports 

(www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/). As such, 

information on potential biological 

removal (PBR; defined by the MMPA as 

the maximum number of animals, not 

including natural mortalities, that may 

be removed from a marine mammal 

stock while allowing that stock to reach 

or maintain its optimum sustainable 

population) and on annual levels of 

serious injury and mortality from 

anthropogenic sources are not available 

for these marine mammal populations. 

Twenty-eight cetacean species, 

including 21 odontocetes (dolphins and 

small- and large-toothed whales) and 

seven mysticetes (baleen whales), and 

one pinniped species, could occur in 

the proposed Hawaii survey area (Table 

4). In the Emperor Seamounts survey 

area, 27 marine mammal species could 

occur, including 15 odontocetes 

(dolphins and small- and large-toothed 

whales), eight mysticetes (baleen 

whales), and four pinniped species. 

Some species occur in both locations. In 

total, 39 species are expected to occur 

in the vicinity of the specified activity. 

Baird et al. (2015) described 

numerous Biologically Important Areas 

(BIAs) for cetaceans for the Hawaii 

region. BIAs were identified for small 

resident populations of cetaceans based 

on sighting data, photo-identification, 

genetics, satellite tagging, and expert 

opinion, and one reproductive area for 

humpbacks was identified as a BIA; 

these are described in the following 

section for each marine mammal 

species. The BIAs range from ∼700– 

23,500 km2 in area (Baird et al. 2015). 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals 

estimated within a particular study or 

survey area. All values presented in 

Table 1 are the most recent available at 

the time of publication. 

TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMALS THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE PROPOSED SURVEY AREAS

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Present at time of 

survey (Y/N) 

HI Emperor 

Seamounts 

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Eschrichtiidae: 

Gray whale ................... Eschrichtius 

robustus.

Western North Pacific.E/D; Y ... 140 (0.04, 135, 2011) 4 ...... 0.06 unk N Y 

Family Balaenidae: 

North Pacific right 

whale.

Eubalaena japonica Eastern North Pacific.E/D; Y ... 31 (0.226, 26, 2013) 6 ........ N/A 0 N Y 

N/A .......................... ............... 450 5 ................................... .............. ..............

Family Balaenopteridae 

(rorquals): 

Humpback whale .......... Megaptera 

novaeangliae.

Central North Pacific -/-; N ...... 10,103 (0.03, 7,890, 

2006) 6.

83 25 Y Y 

Western North Pacific.E/D; Y ... 1,107 (0.30, 865,2006) 6 .... 3 3.2 

Minke whale ................. Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata.

Hawaii .....................

N/A ..........................

...............

...............

UNK ....................................

22,000 7 ..............................

..............

..............

..............

..............

N Y 

Bryde’s whale ............... (Balaenoptera edeni/ 

brydei.

Hawaii .....................

Eastern Tropical Pacific.

-/-; N ......

-/-; N— ..

1,751 (0.29, 1,378, 2010) 17

UNK ....................................

13.8 

UND 

0 

..............

Y Y 

Sei whale ...................... Balaenoptera borealis.Hawaii ..................... E/D; Y ... 178 (0.9, 93, 2010) 4 .......... 0.2 0.2 Y Y 

Fin whale ...................... Balaenoptera 

physalus physalus.

Hawaii .....................

N/A ..........................

E/D; Y ...

...............

154 (1.05, 75, 2010) 17 .......

13,620–18,680 9 .................

0.1 

..............

0 

..............

Y Y 

Blue whale .................... Balaenoptera 

musculus 

musculus).

Central North Pacific E/D; Y ... 133 (1.09, 63, 2010) 17 ....... 0.1 0 Y Y 

Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, porpoises) 

Family Physeteridae: 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 30483 

TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMALS THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE PROPOSED SURVEY AREAS—Continued 

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Present at time of 

survey (Y/N) 

HI Emperor 

Seamounts 

Sperm whale ................ Physeter 

macrocephalus.

Hawaii .....................

N/A ..........................

E/D; Y ...

N/A ........

4,559 (0.33, 3,478, 2010) 17

29,674 10–26,300 11 ............

13.9 

..............

0.7 

..............

Y Y 

Family Kogiidae: 

Pygmy sperm whale ..... Kogia breviceps ...... Hawaii ..................... -/-; N ...... 7,138 4 ................................ UND 0 Y Y 

Dwarf sperm whale ...... Kogia sima .............. Hawaii ..................... -/-; N ...... 17,519 4 .............................. UND 0 Y Y 

Family Ziphiidae (beaked 

whales): 

Cuvier’s beaked whale Ziphius cavirostris ... Hawaii ..................... -, -, N ..... 723 (0.69, 428, 2010) 17 ..... 4.3 0 Y Y 

N/A .......................... ............... 20,000 12 ............................. .............. ..............

Longman’s beaked 

whale.

Indopacetus 

pacificus.

Hawaii ..................... -, -, N ..... 7,619 (0.66, 4,592, 2010) 17 46 0 Y N 

Blainville’s beaked 

whale.

Mesoplodon 

densirostris.

Hawaii ..................... -, -, N ..... 2,105 (1.13,1, 980, 2010) 17 10 0 Y N 

Stejneger’s beaked 

whale.

Mesoplodon 

stejnegeri.

Alaska ..................... N ........... UNK .................................... UND 0 N Y 

Ginkgo-toothed beaked 

whale.

Mesoplodon 

ginkgodens.

N/A .......................... ............... 25,300 12 ............................. .............. .............. Rare Absent 

Deraniyagala’s beaked 

whale.

Mesoplodon hotaula N/A .......................... ............... 25,300 12 ............................. .............. .............. Y N 

Hubb’s beaked whale ... Mesoplodon 

carlhubbsi.

N/A .......................... ............... 25,300 12 ............................. .............. .............. Y N 

Baird’s beaked whale ... Berardius bairdii ...... N/A .......................... ............... 10,190 13 ............................. .............. .............. N Y 

Family Delphinidae: 

Rough-toothed dolphin Steno bredanensis .. Hawaii ..................... -, -, N ..... 72,528 (0.39, 52,033, 

2010) 17.

46 UNK Common N 

Common bottlenose 

dolphin.

Tursiops truncatus .. Hawaii Pelagic ........ -/-; N ...... 21,815 (0.57, 13,957, 

2010) 17.

140 0.2 Common N 

Kaua1i and Ni1ihau ... -/-; N ...... 184 (0.11, 168, 2005) 4 ...... 1.7 unk Common N 

.................................. O1ahu ....................... -/-; N ...... 743 (0.54, 485, 2006) 4 ...... 4.9 unk Common N 

4 Islands Region ..... -/-; N ...... 191 (0.24, 156, 2006) ........ unk unk Common N 

Hawaii Island ........... -/-; N ...... 128 (0.13, 115, 2006) 4 ...... 1.6 unk Common N 

Common dolphin .......... Delphinus delphis .... N/A .......................... ............... 2,963,000 14 ........................ .............. .............. N Y 

Pantropical spotted dolphin.Stenella attenuata ... Hawaii Pelagic ........ -/-; N ...... 55,795 (0.40, 40,338, 

2010) 17.

403 0 Y N 

O1ahu ....................... -/-; N ...... unk ...................................... unk unk 

4 Island Region ....... -/-; N ...... unk ...................................... unk unk 

Hawaii Island ........... -/-; N ...... unk ...................................... unk ≥ 0.2 

Spinner dolphin ............ Stenella longirostris Hawaii Pelagic ........ -/-; N ...... unk ...................................... unk unk Y N 

.................................. Hawaii Island ........... -/-; N ...... 631 (0.04, 585, 2013) 4 ...... 5.9 unk Common N 

O1ahu/4-Islands ....... -/-; N ...... 355 (0.09, 329, 2013) 4 ...... 3.3 unk Y N 

Striped dolphin ............. Stenella 

coeruleoalba.

Hawaii ..................... -/-; N ...... 61,021 (0.38, 44,922, 

2010) 17.

449 unk Y Y 

N/A .......................... ............... 964,362 15 ........................... .............. ..............

Fraser’s dolphin ............ Lagenodelphis hosei Hawaii ..................... -/-; N ...... 51,491 (0.66, 31,034, 

2010) 17.

310 0 Y N 

Pacific white-sided dolphin.Lagenorhynchus 

obliquidens.

Central North Pacific ............... 988,333 16 ........................... .............. .............. N Y 

Northern right whale 

dolphin.

Lissodelphis borealis N/A .......................... ............... 307,784 16 ........................... .............. .............. N Y 

Risso’s dolphin ............. Grampus griseus ..... Hawaii ..................... -/-; N ...... 11,613 (0.39, 8,210, 

2010) 17.

82 0 Y Y 

N/A .......................... ............... 110,457 15 ........................... .............. ..............

Melon-headed whale .... Peponocephala 

electra.

Hawaii .....................

Kohala Resident ......

-/-; N ......

-/-; N ......

8,666 (1.00, 4,299, 2010) 17

447 (0.12, 404, 2009) 4 ......

43 

4 

0 

0 

Y N 

Pygmy killer whale ....... Feresa attenuata ..... Hawaii ..................... -/-; N ...... 10,640 (0.53, 6,998, 

2010) 17.

56 1.1 Y N 

False killer whale .......... Pseudorca 

crassidens.

Hawaii Insular ......... E/D;Y ..... 167 (0.14, 149, 2015) 17 ..... 0.3 0 Y Y 

Northwest Hawaiian 

Islands.

-/-; N ...... 617 (1.11, 290, 2010) 17 ..... 2.3 0.4 

Hawaii Pelagic ........ -/-; N ...... 1,540 (0.66, 928, 2010) 17 .. 9.3 7.6 

N/A .......................... ............... 16,668 18 ............................. .............. ..............

Killer whale ................... Orcinus orca ............ Hawaii ..................... -/-; N ...... 146 (0.96, 74, 2010) .......... 0.7 0 Y Y 

N/A .......................... ............... 8,500 19 ............................... .............. ..............

Short-finned pilot whale Globicephala 

macrorhynchus.

Hawaii .....................

N/A ..........................

-/-; N ......

...............

19,503 (0.49, 13,197, 2010) 

53,608 16 .............................

106 0.9 Y Y 

Family Phoenidae (porpoises): 

Dall’s porpoise .............. Phocoenoides dalli .. N/A .......................... ............... 1,186,000 20 ........................ .............. .............. N Y 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared 

seals and sea lions): 

Steller sea lion .............. Eumetopias jubatus Western DPS .......... E/D; Y ... 50,983 (-,50,983, 2015) ..... .............. .............. N Y 

Northern fur seal .......... Callorhinus ursinus Eastern Pacific ........ -/D; Y ..... 626,734 (0.2, 530,474, 

2014).

11,405 437 N Y 

N/A .......................... ............... 1,100,000 5 ......................... .............. ..............


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2
30484 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 

TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMALS THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE PROPOSED SURVEY AREAS—Continued 

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Present at time of 

survey (Y/N) 

HI Emperor 

Seamounts 

Family Phocidae (earless 

seals): 

Hawaiian monk seal ..... Neomonachus 

schauinslandi.

Hawaii ..................... E/D; Y ... 1,324 (0.03, 1,261, 2015) 17 4.4 ≥1.6 Y N 

Northern elephant seal Mirounga 

angustirostris.

................................. ............... 210,000–239,000 21 ............ .............. .............. N Y 

Ribbon seal .................. Histriophoca fasciata Alaska ..................... -/-; N ...... 184,000 (0.12, 163,000, 

2013).

9,785 3.8 N Y 

1—Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the 

ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or 

which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically 

designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2—NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock 

abundance. 3—These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated 

mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases. 4—Carretta et al., 2017. 5—Jefferson et al., 2015. 6—Muto et al., 2017. 7—IWC 2018. 

8—Central and Eastern North Pacific (Hakamada and Matsuoka 2015a). 

9—Ohsumi and Wada, 1974. 

10—Whitehead 2002. 11—Barlow and Taylor 2005. 12—Wade and Gerrodette 1993. 13—Western Pacific Ocean (Okamura et al., 2012). 14—ETP (Gerrodette and Forcada 2002 in Hammond et al., 2008b). 15—Gerrodette et al., 2008. 16—North Pacific (Miyashita 1993b). 17—Carretta et al., 2018. 18—Western North Pacific (Miyashita 1993a). 19—Ford 2009. 20—Buckland et al., 1993. 21—Lowry et al., 2014. 

Note—Italicized species are not expected to be taken or proposed for authorization. 

All species that could potentially 

occur in the proposed survey area are 

included in Table 1. With the exception 

of Steller sea lions, these species or 

stocks temporally and spatially co-occur 

with the activity to the degree that take 

is reasonably likely to occur. However, 

the temporal and/or spatial occurrence 

of Steller sea lions is such that take is 

not expected to occur, and they are not 

discussed further beyond the 

explanation provided here. The Steller 

sea lion occurs along the North Pacific 

Rim from northern Japan to California 

(Loughlin et al. 1984). They are 

distributed around the coasts to the 

outer shelf from northern Japan through 

the Kuril Islands and Okhotsk Sea, 

through the Aleutian Islands, central 

Bering Sea, southern Alaska, and south 

to California (NMFS 2016c). There is 

little information available on at-sea 

occurrence of Steller sea lions in the 

northwestern Pacific Ocean. The 

Emperor Seamounts survey area is 

roughly 1,200 kilometers away from the 

Aleutian Islands in waters 2,000 to more 

than 5,000 meters deep. Steller sea lions 

are unlikely to occur in the proposed 

offshore survey area based on their 

known distributional range and habitat 

preference. Therefore, it is extremely 

unlikely that Steller sea lions would be 

exposed to the stressors associated with 

the proposed seismic activities and will 

not be discussed further. 

We have reviewed L–DEO’s species 

descriptions, including life history 

information, distribution, regional 

distribution, diving behavior, and 

acoustics and hearing, for accuracy and 

completeness. Below, for the 39 species 

that are likely to be taken by the 

activities described, we offer a brief 

introduction to the species and relevant 

stock as well as available information 

regarding population trends and threats, 

and describe any information regarding 

local occurrence. 

Gray Whale 

Two separate populations of gray 

whales have been recognized in the 

North Pacific (LeDuc et al. 2002): The 

eastern North Pacific and western North 

Pacific (or Korean-Okhotsk) stocks. 

However, the distinction between these 

two populations has been recently 

debated owing to evidence that whales 

from the western feeding area also travel 

to breeding areas in the eastern North 

Pacific (Weller et al. 2012, 2013; Mate 

et al. 2015). Thus, it is possible that 

whales from both the endangered 

Western North Pacific and the delisted 

Eastern North Pacific DPS could occur 

in the proposed survey area in the 

Emperor Seamounts survey area. 

The western population is known to 

feed in the Okhotsk Sea along the 

northeast coast of Sakhalin Island 

(Weller et al. 1999, 2002a, 2008), eastern 

Kamchatka, and the northern Okhotsk 

Sea in the summer and autumn 

(Vladimirov et al. 2008). Winter 

breeding grounds are not known; 

however, it has been postulated that 

wintering areas occur along the south 

coast of the Korean Peninsula, but it is 

more likely that they are located in the 

South China Sea, along the coast of 

Guangdong province and Hainan (Wang 

1984 and Zhu 1998 in Weller et al. 

2002a; Rice 1998). Winter records exist 

for Japan, North Korea, and South Korea 

(Weller et al. 2002a,b). Migration into 

the Okhotsk Sea may occur through the 

Sea of Japan via the Tatar Strait and/or 

La Perouse Strait (see Reeves et al. 

2008). If migration timing is similar to 

that of the better-known eastern gray 

whale, southbound migration probably 

occurs mainly in December–January and 

northbound migration mainly in 

February–April, with northbound 

migration of newborn calves and their 

mothers probably concentrated at the 

end of that period. The eastern North 

Pacific gray whale breeds and winters in 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 30485 

Baja, California, and migrates north to 

summer feeding grounds in the northern 

Bering Sea, Chukchi Sea, and western 

Beaufort Sea (Rice and Wolman 1971; 

Jefferson et al. 2015). 

In the western North Pacific, gray 

whales migrate along the coast of Japan 

(Weller et al. 2008), and records have 

been reported there from November 

through August, with the majority for 

March through May (Weller et al. 2012). 

Although the offshore limit of this route 

is not well documented, gray whales are 

known to prefer nearshore coastal 

waters. However, some exchange 

between populations in the eastern and 

western North Pacific has been reported 

(Weller et al. 2012, 2013; Mate et al. 

2015); thus, migration routes could 

include pelagic waters of the Pacific 

Ocean, including the proposed Emperor 

Seamounts survey area. Nonetheless, 

given their small population size and 

preference for nearshore waters, only 

very small numbers are likely to be 

encountered during the proposed 

Emperor Seamounts survey during any 

time of the year. Additionally, during 

summer, most gray whales would be 

feeding near Sakhalin Island. The gray 

whale does not occur in Hawaiian 

waters. 

North Pacific Right Whale 

North Pacific right whales summer in 

the northern North Pacific, primarily in 

the Okhotsk Sea (Brownell et al. 2001) 

and in the Bering Sea (Shelden et al. 

2005; Wade et al. 2006). The eastern 

North Pacific stock that occurs in U.S. 

waters numbers only ∼31 individuals 

(Wade et al. 2011), and critical habitat 

has been designated in the eastern 

Bering Sea and in the Gulf of Alaska, 

south of Kodiak Island (NMFS 2017b). 

Wintering and breeding areas are 

unknown, but have been suggested to 

include the Hawaiian Islands, Ryukyu 

Islands, and Sea of Japan (Allen 1942; 

Gilmore 1978; Reeves et al. 1978; 

Herman et al. 1980; Omura 1986). The 

Hawaiian Islands were not a major 

calving ground for right whales in the 

last 200 years, but mid-ocean whaling 

records of right whales during winter 

suggest that right whales may have 

wintered and calved far offshore in the 

Pacific Ocean (Scarff 1986, 1991; 

Clapham et al. 2004). In April 1996, a 

right whale was sighted off Maui, the 

first documented sighting of a right 

whale in Hawaiian waters since 1979 

(Salden and Mickelsen 1999). 

Whaling records indicate that right 

whales once ranged across the entire 

North Pacific Ocean north of 35° N and 

occasionally occurred as far south as 20° 

N (e.g., Scarff 1986, 1991). In the 

western Pacific, most sightings in the 

1900s were reported from Japanese 

waters, followed by the Kuril Islands, 

and the Okhotsk Sea (Brownell et al. 

2001). Significant numbers of right 

whales have been seen in the Okhotsk 

Sea during the 1990s, suggesting that 

the adjacent Kuril Islands and 

Kamchatka coast are a major feeding 

ground (Brownell et al. 2001). Right 

whales were also seen near Chichi-jima 

Island (Bonin Islands), Japan, in the 

1990s (Mori et al. 1998). During 1994– 

2014, right whale sightings were 

reported off northern Japan, the Kuril 

Islands, and Kamchatka during April 

through August, with highest densities 

in May and August (Matsuoka et al. 

2015). All sightings were north of 38° N, 

and in July–August, the main 

distribution was north of 42° N 

(Matsuoka et al. 2015). Right whale 

sightings were made within the Emperor 

Seamounts survey area during August, 

and adjacent to the survey area during 

May and July (Matsuoka et al. 2015). 

Ovsyanikova et al. (2015) also reported 

right whale sightings in the western 

Pacific Ocean during 1977–2014; 

although they also reported sightings off 

eastern Japan, the Kuril Islands, and 

southeast Kamchatka, including 

sightings to the west of the proposed 

Emperor Seamounts survey area, no 

sightings were reported within the 

proposed survey area. Sekiguchi et al. 

(2014) reported several sightings just to 

the north and west of the proposed 

survey area during June 2012. 

Although there are a few historical 

records of North Pacific right whales in 

Hawaiian waters (Brownell et al. 2001), 

they are very unlikely to occur in the 

Hawaiian survey area, especially during 

the summer. However, right whales 

could be encountered in the Emperor 

Seamounts survey area during spring 

and summer, and likely fall. Individuals 

that could occur there would likely be 

from a western North Pacific stock 

rather than the eastern North Pacific 

stock. 

Humpback Whale 

The humpback whale is found 

throughout all oceans of the World 

(Clapham 2009), with recent genetic 

evidence suggesting three separate 

subspecies: North Pacific, North 

Atlantic, and Southern Hemisphere 

(Jackson et al. 2014). Nonetheless, 

genetic analyses suggest some gene flow 

(either past or present) between the 

North and South Pacific (e.g., Jackson et 

al. 2014; Bettridge et al. 2015). Although 

considered to be mainly a coastal 

species, the humpback whale often 

traverses deep pelagic areas while 

migrating (e.g., Mate et al. 1999; 

Garrigue et al. 2015). 

North Pacific humpback whales 

migrate between summer feeding 

grounds along the Pacific Rim and the 

Bering and Okhotsk seas, and winter 

calving and breeding areas in 

subtropical and tropical waters (Pike 

and MacAskie 1969; Rice 1978; Winn 

and Reichley 1985; Calambokidis et al. 

2000, 2001, 2008). In the North Pacific, 

humpbacks winter in four different 

breeding areas: (1) Along the coast of 

Mexico; (2) along the coast of Central 

America; (3) around the Main Hawaiian 

Islands; and (4) in the western Pacific, 

particularly around the Ogasawara and 

Ryukyu islands in southern Japan and 

the northern Philippines (Calambokidis 

et al. 2008; Fleming and Jackson 2011; 

Bettridge et al. 2015). 

Humpback whales were listed as 

endangered under the Endangered 

Species Conservation Act (ESCA) in 

June 1970. In 1973, the ESA replaced 

the ESCA, and humpbacks continued to 

be listed as endangered. NMFS recently 

evaluated the status of the species, and 

on September 8, 2016, NMFS divided 

the species into 14 distinct population 

segments (DPS), removed the current 

species-level listing, and in its place 

listed four DPSs as endangered and one 

DPS as threatened (81 FR 62259, 

September 8, 2016). The remaining nine 

DPSs were not listed. There are two 

DPSs that occur in the action area: The 

Hawaii DPS, which is not listed under 

the ESA (81 FR 62259) and the Western 

North Pacific DPS which is listed as 

endangered. 

The proposed seismic activity for the 

Emperor Seamount survey would take 

place in late spring or early summer 

2019. Humpbacks were reported within 

the proposed action area in May, July, 

and August (Matsuoka et al. 2015). 

Based on the timing of the action, it is 

likely that humpback whales from the 

Western North Pacific DPS would be 

migrating north through the action area 

to the feeding grounds, and thus be 

exposed to the action. Hawaii DPS and 

Mexico DPS humpbacks would also be 

migrating north at that time of year, but 

due to the location of the breeding areas 

of these DPSs, we do not expect their 

migratory path to take them through the 

action area. 

There is potential for the mixing of 

the western and eastern North Pacific 

humpback populations, as several 

individuals have been seen in the 

wintering areas of Japan and Hawaii in 

separate years (Darling and Cerchio 

1993; Salden et al. 1999; Calambokidis 

et al. 2001, 2008). Whales from these 

wintering areas have been shown to 

travel to summer feeding areas in British 

Columbia, Canada, and Kodiak Island, 

Alaska (Darling et al. 1996; 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2
30486 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 

Calambokidis et al. 2001), but feeding 

areas in Russian waters may be most 

important (Calambokidis et al. 2008). 

There appears to be a very low level of 

interchange between wintering and 

feeding areas in Asia and those in the 

eastern and central Pacific 

(Calambokidis et al. 2008; Baker et al. 

2013). 

Humpbacks use Hawaiian waters for 

breeding from December to April; peak 

abundance occurs from late-February to 

early-April (Mobley et al. 2001). Most 

humpbacks have been sighted there in 

water depths <180 m (Fleming and 

Jackson 2011), but Frankel et al. (1995) 

detected singers up to 13 km from shore 

at depths up to 550 m. During vesselbased line-transect surveys in the 

Hawaiian Islands EEZ in July–December 

2002, one humpback whale was sighted 

on 21 November at ∼20.3° N, 154.9° W 

just north of the Island of Hawaii 

(Barlow et al. 2004). Another sighting 

was made during summer–fall 2010 

surveys, but the date and location of 

that sighting were not reported 

(Bradford et al. 2017). 

The Hawaiian Islands Humpback 

Whale National Marine Sanctuary 

(HIHWNMS) was established in 1992 by 

the U.S. Congress to protect humpback 

whales and their habitat in Hawaii 

(NOAA 2018a). The sanctuary provides 

essential breeding, calving, and nursing 

areas necessary for the long-term 

recovery of the North Pacific humpback 

whale population. The HIHWNMS 

provides protection to humpbacks in the 

shallow waters (from the shoreline to a 

depth of 100 fathoms or 183 m) around 

the four islands area of Maui, Penguin 

Bank; off the north shore of Kauai, the 

north and south shores of Oahu, and the 

north Kona and Koahal coast of the 

island of Hawaii (NOAA 2018a). These 

areas, as well as some of the waters 

surrounding them, are also considered 

breeding BIAs (Baird et al. 2015). The 

proposed seismic lines are located at 

least 10 km from the HIHWNMS (Fig. 1). 

However, humpback whales are not 

expected to be encountered in the 

Hawaiian survey area during the 

summer. 

During Japanese surveys in the 

western North Pacific from 1994–2014, 

humpbacks were seen off northern 

Japan, the Kuril Islands, and Kamchatka 

(Miyashita 2006; Matsuoka et al. 2015). 

Sightings were reported for the months 

of April through September, with lowest 

densities in April and September 

(Matsuoka et al. 2015). In May and June, 

sightings were concentrated east of 

northern Japan between 37° and 43° N; 

concentrations moved north of 45°N 

during July and August, off the Kuril 

Islands and Kamchatka (Mutsuoka et al. 

2015). Humpback whales were 

encountered within the proposed 

Emperor Seamount study area in May, 

July, and August (Matsuoka et al. 2015). 

Thus, humpbacks could be 

encountered in the Emperor Seamounts 

survey area during spring and summer, 

as individuals are migrating to northern 

feeding grounds at that time. They could 

also be encountered in the survey area 

during fall, on their southbound 

migration. Humpback whale 

occurrences in the Hawaii survey area 

during the time of the proposed survey 

would be rare. 

Bryde’s Whale 

Bryde’s whale occurs in all tropical 

and warm temperate waters in the 

Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian oceans, 

between 40° N and 40° S (Kato and 

Perrin 2009). It is one of the least known 

large baleen whales, and its taxonomy is 

still under debate (Kato and Perrin 

2009). B. brydei is commonly used to 

refer to the larger form or ‘‘true’’ Bryde’s 

whale and B. edeni to the smaller form; 

however, some authors apply the name 

B. edeni to both forms (Kato and Perrin 

2009). Although there is a pattern of 

movement toward the Equator in the 

winter and the poles during the 

summer, Bryde’s whale does not 

undergo long seasonal migrations, 

remaining in warm (≥16° C) water yearround (Kato and Perrin 2009). Bryde’s 

whales are known to occur in both 

shallow coastal and deeper offshore 

waters (Jefferson et al. 2015). 

In the Pacific United States, a Hawaii 

and an Eastern Tropical Pacific stock are 

recognized (Carretta et al. 2017). In 

Hawaii, Bryde’s whales are typically 

seen offshore (e.g., Barlow et al. 2004; 

Barlow 2006), but Hopkins et al. (2009) 

reported a Bryde’s whale within 70 km 

of the Main Hawaiian Islands. During 

summer–fall surveys of the Hawaiian 

Islands EEZ, 13 sightings were made in 

2002 (Barlow 2006), and 32 sightings 

were reported during 2010 (Bradford et 

al. 2017). Bryde’s whales were primarily 

sighted in the western half of the 

Hawaiian Islands EEZ, with the majority 

of sightings associated with the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands; none 

was made in the proposed survey area 

(Barlow et al. 2004; Barlow 2006; 

Bradford et al. 2013; Forney et al. 2015; 

Carretta et al. 2017). 

Bryde’s whales have been regularly 

seen during Japanese summer sighting 

surveys in the western North Pacific, 

south of 43° S (Hakamada et al. 2009, 

2017), and individual movements have 

been tracked with satellite tags in 

offshore waters off Japan (Murase et al. 

2016). No recent sightings have been 

made in the proposed Emperor 

Seamounts survey area, but commercial 

catches have been reported there (IWC 

2007a). 

Limited numbers of Bryde’s whale 

could occur in the Emperor Seamounts 

survey area, but its distributional range 

is generally to the south of this region. 

However, it could occur in the Hawaiian 

survey area at any time of the year. 

Common Minke Whale 

The common minke whale has a 

cosmopolitan distribution ranging from 

the tropics and subtropics to the ice 

edge in both hemispheres (Jefferson et 

al. 2015). In the Northern Hemisphere, 

minke whales are usually seen in 

coastal areas, but can also be seen in 

pelagic waters during northward 

migrations in spring and summer, and 

southward migration in autumn 

(Stewart and Leatherwood 1985). In the 

North Pacific, the summer range extends 

to the Chukchi Sea; in the winter, minke 

whales move further south to within 2° 

of the Equator (Perrin and Brownell 

2009). The International Whaling 

Commission (IWC) recognizes three 

stocks in the North Pacific: The Sea of 

Japan/East China Sea, the rest of the 

western Pacific west of 180° N, and the 

remainder of the Pacific (Donovan 

1991). 

In U.S. Pacific waters, three stocks are 

recognized: Alaska, Hawaii, and 

California/Oregon/Washington stocks 

(Carretta et al. 2017). In Hawaii, the 

minke whale is thought to occur 

seasonally from November through 

March (Rankin and Barlow 2005). It is 

generally believed to be uncommon in 

Hawaiian waters; however, several 

studies using acoustic detections 

suggest that minke whales may be more 

common than previously thought 

(Rankin et al. 2007; Oswald et al. 2011). 

Acoustic detections have been recorded 

around the Hawaiian Islands during 

fall–spring surveys in 1997 and 2000– 

2006 (Rankin and Barlow 2005; Barlow 

et al. 2008; Rankin et al. 2008), and from 

seafloor hydrophones positioned ∼50 

km from the coast of Kauai during 

February–April 2006. Similarly, passive 

acoustic detections of minke whales 

have been recorded at the ALOHA 

station (22.75° N, 158° W) from 

October–May for decades (Oswald et al. 

2011). 

A lack of sightings is likely related to 

misidentification or low detection 

capability in poor sighting conditions 

(Rankin et al. 2007). Two minke whale 

sightings were made west of 167° W, 

one in November 2002 and one in 

October 2010, during surveys of the 

Hawaiian Islands EEZ (Barlow et al. 

2004; Bradford et al. 2013; Carretta et al. 

2017). Numerous additional sightings in 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 30487 

the EEZ were made by observers on 

Hawaii-based longline fishing vessels, 

including four near the proposed survey 

area to the north and south of the Main 

Hawaiian Islands (Carretta et al. 2017). 

Minke whales have been seen 

regularly during Japanese sighting 

surveys in the western North Pacific 

during summer (Miyashita 2006; 

Hakamada et al. 2009), and one sighting 

was made in August 2010 in offshore 

waters off Japan during the Shatsky Rise 

cruise (Holst and Beland 2010). Minke 

whales were sighted within the Emperor 

Seamounts survey area in the greatest 

numbers in August, with the lowest 

numbers occurring during May and June 

(Hakamada et al. 2009). 

Thus, minke whales could be 

encountered in the Emperor Seamounts 

survey area during spring and summer, 

and likely fall, and could occur in 

limited numbers in the Hawaiian survey 

area during the summer. 

Sei Whale 

The sei whale occurs in all ocean 

basins (Horwood 2009), but appears to 

prefer mid-latitude temperate waters 

(Jefferson et al. 2015). It undertakes 

seasonal migrations to feed in subpolar 

latitudes during summer and returns to 

lower latitudes during winter to calve 

(Horwood 2009). The sei whale is 

pelagic and generally not found in 

coastal waters (Harwood and Wilson 

2001). It occurs in deeper waters 

characteristic of the continental shelf 

edge region (Hain et al. 1985) and in 

other regions of steep bathymetric relief 

such as seamounts and canyons 

(Kenney and Winn 1987; Gregr and 

Trites 2001). 

During summer in the North Pacific, 

the sei whale can be found from the 

Bering Sea to the Gulf of Alaska and 

down to southern California, as well as 

in the western Pacific from Japan to 

Korea. In the U.S. Pacific, an Eastern 

North Pacific and a Hawaii stock are 

recognized (Carretta et al. 2017). In 

Hawaii, the occurrence of sei whales is 

considered rare (DoN 2005). However, 

six sightings were made during surveys 

in the Hawaiian Islands EEZ in July– 

December 2002 (Barlow 2006), 

including several along the north coasts 

of the Main Hawaiian Islands (Barlow et 

al. 2004). All sightings occurred in 

November, with one sighting reported 

near proposed seismic Line 3 north of 

Hawaii Island (Barlow et al. 2004). 

Bradford et al. (2017) reported two 

sightings in the northwestern portion of 

the Hawaiian Islands EEZ during 

summer–fall surveys in 2010. Hopkins 

et al. (2009) sighted one group of three 

subadult sei whales northeast of Oahu 

in November 2007. Sei whale 

vocalizations were also detected near 

Hawaii during November 2002 (Rankin 

and Barlow 2007). Breeding and calving 

areas for this species in the Pacific are 

unknown, but those sightings suggest 

that Hawaii may be an important 

reproductive area (Hopkins et al. 2009). 

Sei whales have been regularly seen 

during Japanese surveys during the 

summer in the western North Pacific 

(Miyashita 2006; Hakamada et al. 2009; 

Sasaki et al. 2013). Sei whales have been 

sighted in and near the Emperor 

Seamounts survey area, with the 

greatest numbers reported for July and 

August; few sightings were made during 

May and June (Hakamada et al. 2009). 

Thus, sei whales could be 

encountered in both the Emperor 

Seamounts and Hawaii survey areas 

during spring and summer. 

Fin Whale 

The fin whale is widely distributed in 

all the World’s oceans (Gambell 1985), 

although it is most abundant in 

temperate and cold waters (Aguilar 

2009). Nonetheless, its overall range and 

distribution are not well known 

(Jefferson et al. 2015). A recent review 

of fin whale distribution in the North 

Pacific noted the lack of sightings across 

the pelagic waters between eastern and 

western winter areas (Mizroch et al. 

2009). The fin whale most commonly 

occurs offshore, but can also be found 

in coastal areas (Aguilar 2009). Most 

populations migrate seasonally between 

temperate waters where mating and 

calving occur in winter, and polar 

waters where feeding occurs in summer 

(Aguilar 2009). However, recent 

evidence suggests that some animals 

may remain at high latitudes in winter 

or low latitudes in summer (Edwards et 

al. 2015). 

The fin whale is known to use the 

shelf edge as a migration route (Evans 

1987). Sergeant (1977) suggested that fin 

whales tend to follow steep slope 

contours, either because they detect 

them readily, or because the contours 

are areas of high biological productivity. 

However, fin whale movements have 

been reported to be complex (Jefferson 

et al. 2015). Stafford et al. (2009) noted 

that sea-surface temperature is a good 

predictor variable for fin whale call 

detections in the North Pacific. 

North Pacific fin whales summer from 

the Chukchi Sea to California and 

winter from California southwards 

(Gambell 1985). In the U.S., three stocks 

are recognized in the North Pacific: 

California/Oregon/Washington, Hawaii, 

and Alaska (Northeast Pacific) (Carretta 

et al. 2017). Information about the 

seasonal distribution of fin whales in 

the North Pacific has been obtained 

from the detection of fin whale calls by 

bottom-mounted, offshore hydrophone 

arrays along the U.S. Pacific coast, in 

the central North Pacific, and in the 

western Aleutian Islands (Moore et al. 

1998, 2006; Watkins et al. 2000a,b; 

Stafford et al. 2007, 2009). Fin whale 

calls are recorded in the North Pacific 

year-round, including near the Emperor 

Seamounts survey area (e.g., Moore et 

al. 2006; Stafford et al. 2007, 2009; 

Edwards et al. 2015). In the central 

North Pacific, call rates peak during fall 

and winter (Moore et al. 1998, 2006; 

Watkins et al. 2000a,b). 

Sightings of fin whales have been 

made in Hawaiian waters during fall 

and winter (Edwards et al. 2015), but fin 

whales are generally considered 

uncommon at that time (DoN 2005). 

During spring and summer, their 

occurrence in Hawaii is considered rare 

(DoN 2005; see Edwards et al. 2015). 

There were five sightings of fin whales 

during summer–fall surveys in 2002, 

with sightings during every month 

except August (Barlow et al. 2004). Most 

sightings were made to the northwest of 

the Main Hawaiian Islands; one sighting 

was made during October southeast of 

Oahu (Barlow et al. 2004). Two 

sightings were made in the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands during 

summer–fall 2010 (Carretta et al. 2017; 

Bradford et al. 2017). Two additional 

sightings in the EEZ were made by 

observers on Hawaii-based longline 

fishing vessels, including one near 

proposed seismic Line 3 north of Maui 

(Carretta et al. 2017). Fin whale 

vocalizations have also been detected in 

Hawaiian waters, mainly during winter 

(Oleson et al. 2014, 2016). 

In the western Pacific, fin whales are 

seen off northern Japan, the Kuril 

Islands, and Kamchatka during the 

summer (Miyashita 2006; Matsuoka et 

al. 2015). During Japanese sightings 

surveys in the western North Pacific 

from 1994–2014, the fin whale was 

sighted more frequently than the blue, 

humpback, or right whale (Matsuoka et 

al. 2015). During May–June, main 

distribution areas occurred from 35–40° 

N and moved north of 40° N during July 

and August; high densities were 

reported north of 45° N (Matsuoka et al. 

2015). During these surveys, fin whales 

were seen in the proposed Emperor 

Seamounts survey area from May 

through September, with most sightings 

during August (Matsuoka et al. 2015). 

Summer sightings in the survey area 

during 1958–2000 were also reported by 

Mizroch et al. (2009) and during July– 

September 2005 (Miyashita 2006). 

Edwards et al. (2015) reported fin whale 

sightings within or near the Emperor 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2
30488 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 

Seamounts survey area from spring 

through fall. 

Thus, fin whales could be 

encountered in the Emperor Seamounts 

survey area from spring through fall, 

and could occur in the Hawaiian survey 

area during summer in limited numbers. 

Blue Whale 

The blue whale has a cosmopolitan 

distribution and tends to be pelagic, 

only coming nearshore to feed and 

possibly to breed (Jefferson et al. 2015). 

Blue whale migration is less well 

defined than for some other rorquals, 

and their movements tend to be more 

closely linked to areas of high primary 

productivity, and hence prey, to meet 

their high energetic demands (Branch et 

al. 2007). Generally, blue whales are 

seasonal migrants between high 

latitudes in the summer, where they 

feed, and low latitudes in the winter, 

where they mate and give birth (Lockyer 

and Brown 1981). Some individuals 

may stay in low or high latitudes 

throughout the year (Reilly and Thayer 

1990; Watkins et al. 2000b). 

In the North Pacific, blue whale calls 

are detected year-round (Stafford et al. 

2001, 2009; Moore et al. 2002, 2006; 

Monnahan et al. 2014). Stafford et al. 

(2009) reported that sea-surface 

temperature is a good predictor variable 

for blue whale call detections in the 

North Pacific. Although it has been 

suggested that there are at least five 

subpopulations in the North Pacific 

(Reeves et al. 1998), analysis of calls 

monitored from the U.S. Navy Sound 

Surveillance System (SOSUS) and other 

offshore hydrophones (e.g., Stafford et 

al. 1999, 2001, 2007; Watkins et al. 

2000a; Stafford 2003) suggests that there 

are two separate populations: One in the 

eastern and one in the central North 

Pacific (Carretta et al. 2017). The 

Eastern North Pacific Stock includes 

whales that feed primarily off California 

from June–November and winter off 

Central America (Calambokidis et al. 

1990; Mate et al. 1999). The Central 

North Pacific Stock feeds off 

Kamchatka, south of the Aleutians and 

in the Gulf of Alaska during summer 

(Stafford 2003; Watkins et al. 2000b), 

and migrates to the western and central 

Pacific (including Hawaii) to breed in 

winter (Stafford et al. 2001; Carretta et 

al. 2017). The status of these two 

populations could differ substantially, 

as little is known about the population 

size in the western North Pacific 

(Branch et al. 2016). 

Blue whales are considered rare in 

Hawaii (DoN 2005). However, call types 

from both stocks have been recorded 

near Hawaii during August–April, 

although eastern calls were more 

prevalent; western calls were mainly 

detected during December–March, 

whereas eastern calls peaked during 

August and September and were rarely 

heard during October–March (Stafford 

et al. 2001). No sightings were made in 

the Hawaiian Islands EEZ during 

surveys in July–December 2002 (Barlow 

et al. 2004; Barlow 2006). One sighting 

was made in the Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands during August– 

October 2010 (Bradford et al. 2013). 

Three additional sightings in the EEZ 

were made by observers on Hawaiibased longline fishing vessels during 

1994–2009, including one in offshore 

waters north of Maui (Carretta et al. 

2017). 

In the western North Pacific, blue 

whale calls have been detected 

throughout the year, but are more 

prevalent from July–December (Stafford 

et al. 2001). Numerous blue whale 

sightings have also been made in the 

western North Pacific during Japanese 

surveys during 1994–2014 (Miyashita 

2006; Matsuoka et al. 2015). A 

northward migration pattern was 

evident, with the main distribution 

occurring from 35–40° N during May 

and June, and north of 40° N during July 

and August (Matsuoka et al. 2015). High 

densities were reported north of 45° N 

(Matsuoka et al. 2015). Blue whales 

were seen in the proposed Emperor 

Seamounts survey area during August 

and September and adjacent to the area 

during May and July (Matsuoka et al. 

2015). 

Thus, blue whales could be 

encountered in the Emperor Seamounts 

and Hawaii survey areas at any time of 

the year, but are more likely to occur in 

the Emperor Seamounts area during 

summer, and in the Hawaii survey area 

during winter. 

Sperm Whale 

The sperm whale is the largest of the 

toothed whales, with an extensive 

worldwide distribution from the edge of 

the polar pack ice to the Equator 

(Whitehead 2009). Sperm whale 

distribution is linked to its social 

structure: Mixed groups of adult females 

and juveniles of both sexes generally 

occur in tropical and subtropical waters 

at latitudes less than ∼40° (Whitehead 

2009). After leaving their female 

relatives, males gradually move to 

higher latitudes with the largest males 

occurring at the highest latitudes and 

only returning to tropical and 

subtropical regions to breed. Sperm 

whales generally are distributed over 

large areas that have high secondary 

productivity and steep underwater 

topography, in waters at least 1000 m 

deep (Jaquet and Whitehead 1996). They 

are often found far from shore, but can 

be found closer to oceanic islands that 

rise steeply from deep ocean waters 

(Whitehead 2009). 

Sperm whale vocalizations have been 

recorded throughout the Central and 

Western Pacific Ocean (Merkens et al. 

2016). Sperm whales are widely 

distributed in Hawaiian waters 

throughout the year (Mobley et al. 2000) 

and are considered a separate stock from 

the Oregon/Washington/California stock 

in U.S. waters (Carretta et al. 2017). 

Higher densities occur in deep, offshore 

waters (Forney et al. 2015). During 

summer–fall surveys of the Hawaiian 

Islands EEZ, 43 sightings were made in 

2002 (Barlow 2006) and 41 were made 

in 2010 (Bradford et al. 2013). Sightings 

were widely distributed across the EEZ 

during both surveys; numerous 

sightings occurred in and near the 

proposed survey area (Barlow et al. 

2004; Barlow 2006; Bradford et al. 

2017). All sightings during surveys of 

the Main Hawaiian Islands in 2000– 

2012 were made in water >1000 m in 

depth, with most sightings in areas 

>3000 m deep (Baird et al. 2013). 

Sightings were made during surveys of 

the Island of Hawaii during all seasons, 

including near proposed seismic Line 1; 

no sightings were made off Oahu (Baird 

et al. 2013). Sperm whales were also 

detected acoustically off the west coast 

of the Hawaii Island year-round (Klinck 

et al. 2012; Giorli et al. 2016). 

Sperm whales have been regularly 

seen in the western North Pacific during 

Japanese surveys during summer 

(Miyashita 2006; Hakamada et al. 2009), 

and sightings were also made in 

offshore waters east of Japan and on the 

Shatsky Rise during a summer survey in 

2010 (Holst and Beland 2010). During 

winter, few sperm whales are observed 

off the east coast of Japan (Kato and 

Miyashita 1998). Sperm whales have 

been sighted in and near the Emperor 

Seamounts survey area from May 

through August, with the greatest 

numbers occurring there during June– 

August (Miyashita 2006; Hakamada et 

al. 2009). 

Thus, sperm whales could be 

encountered in the Emperor Seamounts 

and Hawaii survey areas at any time of 

the year. 

Pygmy and Dwarf Sperm Whales 

The pygmy and dwarf sperm whales 

are distributed widely throughout 

tropical and temperate seas, but their 

precise distributions are unknown 

because much of what we know of the 

species comes from strandings 

(McAlpine 2009). It has been suggested 

that the pygmy sperm whale is more 

temperate and the dwarf sperm whale 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 30489 

more tropical, based at least partially on 

live sightings at sea from a large 

database from the Eastern Tropical 

Pacific or ETP (Wade and Gerrodette 

1993). Kogia spp. are difficult to sight at 

sea, because of their dive behavior and 

perhaps because of their avoidance 

reactions to ships and behavior changes 

in relation to survey aircraft (Wu ̈rsig et 

al. 1998). Although there are few useful 

estimates of abundance for pygmy or 

dwarf sperm whales anywhere in their 

range, they are thought to be fairly 

common in some areas. 

Both Kogia species are sighted 

primarily along the continental shelf 

edge and slope and over deeper waters 

off the shelf (Hansen et al. 1994; Davis 

et al. 1998; Jefferson et al. 2015). 

However, several studies have suggested 

that pygmy sperm whales live mostly 

beyond the continental shelf edge, 

whereas dwarf sperm whales tend to 

occur closer to shore, often over the 

continental shelf (Rice 1998; Wang et al. 

2002; MacLeod et al. 2004). On the other 

hand, McAlpine (2009) and Barros et al. 

(1998) suggested that dwarf sperm 

whales could be more pelagic and dive 

deeper than pygmy sperm whales. 

Vocalizations of Kogia spp. have been 

recorded in the North Pacific Ocean 

(Merkens et al. 2016). An insular 

resident population of dwarf sperm 

whales occurs within ∼20 km from the 

Main Hawaiian Islands throughout the 

year (Baird et al. 2013; Oleson et al. 

2013). During small-boat surveys in 

2000–2012, dwarf sperm whales were 

sighted in all water depth categories up 

to 5000 m deep, but the highest sighting 

rates were in water 500–1,000 m deep 

(Baird et al. 2013). Of a total of 74 

sightings during those surveys, most 

sightings were made off the Island of 

Hawaii, including near proposed 

seismic Line 1 (Baird et al. 2013). The 

area off the west coast of the Island of 

Hawaii is considered a BIA for dwarf 

sperm whales (Baird et al. 2015). Only 

one sighting was made off Oahu (Baird 

et al. 2013). 

Only five sightings of pygmy sperm 

whales were made during the surveys, 

including several off the west coast of 

the Island of Hawaii; the majority of 

sightings were made in water >3,000 m 

deep (Baird et al. 2013). The dwarf 

sperm whale was one of the most 

abundant species during a summer–fall 

survey of the Hawaiian EEZ in 2002 

(Barlow 2006); during that survey, two 

sightings of pygmy sperm whales, five 

sightings of dwarf sperm whales, and 

one sighting of an unidentified Kogia sp. 

were made. All sightings were made in 

the western portion of the EEZ (Barlow 

et al. 2004; Barlow 2006). During 

summer–fall surveys of the Hawaiian 

EEZ in 2010, one dwarf sperm whale 

and one unidentified Kogia sp. were 

sighted (Bradford et al. 2017); no 

sightings were made in or near the 

proposed survey area (Carretta et al. 

2017). 

Although Kogia spp. have been seen 

during Japanese sighting surveys in the 

western North Pacific in August– 

September (Kato et al. 2005), to the best 

of our knowledge, there are no direct 

data available for the Emperor 

Seamounts survey area with respect to 

Kogia spp. It is possible that Kogia spp 

could occur at both survey locations is 

limited numbers. 

Cuvier’s Beaked Whale 

Cuvier’s beaked whale is the most 

widespread of the beaked whales, 

occurring in almost all temperate, 

subtropical, and tropical waters and 

even some sub-polar and polar waters 

(MacLeod et al. 2006). It is likely the 

most abundant of all beaked whales 

(Heyning and Mead 2009). Cuvier’s 

beaked whale is found in deep water 

over and near the continental slope 

(Jefferson et al. 2015). 

Cuvier’s beaked whale has been 

sighted during surveys in Hawaii 

(Barlow 2006; Baird et al. 2013; 

Bradford et al. 2017). Resighting and 

telemetry data suggest that a resident 

insular population of Cuvier’s beaked 

whale may exist in Hawaii, distinct 

from offshore, pelagic whales (e.g. 

McSweeney et al. 2007; Baird et al. 

2013; Oleson et al. 2013). During smallboat surveys around the Hawaiian 

Islands in 2000–2012, sightings were 

made in water depths of 500–4,000 m 

off the west coast of the Island of Hawaii 

during all seasons (Baird et al. 2013). 

The waters around the Island of Hawaii 

are considered a BIA for Cuvier’s beaked 

whale (Baird et al. 2015); proposed 

seismic Line 1 would traverse this area. 

During summer–fall surveys of the 

Hawaiian Islands EEZ, three sightings of 

Cuvier’s beaked whale were made in the 

western portion of the EEZ in 2002 

(Barlow 2006) and 23 were made in the 

EEZ in 2010 (Bradford et al. 2013). It 

was one of the most abundant cetacean 

species sighted in 2002 (Barlow 2006). 

In 2010, most sightings were made in 

nearshore waters of the Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands, but one was made on 

the west coast of the Island of Hawaii, 

and another was made far offshore and 

to the southwest of Kauai (Carretta et al. 

2017). Cuvier’s beaked whales were also 

reported near proposed seismic line 1 

during November 2009 (Klinck et al. 

2012). They have also been detected 

acoustically at hydrophones deployed 

near the Main Hawaiian Islands during 

spring and fall (Baumann-Pickering et 

al. 2014, 2016), including off the west 

coast of the Island of Hawaii (Klinck et 

al. 2012). Probable acoustic detections 

were also made at Cross Seamount, 

south of the Main Hawaiian Islands, at 

18.72° N, 158.25° W (Johnston 2008). 

Cuvier’s beaked whale has been seen 

during Japanese sighting surveys in 

August–September in the western North 

Pacific (Kato et al. 2005). It has also 

been detected acoustically in the 

Aleutian Islands (Baumann-Pickering et 

al. 2014). There is very little 

information on this species for the 

Emperor Seamounts survey area, but 

what is known of its distribution and 

habitat preferences suggests that it could 

occur there. Therefore, Cuvier’s beaked 

whales could occur at both survey 

locations. 

Longman’s Beaked Whale 

Longman’s beaked whale, also known 

Indo-Pacific beaked whale, used to be 

one of the least known cetacean species, 

but it is now one of the more frequently 

sighted beaked whales (Pitman 2009a). 

Longman’s beaked whale occurs in 

tropical waters throughout the IndoPacific, with records from 30° S to 40° 

N (Pitman 2009a). Longman’s beaked 

whale is most often sighted in waters 

with temperatures ≥26°C and depth 

>2,000 m, and sightings have also been 

reported along the continental slope 

(Anderson et al. 2006; Pitman 2009a). 

During small-boat surveys around the 

Hawaiian Islands in 2000–2012, a single 

sighting of Longman’s beaked whale 

was made off the west coast of the 

Island of Hawaii during summer (Baird 

et al. 2013). During summer–fall surveys 

of the Hawaiian Islands EEZ, one 

sighting was made in 2002 and three 

were made in 2010; one sighting was 

made in offshore waters southwest of 

Ohau, and another was made at the edge 

of the EEZ southwest of the Island of 

Hawaii (Barlow et al. 2004; Barlow 

2006; Bradford et al. 2013). Acoustic 

detections have been made at the 

Palmyra Atoll and the Pearl and Hermes 

Reef (Baumann-Pickering et al. 2014). 

Longman’s beaked whale has been 

seen during Japanese sighting surveys in 

August–September in the western North 

Pacific (Kato et al. 2005). However, 

what is known about its distribution 

and habitat preferences suggests that it 

does not occur in the Emperor 

Seamounts survey area. 

Blainville’s Beaked Whale 

Blainville’s beaked whale is found in 

tropical and warm temperate waters of 

all oceans (Pitman 2009b). It has the 

widest distribution throughout the 

world of all mesoplodont species and 

appears to be common (Pitman 2009b). 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2
30490 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 

It is commonly sighted in some areas of 

Hawaii (Jefferson et al. 2015). 

McSweeney et al. (2007), Schorr et al. 

(2009), Baird et al. (2013), and Oleson 

et al. (2013) have suggested the 

existence of separate insular and 

offshore Blainville’s beaked whales in 

Hawaiian waters. During small-boat 

surveys around the Hawaiian Islands in 

2000–2012, sightings were made in shelf 

as well as deep water, with the highest 

sighting rates in water 3500–4000 m 

deep, followed by water 500–1000 m 

deep (Baird et al. 2013). Sightings were 

made during all seasons off the island 

of Hawaii, as well as off Oahu (Baird et 

al. 2013). The area off the west coast of 

Hawaii Island is considered a BIA for 

Blainville’s beaked whale (Baird et al. 

2015); proposed seismic Line 1 would 

traverse this BIA. During summer–fall 

shipboard surveys of the Hawaiian 

Islands EEZ, three sightings were made 

in 2002 and two were made in 2010, all 

in the western portion of the EEZ 

(Barlow et al. 2004; Barlow 2006; 

Bradford et al. 2013). In addition, there 

were four sightings of unidentified 

Mesoplodon there in 2002 (Barlow et al. 

2004; Barlow 2006) and 10 in 2010 

(Bradford et al. 2013). 

Blainville’s beaked whales have also 

been detected acoustically at 

hydrophones deployed near the Main 

Hawaiian Islands throughout the year 

(Baumann-Pickering et al. 2014, 2016; 

Henderson et al. 2016; Manzano-Roth et 

al. 2016), including off the west coast of 

the Island of Hawaii, near proposed 

seismic Line 1, during October– 

November 2009 (Klinck et al. 2012). 

Probable acoustic detections were also 

made at Cross Seamount, south of the 

Main Hawaiian Islands, at 18.72° N, 

158.25° W (Johnston 2008). Blainville’s 

beaked whale is expected to be absent 

from the Emperor Seamounts survey 

area. 

Stejneger’s Beaked Whale 

Stejneger’s beaked whale occurs in 

subarctic and cool temperate waters of 

the North Pacific (Mead 1989). Most 

records are from Alaskan waters, and 

the Aleutian Islands appear to be its 

center of distribution (Mead 1989). In 

the western Pacific Ocean, Stejneger’s 

beaked whale has been seen during 

Japanese sighting surveys during 

August–September (Kato et al. 2005). 

Seasonal peaks in strandings along the 

western coast of Japan suggest that this 

species may migrate north in the 

summer from the Sea of Japan (Mead 

1989). They have also been detected 

acoustically in the Aleutian Islands 

during summer, fall, and winter 

(Baumann-Pickering et al. 2014). 

Given its distributional range (see 

Jefferson et al. 2015), Stejneger’s beaked 

whale could occur in the Emperor 

Seamounts survey area. It does not 

occur in the Hawaiian survey area. 

Ginkgo-Toothed Beaked Whale 

Ginkgo-toothed beaked whale is only 

known from stranding and capture 

records (Mead 1989; Jefferson et al. 

2015). It is hypothesized to occupy 

tropical and warm temperate waters of 

the Indian and Pacific oceans (Pitman 

2009b). Its distributional range in the 

North Pacific extends from Japan to the 

Galapagos Islands, and there are also 

records for the South Pacific as far south 

as Australia and New Zealand (Jefferson 

et al. 2015). Although its distributional 

range is thought to be south of Hawaii 

(Jefferson et al. 2015), vocalizations 

likely from this species have been 

detected acoustically at hydrophones 

deployed near the Main Hawaiian 

Islands and just to the south at Cross 

Seamount (18.72° N, 158.25° W), as well 

as at the Wake Atoll and Mariana 

Islands (Baumann-Pickering et al. 2014, 

2016). However, no sightings have been 

made in Hawaiian waters (Barlow 2006; 

Baird et al. 2013; Bradford et al. 2017). 

The ginkgo-toothed beaked whale 

could occur in the southern parts of the 

Hawaiian survey area, but it is not 

expected to occur in the Emperor 

Seamounts survey area. 

Deraniyagala’s Beaked Whale 

Deraniyagala’s beaked whale is a 

newly recognized species of whale that 

recently has been described for the 

tropical Indo-Pacific, where it is thought 

to occur between ∼15° N and ∼10° S 

(Dalebout et al. 2014). Strandings have 

been reported for the Maldives, Sri 

Lanka, the Seychelles, Kiribati, and 

Palmyra Atoll (Dalebout et al. 2014), 

and acoustic detections have been made 

at Palmyra Atoll and Kingman Reef in 

the Line Islands (Baumann-Pickering et 

al. 2014). It is closely related to ginkgotoothed beaked whale, but DNA and 

morphological data have shown that the 

two are separate species (Dalebout et al. 

2014). 

Although possible, Deraniyagala’s 

beaked whale is unlikely to occur in the 

Hawaiian survey area, and its range 

does not include the Emperor 

Seamounts survey area. 

Hubb’s Beaked Whale 

Hubb’s beaked whale occurs in 

temperate waters of the North Pacific 

(Mead 1989). Most of the stranding 

records are from California (Willis and 

Baird 1998). Its distribution appears to 

be correlated with the deep subarctic 

current (Mead et al. 1982). Its range is 

believed to be continuous across the 

North Pacific (Macleod et al. 2006), 

although this has yet to be substantiated 

because very few direct at-sea 

observations exist. 

Hubb’s beaked whale was seen during 

Japanese sighting surveys in the western 

North Pacific during August–September 

(Kato et al. 2005). However, there is very 

little information on this species for the 

Emperor Seamounts survey area, but 

what is known of its distribution 

suggests it would occur in limited 

numbers. The Hubb’s beaked whale is 

unlikely to occur in the Hawaiian 

survey area. 

Baird’s Beaked Whale 

Baird’s beaked whale has a fairly 

extensive range across the North Pacific 

north of 30° N, and strandings have 

occurred as far north as the Pribilof 

Islands (Rice 1986). Two forms of 

Baird’s beaked whales have been 

recognized—the common slate-gray 

form and a smaller, rare black form 

(Morin et al. 2017). The gray form is 

seen off Japan, in the Aleutians, and on 

the west coast of North America, 

whereas the black from has been 

reported for northern Japan and the 

Aleutians (Morin et al. 2017). Recent 

genetic studies suggest that the black 

form could be a separate species (Morin 

et al. 2017). 

Baird’s beaked whale is currently 

divided into three distinct stocks: Sea of 

Japan, Okhotsk Sea, and Bering Sea/ 

eastern North Pacific (Balcomb 1989; 

Reyes 1991). The whales occur yearround in the Okhotsk Sea and Sea of 

Japan (Kasuya 2009). Baird’s beaked 

whales sometimes are seen close to 

shore, but their primary habitat is over 

or near the continental slope and 

oceanic seamounts in waters 1,000– 

3,000 m deep (Jefferson et al. 1993; 

Kasuya and Ohsumi 1984; Kasuya 

2009). 

Off Japan’s Pacific coast, Baird’s 

beaked whales start to appear in May, 

numbers increase over the summer, and 

decrease toward October (Kasuya 2009). 

During this time, they are nearly absent 

in offshore waters (Kasuya 2009). Kato 

et al. (2005) also reported the presence 

of Baird’s beaked whales in the western 

North Pacific in August–September. 

They have also been detected 

acoustically in the Aleutian Islands 

(Baumann-Pickering et al. 2014). 

Baird’s beaked whale could be 

encountered at the Emperor Seamounts 

survey area, but its distribution does not 

include Hawaiian waters. 

Rough-Toothed Dolphin 

The rough-toothed dolphin is 

distributed worldwide in tropical to 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 30491 

warm temperate oceanic waters 

(Miyazaki and Perrin 1994; Jefferson 

2009). In the Pacific, it occurs from 

central Japan and northern Australia to 

Baja California, Mexico, and southern 

Peru (Jefferson 2009). It generally occurs 

in deep, oceanic waters, but can be 

found in shallower coastal waters in 

some regions (Jefferson et al. 2015). 

The rough-toothed dolphin is 

expected to be one of the most abundant 

cetaceans in the Hawaiian survey area, 

based on previous surveys in the area 

(Barlow et al. 2004; Barlow 2006; Baird 

et al. 2013; Bradford et al. 2017). Higher 

densities are expected to occur in 

deeper waters around the Hawaiian 

Islands than in far offshore waters of the 

Hawaiian EEZ (Forney et al. 2015). 

During small-boat surveys around the 

Hawaiian Islands in 2000–2012, it was 

sighted in water as deep as 5,000 m, 

with the highest sighting rates in water 

>3500 m deep, throughout the year 

(Baird et al. 2013). Sightings were made 

off the Island of Hawaii as well as Oahu 

(Baird et al. 2013). The area west of the 

Island of Hawaii is considered BIA 

(Baird et al. 2015); proposed seismic 

Line 1 would traverse this area. During 

summer–fall surveys of the Hawaiian 

Islands EEZ, rough-toothed dolphins 

were observed throughout the EEZ, 

including near the proposed survey area 

to the north and south of the Main 

Hawaiian Islands; in total, there were 18 

sightings in 2002 and 24 sightings in 

2010 (Barlow 2006; Barlow et al. 2004; 

Bradford et al. 2017). Acoustic 

detections have also been made in 

Hawaiian waters (Rankin et al. 2015). 

In the western North Pacific Ocean, 

rough-toothed dolphins have been seen 

during Japanese sighting surveys during 

August–September (Kato et al. 2005). 

However, there is very little information 

on this species for the Emperor 

Seamounts survey area, but what is 

known of its distribution suggests that it 

is unlikely to occur there. 

Common Bottlenose Dolphin 

The bottlenose dolphin occurs in 

tropical, subtropical, and temperate 

waters throughout the World (Wells and 

Scott 2009). Generally, there are two 

distinct bottlenose dolphin ecotypes, 

one mainly found in coastal waters and 

one mainly found in oceanic waters 

(Duffield et al. 1983; Hoelzel et al. 1998; 

Walker et al. 1999). As well as 

inhabiting different areas, these 

ecotypes differ in their diving abilities 

(Klatsky 2004) and prey types (Mead 

and Potter 1995). 

The bottlenose dolphin is expected to 

be one of the most abundant cetaceans 

in the Hawaiian survey area, based on 

previous surveys in the region (Barlow 

2006; Baird et al. 2013; Bradford et al. 

2017). Higher densities are expected to 

occur around the Hawaiian Islands than 

in far offshore waters of the Hawaiian 

EEZ (Forney et al. 2015). Photoidentification studies have shown that 

there are distinct resident populations at 

the four island groups in Hawaii (Kauai 

& Niihau, Oahu, the 4-island region, and 

the Island of Hawaii); the 1,000-m 

isobath serves as the boundary between 

these resident insular stocks and the 

Hawaii pelagic stock (Martien et al. 

2012). Note that the Kauai/Niihau stock 

range does not occur near the proposed 

tracklines and will not be discussed 

further. Additionally, 98.5 percent of 

the Hawaii survey will take in deep (≤ 

1,000 m) water. The areas where the 

insular stocks are found are also 

considered BIAs (Baird et al. 2015). 

Proposed seismic Lines 1 and 2 would 

traverse the BIAS to the west of Oahu 

and west of the Island of Hawaii. 

During small-boat surveys around the 

Hawaiian Islands in 2000–2012, the 

bottlenose dolphin was sighted in water 

as deep as 4,500 m, but the highest 

sighting rates occurred in water <500 m 

deep (Baird et al. 2013). Sightings were 

made during all seasons off the Island 

of Hawaii, including near proposed 

seismic Line 1, and off Oahu (Baird et 

al. 2013). Common bottlenose dolphins 

were also observed during summer–fall 

surveys of the Hawaiian EEZ, mostly in 

nearshore waters but also in offshore 

waters, including in and near the 

proposed survey area among the Main 

Hawaiian Islands, and to the north and 

south of the islands (see map in Carretta 

et al. 2017). Fifteen sightings were made 

in 2002 (Barlow 2006), and 19 sightings 

were made in 2010 (Bradford et al. 

2017). 

In the western North Pacific Ocean, 

common bottlenose dolphins have been 

sighted off the east coast of Japan during 

summer surveys in 1983–1991 

(Miyashita 1993a). Although only part 

of the proposed Emperor Seamounts 

survey area was surveyed during the 

month of August, no sightings were 

made within or near the survey area 

(Miyashita 1993a). Offshore sightings to 

the south of the proposed survey area 

were made during September (Miyashita 

1993a), and there is also a record just to 

the southwest of the survey area during 

summer (Kanaji et al. 2017). The 

distributional range of the common 

bottlenose dolphin does not appear to 

extend north to the Emperor Seamounts 

survey area; thus, it is not expected to 

be encountered during the survey. 

Short-Beaked Common Dolphin 

The common dolphin is found in 

tropical and warm temperate oceans 

around the World (Perrin 2009a). It 

ranges as far south as 40° S in the 

Pacific Ocean, is common in coastal 

waters 200–300 m deep, and is also 

associated with prominent underwater 

topography, such as seamounts (Evans 

1994). There are two species of common 

dolphins: The short-beaked common 

dolphin (D. delphis) and the longbeaked common dolphin (D. capensis). 

The short-beaked common dolphin is 

mainly found in offshore waters, and 

the long-beaked common dolphin is 

more prominent in coastal areas. 

During Japanese sighting surveys in 

the western North Pacific in August– 

September, both long- and short-beaked 

common dolphins have been seen (Kato 

et al. 2005). Kanaji et al. (2017) reported 

one record to the southwest of the 

proposed survey area during summer. 

There are also bycatch records of shortbeaked common dolphins near the 

Emperor Seamounts survey area during 

summer and winter (Hobbs and Jones 

1993). Based on information regarding 

the distribution and habitat preferences, 

only the short-beaked common dolphin 

could occur in the region. 

Both the the short-beaked and longbeaked common dolphin are not 

expected to occur in the Hawaiian 

survey area as no sightings have been 

made of either species during surveys of 

the Hawaii Islands (Barlow 2006; Baird 

et al. 2013; Bradford et al. 2017). 

Pantropical Spotted Dolphin 

The pantropical spotted dolphin is 

one of the most abundant cetaceans and 

is distributed worldwide in tropical and 

some subtropical waters (Perrin 2009b), 

between ∼40° N and 40° S (Jefferson et 

al. 2015). It is found primarily in deeper 

waters, but can also be found in coastal, 

shelf, and slope waters (Perrin 2009b). 

There are two forms of pantropical 

spotted dolphin: Coastal and offshore. 

The offshore form inhabits tropical, 

equatorial, and southern subtropical 

water masses; the pelagic individuals 

around the Hawaiian Islands belong to 

a stock distinct from those in the ETP 

(Dizon et al. 1991; Perrin 2009b). 

Spotted dolphins are commonly seen 

together with spinner dolphins in 

mixed-species groups, e.g., in the ETP 

(Au and Perryman 1985), off Hawaii 

(Psarakos et al. 2003), and in the 

Marquesas Archipelago (Gannier 2002). 

The pantropical spotted dolphin is 

expected to be one of the most abundant 

cetaceans in the proposed Hawaiian 

survey area based on previous surveys 

in the region (Baird et al. 2013; Barlow 

2006; Bradford et al. 2017). Higher 

densities are expected to occur around 

the Main Hawaiian Islands than 

elsewhere in the Hawaiian EEZ (Forney 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2
30492 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 

et al. 2015). Sightings rates peak in 

depths from 1,500 to 3,500 m (Baird et 

al. 2013). The Main Hawaiian Islands 

insular spotted dolphin stock consists of 

two separate stocks at Oahu and 4- 

Islands (which extend 20 km seaward), 

and one stock off the Island of Hawaii, 

up to 65 km from shore (Carretta et al. 

2017). Spotted dolphins outside of these 

insular stocks are part of the Hawaii 

pelagic stock (Carretta et al. 2017). 

During small-boat surveys around the 

Hawaiian Islands in 2000–2012, the 

pantropical spotted dolphin was sighted 

in all water depth categories, with the 

lowest sighting rate in water <500 m 

(Baird et al. 2013). It was observed 

during all seasons, including off of 

Hawaii Island and Oahu (Baird et al. 

2013). It was also seen during summer– 

fall surveys of the Hawaiian Islands EEZ 

including in the proposed survey area, 

with sightings to the north, south, and 

around the Main Hawaiian Islands (see 

map in Carretta et al. 2017); 14 sightings 

were made in 2002 (Barlow 2006), and 

12 sightings were made in 2010 

(Bradford et al. 2017). The areas off 

southwest Oahu, south of Lanai, and 

west of the Island of Hawaii are 

considered BIAs (Baird et al. 2015); 

proposed seismic Line 1 traverses the 

BIA west of the Island of Hawaii. One 

sighting was made in July 2010 in the 

northwestern portion of the Hawaiian 

EEZ during the Shatsky Rise cruise 

(Holst and Beland 2010). 

In the western Pacific, pantropical 

spotted dolphins occur from Japan 

south to Australia; they have been 

hunted in drive fisheries off Japan for 

decades (Kasuya 2007). A sighting of 

three individuals was made in offshore 

waters east of Japan in August 2010 

during the Shatksy Rise cruise (Holst 

and Beland 2010). Pantropical spotted 

dolphins were also sighted off the east 

coast of Japan during summer surveys in 

1983–1991, with the highest densities in 

offshore waters between 30° N and 37° 

N (Miyashita 1993a). Although only part 

of the proposed Emperor Seamounts 

survey area was surveyed during the 

month of August, no sightings were 

made within or near the survey area; 

offshore sightings to the south of the 

proposed survey area were made during 

August and September (Miyashita 

1993a). The distributional range of the 

pantropical spotted dolphin does not 

appear to extend north to the Emperor 

Seamounts survey area; thus, it is not 

expected to be encountered during the 

survey. 

Spinner Dolphin 

The spinner dolphin is pantropical in 

distribution, including oceanic tropical 

and sub-tropical waters between 40° N 

and 40° S (Jefferson et al. 2015). It is 

generally considered a pelagic species 

(Perrin 2009b), but can also be found in 

coastal waters and around oceanic 

islands (Rice 1998). In Hawaii, spinner 

dolphins belong to the offshore stock 

(S.l. longirostris; Gray’s spinner) that is 

separate from animals in the ETP (Dizon 

et al. 1991). 

The spinner dolphin is expected to be 

one of the most abundant cetaceans in 

the Hawaiian survey area, based on 

previous surveys in the region (Barlow 

2006; Baird et al. 2013; Bradford et al. 

2017). Higher densities are expected to 

occur around in offshore waters south of 

the Hawaiian Islands (Forney et al. 

2015). There are six separate stocks 

managed within the Hawaiian EEZ—the 

Hawaii Island, Oahu/4-islands, Kauai/ 

Niihau, Pearl & Hermes Reef, Midway 

Atoll/Kure, and Hawaiian pelagic stocks 

(Carretta et al. 2017); individuals from 

three of these stocks (Hawaii pelagic, 

Hawaii Island, Oahu/4-Islands) are 

expected to overlap with the proposed 

survey area. The boundaries of these 

stocks are out to 10 n.mi. from shore; 

these regions are also considered BIAs 

(Baird et al. 2015). Proposed seismic 

Line 1 traverses the BIA west of the 

Island of Hawaii. 

During small-boat surveys around the 

Hawaiian Islands in 2000–2012, it was 

sighted in water as deep as 3,000 m, 

with the highest sighting rates in water 

<500 m deep (Baird et al. 2013). It was 

seen during all months, including off 

the west coast of the Island of Hawaii 

and off Oahu (Baird et al. 2013). Spinner 

dolphins were also sighted in the 

proposed survey area during summer– 

fall surveys of the Hawaiian Islands 

EEZ, including south of Ohau (see map 

in Carretta et al. 2017); eight sightings 

were made in 2002 (Barlow 2006) and 

four were made in 2010 (Bradford et al. 

2013). 

Kato et al. (2005) noted that spinner 

dolphins were seen during Japanese 

sighting surveys in the western North 

Pacific in August–September. To the 

best of our knowledge, there are no data 

on the occurrence of spinner dolphins 

near the Emperor Seamounts survey 

area. However, the survey area is 

located to the north of the known range 

of the spinner dolphins. Therefore, they 

are not anticipated to occur in the 

Emperor Seamounts area. 

Striped Dolphin 

The striped dolphin has a 

cosmopolitan distribution in tropical to 

warm temperate waters from ∼50° N to 

40° S (Perrin et al. 1994a; Jefferson et al. 

2015). It is typically found in waters 

outside the continental shelf and is 

often associated with convergence zones 

and areas of upwelling (Archer 2009). It 

occurs primarily in pelagic waters, but 

has been observed approaching shore 

where there is deep water close to the 

coast (Jefferson et al. 2015). 

The striped dolphin is expected to be 

one of the most abundant cetaceans in 

the proposed Hawaiian survey area, 

based on previous surveys in the region 

(Barlow 2006; Baird et al. 2013; 

Bradford et al. 2017). Higher densities 

are expected to occur around in offshore 

waters of the Hawaiian EEZ (Forney et 

al. 2015). During small-boat surveys 

around the Hawaiian Islands in 2000– 

2012, sightings were made in water 

depths of 1,000–5,000 m, with the 

highest sighting rates in water deeper 

than 3000 m (Baird et al. 2013). 

Sightings were made during all seasons, 

including near proposed seismic Line 1 

off the Island of Hawaii (Baird et al. 

2013). It was also sighted within the 

proposed survey area during summer– 

fall shipboard surveys of the Hawaii 

Islands EEZ, including north and south 

of the Main Hawaiian Islands (see map 

in Carretta et al. 2017); 15 sightings 

were made in 2002 (Barlow 2006) and 

25 sightings were made in 2010 

(Bradford et al. 2013). 

In the western North Pacific, the 

striped dolphin was one of the most 

common dolphin species seen during 

Japanese summer sighting surveys 

(Miyashita 1993a). During these surveys, 

densities were highest in offshore areas 

between 35° N and 40° N, and in coastal 

waters of southeastern Japan (Miyashita 

1993a). Although only part of the 

proposed Emperor Seamounts survey 

area was surveyed during the month of 

August, no sightings were made within 

the survey area; sightings near the 

proposed survey area, south of 41° N, 

were made during August (Miyashita 

1993a). Kanaji et al. (2017) reported on 

another record during summer to the 

southwest of the survey area. One 

winter bycatch record was reported just 

to the south of the survey area for 

October 1990 to May 1991 (Hobbs and 

Jones 1993). 

Based on its distributional range and 

habitat preferences, the striped dolphin 

could be encountered in both the 

Hawaii and Emperor Seamounts survey 

areas. 

Fraser’s Dolphin (Lagenodelphis hosei) 

Fraser’s dolphin is a tropical oceanic 

species distributed between 30° N and 

30° S that generally inhabits deeper, 

offshore water (Dolar 2009). It occurs 

rarely in temperate regions and then 

only in relation to temporary 

oceanographic anomalies such as El 

Nin ̃ o events (Perrin et al. 1994b). In the 

eastern tropical pacific, it was sighted at 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 30493 

least 15 km from shore in waters 1,500– 

2,500 m deep (Dolar 2009). 

Fraser’s dolphin is one of the most 

abundant cetaceans in the offshore 

waters of the Hawaiian Islands EEZ 

(Barlow 2006; Bradford et al. 2017). 

Summer–fall shipboard surveys of the 

EEZ resulted in two sightings of Fraser’s 

dolphin in 2002 and four in 2010, all in 

the western portion of the EEZ (Barlow 

2006; Bradford et al. 2013; Carretta et al. 

2017). During small-boat surveys around 

the Hawaiian Islands in 2000–2012, 

only two sightings were made off the 

west coast of the Island of Hawaii, one 

during winter and one during spring in 

water deeper than 1000 m. 

Fraser’s dolphin was seen during 

Japanese sighting surveys in the western 

North Pacific during August–September 

(Kato et al. 2005). However, its range 

does not extend as far north as the 

Emperor Seamounts survey area. Thus, 

Fraser’s dolphin is not expected to 

occur in the Emperor Seamounts survey 

area, but it could be encountered in 

deep water of the Hawaii survey area. 

Pacific White-Sided Dolphin 

The Pacific white-sided dolphin is 

found throughout the temperate North 

Pacific, in a relatively narrow 

distribution between 38° N and 47° N 

(Brownell et al. 1999). It is common 

both on the high seas and along the 

continental margins (Leatherwood et al. 

1984; Dahlheim and Towell 1994; 

Ferrero and Walker 1996). Pacific whitesided dolphins often associate with 

other species, including cetaceans 

(especially Risso’s and northern right 

whale dolphins; Green et al. 1993), 

pinnipeds, and seabirds. 

Pacific white-sided dolphins were 

seen throughout the North Pacific 

during surveys conducted during 1983– 

1990 (Buckland et al. 1993; Miyashita 

1993b). Sightings were made in the 

western Pacific during the summer 

(Buckland et al. 1993; Miyashita 1993b), 

as well as during spring and fall 

(Buckland et al. 1993). Pacific whitesided dolphins were observed in the 

southern portion of the Emperor 

Seamounts survey area, south of 45° S, 

as well as at higher latitudes just to the 

east (Buckland et al. 1993; Miyashita 

1993b). Bycatch in the squid driftnet 

fishery has also been reported for the 

Emperor Seamounts survey area (Hobbs 

and Jones 1993; Yatsu et al. 1993). Thus, 

Pacific white-sided dolphins could be 

encountered in the Emperor Seamounts 

survey area, but they are not known to 

occur as far south as Hawaii. 

Northern Right Whale Dolphin 

The northern right whale dolphin is 

found in cool temperate and sub-arctic 

waters of the North Pacific, ranging from 

34–55° N (Lipsky 2009). It occurs from 

the Kuril Islands south to Japan and 

eastward to the Gulf of Alaska and 

southern California (Rice 1998). The 

northern right whale dolphin is one of 

the most common marine mammal 

species in the North Pacific, occurring 

primarily on the outer continental shelf, 

slope waters, and oceanic regions, 

where water depths are >100 m (see 

Green et al. 1993; Barlow 2003; Carretta 

et al. 2017). The northern right whale 

dolphin does, however, come closer to 

shore where there is deep water, such as 

over submarine canyons (Jefferson et al. 

2015). 

Northern right whale dolphins were 

seen throughout the North Pacific 

during surveys conducted during 1983– 

1990, with sightings made in the 

western Pacific primarily during the 

summer (Buckland et al. 1993; 

Miyashita 1993b). Northern right whale 

dolphins were observed in the southern 

portion of the Emperor Seamounts 

survey area, south of 45° S (Buckland et 

al. 1993; Miyashita 1993b). Bycatch 

records for the Emperor Seamounts 

survey area have also been reported 

(Hobbs and Jones 1993; Yatsu et al. 

1993). One sighting was made just to the 

east of the survey area, at a more 

northerly latitude (Miyashita 1993b). 

Thus, northern right whale dolphins 

could be encountered in the Emperor 

Seamounts survey area, but their 

distribution does not range as far south 

as the Hawaiian Islands. 

Risso’s Dolphin 

Risso’s dolphin is primarily a tropical 

and mid-temperate species distributed 

worldwide (Kruse et al. 1999). It occurs 

between 60° N and 60° S, where surface 

water temperatures are at least 10° C 

(Kruse et al. 1999). Water temperature 

appears to be an important factor 

affecting its distribution (Kruse et al. 

1999). Although it occurs from coastal 

to deep water, it shows a strong 

preference for mid-temperate waters of 

the continental shelf and slope 

(Jefferson et al. 2014). 

During small-boat surveys around the 

Hawaiian Islands in 2000–2012, sighting 

rates were highest in water >3,000 m 

deep (Baird et al. 2013). Sightings were 

made during all seasons off the west 

coast of the Island of Hawaii, including 

near proposed seismic Line 1; no 

sightings were made off Oahu (Baird et 

al. 2013). During summer–fall surveys 

of the Hawaiian Islands EEZ, seven 

sightings were made in 2002 (Barlow 

2006) and 10 were made in 2010 

(Bradford et al. 2017); several sightings 

occurred within the proposed survey 

area south of the Main Hawaiian Islands 

(see map in Carretta et al. 2017). 

Risso’s dolphins were regularly seen 

during Japanese summer sighting 

surveys in the western North Pacific 

(Miyashita 1993a), and one individual 

was seen in the offshore waters east of 

Japan on 18 August 2010 during the 

Shatksy Rise cruise (Holst and Beland 

2010). Occurrence in the western North 

Pacific appears to be patchy, but high 

densities were observed in coastal 

waters, between 148° E–157° E, and east 

of 162° E (Miyashita 1993a). Although 

only part of the proposed Emperor 

Seamounts survey area was surveyed 

during the month of August, no 

sightings were made within the survey 

area; however, sightings were made 

south of 41° N (Miyashita 1993a). As its 

regular northern range extends to the 

southernmost portion of the Emperor 

Seamounts survey area, and one record 

has been reported outside of its range in 

the Aleutian Islands (Jefferson et al. 

2014). Therefore, the Risso’s dolphin is 

expected to occur in the Emperor 

Seamounts survey area. 

Melon-Headed Whale 

The melon-headed whale is an 

oceanic species found worldwide in 

tropical and subtropical waters from 

∼40° N to 35° S (Jefferson et al. 2015). 

It is commonly seen in mixed groups 

with other cetaceans (Jefferson and 

Barros 1997; Huggins et al. 2005). It 

occurs most often in deep offshore 

waters and occasionally in nearshore 

areas where deep oceanic waters occur 

near the coast (Perryman 2009). In the 

North Pacific, it is distributed south of 

central Japan and southern California, as 

well as across the Pacific, including 

Hawaii. 

Photo-identification and telemetry 

studies have revealed that there are two 

distinct populations of melon-headed 

whales in Hawaiian waters—the 

Hawaiian Islands stock and the Kohala 

resident stock associated with the west 

coast of the Island of Hawaii (Aschettino 

et al. 2012; Oleson et al. 2013; Carretta 

et al. 2017). Individuals in the smaller 

Kohala resident stock have a limited 

range restricted to shallower waters of 

the Kohala shelf and west side of 

Hawaii Island. During small-boat 

surveys around the Hawaiian Islands in 

2000–2012, sightings were made during 

all seasons in all water depths up to 

5,000 m, including sightings off the west 

coasts of the Island of Hawaii and Oahu 

(Baird et al. 2013). There are numerous 

records near the proposed seismic 

transect off the west coast of the 

Hawaiian Island (Carretta et al. 2017); 

this area is considered a BIA (Baird et 

al. 2015). During summer–fall surveys 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2
30494 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 

of the Hawaiian Islands EEZ in 2002 

and 2010, there was a single sighting 

each year; neither was located near the 

proposed survey area (Barlow et al. 

2004; Bradford et al. 2017). Satellite 

telemetry data revealed distant pelagic 

movements, associated with feeding, 

nearly to the edge of the Hawaiian 

Islands EEZ (Oleson et al. 2013). 

Melon-headed whales have been seen 

during Japanese sighting surveys in the 

western North Pacific in August– 

September (Kato et al. 2005). However, 

their distributional range does not 

extend to the Emperor Seamounts 

survey area. Thus, melon-headed whale 

is expected to occur in the proposed 

Hawaiian survey area, but not in the 

Emperor Seamounts survey area. 

Pygmy Killer Whale 

The pygmy killer whale has a 

worldwide distribution in tropical and 

subtropical waters (Donahue and 

Perryman 2009), generally not ranging 

south of 35° S (Jefferson et al. 2015). In 

warmer water, it is usually seen close to 

the coast (Wade and Gerrodette 1993), 

but it is also found in deep waters. In 

the North Pacific, it occurs from Japan 

and Baja, California, southward and 

across the Pacific Ocean, including 

Hawaii. 

A small resident population inhabits 

the waters around the Main Hawaiian 

Islands (Oleson et al. 2013), where it 

generally occurs within ∼20 km from 

shore (Baird et al. 2011). During smallboat surveys around the Hawaiian 

Islands in 2000–2012, sightings were 

made during all seasons in water up to 

3000 m deep, off the west coasts of 

Oahu and the Island of Hawaii (Baird et 

al. 2013), including near proposed 

seismic Lines 1 and 2. The waters off 

the west and southeast coasts of the 

Island of Hawaii are considered a BIA 

(Baird et al. 2015). Pygmy killer whales 

were also recorded during summer–fall 

surveys of the Hawaiian Islands EEZ: 

Three sightings in 2002 (Barlow et al. 

2004; Barlow 2006) and five in 2010 

(Bradford et al. 2017), including some 

within the study area to the north and 

south of the Main Hawaiian Islands 

(Carretta et al. 2017). 

Kato et al. (2005) reported the 

occurrence of this species during 

Japanese sighting surveys in the western 

North Pacific in August–September. 

However, its distributional range 

indicates that the pygmy killer whale is 

unlikely to occur in the Emperor 

Seamounts survey area. 

False Killer Whale 

The false killer whale is found 

worldwide in tropical and temperate 

waters, generally between 50° N and 50° 

S (Odell and McClune 1999). It is 

widely distributed, but generally 

uncommon throughout its range (Baird 

2009). It is gregarious and forms strong 

social bonds, as is evident from its 

propensity to strand en masse (Baird 

2009). The false killer whale generally 

inhabits deep, offshore waters, but 

sometimes is found over the continental 

shelf and occasionally moves into very 

shallow water (Jefferson et al. 2008; 

Baird 2009). In the North Pacific, it 

occurs from Japan and southern 

California, southward and across the 

Pacific, including Hawaii. 

Telemetry, photo-identification, and 

genetic studies have identified three 

independent populations of false killer 

whales in Hawaiian waters: Main 

Hawaiian Islands Insular, Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands, and Hawaii pelagic 

stocks (Chivers et al. 2010; Baird et al. 

2010, 2013; Bradford et al. 2014; 

Carretta et al. 2017). The range of the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands stock is 

not the vicinity of the Hawaii survey 

tracklines and, therefore, will not be 

discussed further. The population 

inhabiting the Main Hawaiian Islands is 

thought to have declined dramatically 

since 1989; the reasons for this decline 

are still uncertain, although interactions 

with longline fisheries have been 

suggested (Reeves et al. 2009; Bradford 

and Forney 2014). Higher densities 

likely occur in the western-most areas of 

the Hawaiian EEZ (Forney et al. 2015). 

During 2008–2012, 26 false killer 

whales were observed hooked or 

entangled by longline gear within the 

Hawaiian Islands EEZ or adjacent highseas waters, and 22 of those were 

assessed as seriously injured; locations 

of false killer whale and unidentified 

blackfish takes observed included the 

proposed survey area (Bradford and 

Forney 2014). NMFS published a final 

rule to implement the False Killer 

Whale Take Reduction Plan on 

November 29, 2012, 77 FR 71260). The 

final rule includes gear requirements 

(‘‘weak’’ circle hooks and strong branch 

lines) in the deep-set longline fishery, 

longline closure areas, training and 

certification for vessel owners and 

captains in marine mammal handling 

and release, captains’ supervision of 

marine mammal handling and release, 

and posting of placards on longline 

vessels. 

Critical habitat has been proposed for 

the endangered insular population of 

the false killer whale in Hawaii (82 FR 

51186; November 3, 2017). In general, 

this includes waters between the 45- 

and 3,200-m isobaths in the Main 

Hawaiian Islands (NNMFS 2017c). Note 

that in the critical habitat proposal, 

NMFS invited the public to submit 

comments on whether it is appropriate 

to include anthropogenic noise as a 

feature essential to the conservation 

false killer whales in the final rule. The 

final rule is expected to be published ∼1 

July 2018 (NMFS 2017c). 

High-use areas in Hawaii include the 

north half of the Island of Hawaii, the 

northern areas of Maui and Molokai, 

and southwest of Lanai (Baird et al. 

2012). These areas are considered BIAs 

(Baird et al. 2015), and proposed 

seismic Line 1 to the west of the Island 

of Hawaii traverses the BIA. Individuals 

are found up to 122 km from shore 

(Baird et al. 2012). Satellite-tagged false 

killer whales were also recorded using 

the areas off the western Island of 

Hawaii and west of Oahu during 

summer 2008 and fall 2009 (Baird et al. 

2012). During small-boat surveys around 

the Hawaiian Islands in 2000–2012, the 

highest sighting rates occurred in water 

>3,500 m deep (Baird et al. 2013). 

Sightings were made during all seasons, 

including off the west coast of the Island 

of Hawaii and Oahu (Baird et al. 2013). 

During summer–fall surveys of the 

Hawaiian Islands EEZ, two sightings 

were made in 2002 (Barlow et al. 2004; 

Barlow 2006) and 14 were made in 2010 

(Bradford et al. 2017), including two 

within the study area, south of the Main 

Hawaiian Islands (see map in Carretta et 

al. 2017). False killer whales were also 

detected acoustically off the west coast 

of the Hawaiian Island and off Kauai 

(Baumann-Pickering et al. 2015). 

False killer whales have been seen 

during Japanese summer sighting 

surveys in the western Pacific Ocean 

(Miyashita 1993a), and a sighting of four 

individuals was made in offshore waters 

east of Japan in August 2010 during the 

Shatksy Rise cruise (Holst and Beland 

2010). The distribution in the western 

Pacific was patchy, with several highdensity areas in offshore waters 

(Miyashita 1993a). Although only part 

of the proposed Emperor Seamounts 

survey area was surveyed during the 

month of August, no sightings were 

made within the survey area; however, 

one sighting was made just to the 

southeast of the survey area (Miyashita 

1993a). Jefferson et al. (2015) did not 

show its distributional range to include 

the Emperor Seamounts region. 

False killer whale is expected to occur 

in the proposed Hawaiian and Emperor 

Seamounts survey areas. 

Killer Whale 

The killer whale is cosmopolitan and 

globally fairly abundant; it has been 

observed in all oceans of the World 

(Ford 2009). It is very common in 

temperate waters and also frequents 

tropical waters, at least seasonally 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 30495 

(Heyning and Dahlheim 1988). High 

densities of the species occur in high 

latitudes, especially in areas where prey 

is abundant. Killer whale movements 

generally appear to follow the 

distribution of their prey, which 

includes marine mammals, fish, and 

squid. 

Killer whales are rare in the Hawaii 

Islands EEZ. Baird et al. (2006) reported 

21 sighting records in Hawaiian waters 

between 1994 and 2004. During smallboat surveys around Hawaii Island in 

2000–2012, a single sighting was made 

during spring in water <2000 m deep off 

the west coast of Hawaii Island (Baird 

et al. 2013). During summer—fall 

surveys of the Hawaiian Islands EEZ, 

two sightings were made in 2002 

(Barlow et al. 2004; Barlow 2006) and 

one was made in 2010 (Bradford et al. 

2017); none was made within the 

proposed survey area (Barlow et al. 

2004; Bradford et al. 2017; Carretta et al. 

2017). Numerous additional sightings in 

and north of the EEZ have been made 

by observers on longliners, some at the 

edge of the EEZ north of the Main 

Hawaiian Islands (Carretta et al. 2017). 

Very little is known about killer 

whale abundance and distribution in 

the western Pacific Ocean outside of 

Kamchatka. However, they are common 

along the coast of Russia, Sea of 

Okhotsk, and Sea of Japan, Sakhalin 

Island, and Kuril Islands (Forney and 

Wade 2006). Kato et al. (2005) reported 

sightings of this species during Japanese 

sighting surveys in the western North 

Pacific in August–September. However, 

there is very little information on killer 

whales for the Emperor Seamounts 

survey area, but based on information 

regarding the distribution and habitat 

preferences, they are likely to occur 

there (see Forney and Wade 2006). 

Killer whales are expected to occur in 

both the proposed Hawaiian and 

Emperor survey areas. 

Short-Finned Pilot Whale 

The short-finned pilot whale is found 

in tropical and warm temperate waters; 

it is seen as far south as ∼40° S and as 

far north as 50° N (Jefferson et al. 2015). 

It is generally nomadic, but may be 

resident in certain locations, including 

Hawaii. Pilot whales occur on the shelf 

break, over the slope, and in areas with 

prominent topographic features (Olson 

2009). Based on genetic data, Van Cise 

et al. (2017) suggested that two types of 

short-finned pilot whales occur in the 

Pacific—one in the western and central 

Pacific, and one in the Eastern Pacific; 

they hypothesized that prey distribution 

rather than sea surface temperature 

determine their latitudinal ranges. 

During surveys of the Main Hawaiian 

Islands during 2000–2012, short-finned 

pilot whales were the most frequently 

sighted cetacean (Baird et al. 2013). 

Higher densities are expected to occur 

around the Hawaiian Islands rather than 

in far offshore waters of the Hawaiian 

EEZ (Forney et al. 2015). Photoidentification and telemetry studies 

indicate that there may be insular and 

pelagic populations of short-finned pilot 

whales in Hawaii (Mahaffy 2012; Oleson 

et al. 2013). Genetic research is also 

underway to assist in delimiting 

population stocks for management 

(Carretta et al. 2017). During small-boat 

surveys around the Hawaiian Islands in 

2000–2012, pilot whales were sighted in 

water as deep as 5,000 m, with the 

highest sighting rates in water depths of 

500–2,500 m (Baird et al. 2013). 

Sightings were made during all seasons, 

mainly off the west coasts of the Island 

of Hawaii and Ohau (Baird et al. 2013). 

The waters off the west coast of the 

Island of Hawaii are considered a BIA 

(Baird et al. 2015); proposed seismic 

tLine 1 traverses the BIA. During 

summer—fall surveys of the Hawaiian 

Islands EEZ, 25 sightings were made in 

2002 (Barlow 2006) and 36 were made 

in 2010 (Bradford et al. 2017), including 

within the proposed survey area, north, 

south, and between the Main Hawaiian 

Islands (see Carretta et al. 2017). Shortfinned pilot whales were also detected 

acoustically off the west coast of the 

Island of Hawaii and off Kauai 

(Baumann-Pickering et al. 2015). 

Stock structure of short-finned pilot 

whales has not been adequately studied 

in the North Pacific, except in Japanese 

waters, where two stocks have been 

identified based on pigmentation 

patterns and head shape differences of 

adult males (Kasuya et al. 1988). The 

southern stock of short-finned pilot 

whales has been observed during 

Japanese summer sightings surveys 

(Miyashita 1993a) and is 

morphologically similar to pilot whales 

found in Hawaiian waters (Carretta et al. 

2017). Distribution of short-finned pilot 

whales in the western North Pacific 

appears to be patchy, but high densities 

were observed in coastal waters of 

central and southern Japan and in some 

areas offshore (Miyashita 1993a). A 

sighting of three individuals was made 

in offshore waters east of Japan in 

August 2010 during the Shatksy Rise 

cruise (Holst and Beland 2010). 

Although only part of the proposed 

Emperor Seamounts survey area was 

surveyed during the month of August, 

no sightings were made within or near 

the survey area; offshore sightings to the 

south of the proposed survey area were 

made during the month of September 

(Miyashita 1993a). Although Jefferson et 

al. (2015) did not include the Emperor 

Seamounts region in its distributional 

range, Olson (2009) did. 

Short-finned pilot whales are 

expected to occur in both the proposed 

Hawaiian and Emperor Seamounts 

survey areas. 

Dall’s Porpoise 

Dall’s porpoise is only found in the 

North Pacific and adjacent seas. It is 

widely distributed across the North 

Pacific over the continental shelf and 

slope waters, and over deep (>2500 m) 

oceanic waters (Hall 1979), ranging from 

∼30–62° N (Jefferson et al. 2015). In 

general, this species is common 

throughout its range (Buckland et al. 

1993). It is known to approach vessels 

to bowride (Jefferson 2009b). 

In the western North Pacific, there are 

two different color morphs which are 

also considered sub-species: The trueitype (P. d. truei) and the dalli-type (P. 

d. dalli) (Jefferson et al. 2015). They can 

be distinguished from each other by the 

extent of their white thoracic patches— 

the truei-type has a much broader patch, 

which extends nearly the length of the 

body. Both types could be encountered 

in the proposed Emperor Seamounts 

survey area. 

Dall’s porpoise was one of the most 

common cetaceans in the bycatch of the 

central and western North Pacific highseas driftnet fisheries, but that source of 

mortality is not thought to have 

substantially depleted their abundance 

in the region (Hobbs and Jones 1993). 

Dall’s porpoises were seen throughout 

the North Pacific during surveys 

conducted during 1987–1990 (Buckland 

et al. 1993), including in the western 

Pacific during the summer (Buckland et 

al. 1993; Kato et al. 2005). The observed 

range included the entire Emperor 

Seamounts survey area (Buckland et al. 

1993). Records of both types within the 

Emperor Seamounts survey area, in 

particular for April–July, have also been 

reported by Kasuya (1982), and bycatch 

records in the proposed survey area 

have also been reported (Hobbs and 

Jones 1993; Yatsu et al. 1993). Thus, 

Dall’s porpoise could be encountered in 

the Emperor Seamounts survey area, but 

its distribution does not range as far 

south as the Hawaiian Islands. 

Hawaiian Monk Seal 

The Hawaiian monk seal only occurs 

in the Central North Pacific. It is 

distributed throughout the Hawaiian 

Island chain, with most of the 

population occurring in the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (within 

the PMNM), and a small but increasing 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2
30496 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 

number residing in the Main Hawaiian 

Islands (Baker et al. 2011). Six main 

breeding subpopulations are located at 

the Kure Atoll, Midway Islands, Pearl 

and Hermes Reef, Lisianski Island, 

Laysan Island, and French Frigate 

Shoals (Baker et al. 2011). Most births 

occur from February to August, with a 

peak in April to June, but births have 

been reported any time of the year 

(Gilmartin and Forcada 2009). Hawaiian 

monk seals show high site fidelity to 

natal islands (Gilmartin and Forcada 

2009; Wilson et al. 2017). They mainly 

occur within 50 km of atolls/islands 

(Parrish et al. 2000; Stewart et al. 2006; 

Wilson et al. 2017) and within the 500- 

m isobath (e.g., Parrish et al. 2002; 

Wilson et al. 2017). Secondary 

occurrence may occur in water as deep 

as 1000 m, but occurrence beyond the 

1000-m isobath is rare (DoN 2005). 

Nonetheless, tagged monk seals have 

been tracked in water >1000 m deep 

(Wilson et al. 2017). 

Hawaiian monk seals are benthic 

foragers that feed on marine terraces of 

atolls and banks; most foraging occurs 

in water depths <100 m deep but 

occasionally to depths up to 500 m 

(Parrish et al. 2002; Stewart et al. 2006). 

Stewart et al. (2006) used satellite 

tracking to examine the foraging 

behavior of monk seals at the six main 

breeding colonies in the Northwestern 

Hawaiian Islands. Foraging trips varied 

by sex and by age and ranged from <1 

km up to 322 km from haul-out sites. 

Wilson et al. (2017) reported foraging 

trips of up to 100 km. Satellite tracking 

of Hawaiian monk seals revealed that 

home ranges in Main Hawaiian Islands 

were much smaller than those in the 

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NMFS 

2007, 2014); home ranges for most seals 

were <2000 km2 (Wilson et al. 2017). 

Critical habitat has been designated 

based on preferred pupping and nursing 

areas, significant haul-out areas, and 

marine foraging areas out to a depth of 

200 m (NMFS 2017b). In the Main 

Hawaiian Islands, critical habitat 

generally includes marine habitat from 

the seafloor to 10 m above the seafloor, 

from the 200-m isobath to the shoreline 

and 5 m inland, with some exceptions 

for specific areas (NMFS 2017b). For the 

Island of Hawaii of Hawaii, Maui, and 

Oahu (islands adjacent to the proposed 

transects), all marine habitat and inland 

habitat is included as critical habitat 

(NMFS 2017b). The seismic transects 

are located at least 10 km from monk 

seal critical habitat (Fig. 1). 

Hawaiian monk seals have been 

reported throughout the Main Hawaiian 

Islands, including the west coast of 

Oahu, the east coast of Maui, and the 

north coast of the Island of Hawaii 

(Baker and Johanos 2004; DoN 2005). 

Tagged seals showed movements among 

the Main Hawaiian Islands, and were 

reported to occur near and crossing 

proposed seismic Lines 1 and 2 off the 

west coast of Oahu and the Island of 

Hawaii (Wilson et al. 2017). However, 

the core area of occurrence around Oahu 

was reported to be off the south coast, 

not the west coast (Wilson et al. 2017). 

Thus, monk seals could be encountered 

during the proposed survey, especially 

in nearshore portions (<1000 m deep), 

as well as areas near the islands where 

water depth is greater than >1000 m. 

Northern Fur Seal 

The northern fur seal is endemic to 

the North Pacific Ocean and occurs from 

southern California to the Bering Sea, 

Okhotsk Sea, and Honshu Island, Japan 

(Muto et al. 2017). During the breeding 

season, most of the worldwide 

population of northern fur seals inhabits 

the Pribilof Islands in the southern 

Bering Sea (Lee et al. 2014; Muto et al. 

2017). The rest of the population occurs 

at rookeries on Bogoslof Island in the 

Bering Sea, in Russia (Commander 

Islands, Robben Island, Kuril Islands), 

on San Miguel Island in southern 

California (NMFS 1993; Lee et al. 2014), 

and on the Farallon Islands off central 

California (Muto et al. 2017). In the 

United States, two stocks are 

recognized—the Eastern Pacific and the 

California stocks (Muto et al. 2017). The 

Eastern Pacific stock ranges from the 

Pribilof Islands and Bogoslof Island in 

the Bering Sea during summer to 

California during winter (Muto et al. 

2017). 

When not on rookery islands, 

northern fur seals are primarily pelagic 

but occasionally haul out on rocky 

shorelines (Muto et al. 2017). During the 

breeding season, adult males usually 

come ashore in May–August and may 

sometimes be present until November; 

adult females are found ashore from 

June–November (Carretta et al. 2017; 

Muto et al. 2017). After reproduction, 

northern fur seals spend the next 7–8 

months feeding at sea (Roppel 1984). 

Once weaned, juveniles spend 2–3 years 

at sea before returning to rookeries. 

Animals may migrate to the Gulf of 

Alaska, off Japan, and the west coast of 

the United States (Muto et al. 2017); in 

particular, adult males from the Pripilof 

Islands have been shown to migrate to 

the Kuril Islands in the western Pacific 

(Loughlin et al. 1999). The southern 

extent of the migration is ∼35 N. 

Northern fur seals were seen 

throughout the North Pacific during 

surveys conducted during 1987–1990, 

including in the western Pacific during 

the summer (Buckland et al. 1993). The 

observed range included the entire 

Emperor Seamounts survey area 

(Buckland et al. 1993). They have also 

been reported as bycatch in squid and 

large-mesh fisheries during summer in 

the Emperor Seamounts survey area 

(Hobbs and Jones 1993; Yatsu et al. 

1993). Tracked adult male fur seals that 

were tagged on St. Paul Island in the 

Bering Sea in October 2009, wintered in 

the Bering Sea or northern North Pacific 

Ocean, and approached near the 

eastern-most extent of the Emperor 

Seamounts survey area; females 

migrated to the Gulf of Alaska and the 

California Current (Sterling et al. 2014). 

Tagged pups also approached the 

eastern portion of the Emperor 

Seamounts survey area during 

November (Lea et al. 2009). Thus, 

northern fur seals could be encountered 

in the Emperor Seamounts survey area; 

only juveniles would be expected to 

occur there during the summer. Their 

distribution does not range as far south 

as the Hawaiian Islands. 

Northern Elephant Seal 

Northern elephant seals breed in 

California and Baja California, primarily 

on offshore islands (Stewart et al. 1994), 

from December–March (Stewart and 

Huber 1993). Adult elephant seals 

engage in two long northward 

migrations per year, one following the 

breeding season, and another following 

the annual molt, with females returning 

earlier to molt (March–April) than males 

(July–August) (Stewart and DeLong 

1995). Juvenile elephant seals typically 

leave the rookeries in April or May and 

head north, traveling an average of 900– 

1,000 km. Hindell (2009) noted that 

traveling likely takes place in water 

depths >200 m. 

When not breeding, elephant seals 

feed at sea far from the rookeries, 

ranging as far north as 60° N, into the 

Gulf of Alaska and along the Aleutian 

Islands (Le Boeuf et al. 2000). Some 

seals that were tracked via satellite-tags 

for no more than 224 days traveled 

distances in excess of 10,000 km during 

that time (Le Beouf et al. 2000). 

Northern elephant seals that were 

satellite-tagged at a California rookery 

have been recorded traveling as far west 

as ∼166.5–172.5° E, including the 

proposed Emperor Seamount survey 

area (Le Boeuf et al. 2000; Robinson et 

al. 2012; Robinson 2016 in OBIS 2018; 

Costa 2017 in OBIS 2018). Occurrence 

in the survey area was documented 

during August and September; during 

July and October, northern elephant 

seals were tracked just to the east of the 

survey area (Robinson et al. 2012). Postmolting seals traveled longer and farther 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 30497 

than post-breeding seals (Robinson et al. 

2012). 

Thus, northern elephant seals could 

be encountered in the Emperor 

Seamounts survey area during summer 

and fall. Although there are rare records 

of northern elephant seals in Hawaiian 

waters, they are unlikely to occur in the 

proposed survey area. 

Ribbon Seal 

Ribbon seals occur in the North 

Pacific and adjacent Arctic Ocean, 

ranging from the Okhotsk Sea, to the 

Aleutian Islands and the Bering, 

Chukchi, and western Beaufort seas. 

Ribbon seals inhabit the Bering Sea ice 

front from late-March to early-May and 

are abundant in the northern parts of the 

ice front in the central and western parts 

of the Bering Sea (Burns 1970; Burns 

1981). In May to mid-July, when the ice 

recedes, some of the seals move farther 

north (Burns 1970; Burns 1981) to the 

Chukchi Sea (Kelly 1988c). However, 

most likely become pelagic and remain 

in the Bering Sea during the open-water 

season, and some occur on the Pacific 

Ocean side of the Aleutian Islands 

(Boveng et al. 2008). Of 10 seals that 

were tagged along the cost of the 

Kamchatka Peninsula in 2005, most 

stayed in the central and eastern Bering 

Sea, but two were tracked along the 

south side of the Aleutian Islands; 8 of 

26 seals that were tagged in the central 

Bering Sea in 2007 traveled to the 

Bering Strait, Chukchi Sea, and Arctic 

Basin (Boveng et al. 2008). Although 

unlikely ribbon seals could be 

encountered in the proposed Emperor 

Seamounts survey area. 

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 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 Hz 

and 35 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; 

• Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared 

seals): Generalized hearing is 

estimated to occur between 60 Hz and 

39 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. Forty marine 

mammal species (36 cetacean and 4 

pinniped (1 otariid and 3 phocid) 

species) have the reasonable potential to 

co-occur with the proposed survey 

activities. Please refer to Table 1. Of the 

cetacean species that may be present, 8 

are classified as low-frequency 

cetaceans (i.e., all mysticete species), 25 

are classified as mid-frequency 

cetaceans (i.e., all delphinid and ziphiid 

species and the sperm whale), and 3 are 

classified as high-frequency cetaceans 

(i.e., Dall’s porpoise and Kogia spp.). 

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 by Incidental 

Harassment’’ 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 by Incidental 

Harassment’’ 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. 

Description of Active Acoustic Sound 

Sources 

This section contains a brief technical 

background on sound, the 

characteristics of certain sound types, 

and on metrics used in this proposal 

inasmuch as the information is relevant 

to the specified activity and to a 

discussion of the potential effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

found later in this document. 

Sound travels in waves, the basic 

components of which are frequency, 

wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. 

Frequency is the number of pressure 

waves that pass by a reference point per 

unit of time and is measured in Hz or 

cycles per second. Wavelength is the 

distance between two peaks or 

corresponding points of a sound wave 

(length of one cycle). Higher frequency 

sounds have shorter wavelengths than 

lower frequency sounds, and typically 

attenuate (decrease) more rapidly, 

except in certain cases in shallower 

water. Amplitude is the height of the 

sound pressure wave or the ‘‘loudness’’ 

of a sound and is typically described 

using the relative unit of the decibel 

(dB). A sound pressure level (SPL) in dB 

is described as the ratio between a 

measured pressure and a reference 

pressure (for underwater sound, this is 

1 microPascal (mPa)) and is a 

logarithmic unit that accounts for large 

variations in amplitude; therefore, a 

relatively small change in dB 

corresponds to large changes in sound 

pressure. The source level (SL) 

represents the SPL referenced at a 

distance of 1 m from the source 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2
30498 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 

(referenced to 1 mPa) while the received 

level is the SPL at the listener’s position 

(referenced to 1 mPa). 

Root mean square (rms) is the 

quadratic mean sound pressure over the 

duration of an impulse. Root mean 

square is calculated by squaring all of 

the sound amplitudes, averaging the 

squares, and then taking the square root 

of the average (Urick, 1983). Root mean 

square 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 (Hastings and Popper, 

2005). 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 than by peak pressures. 

Sound exposure level (SEL; 

represented as dB re 1 mPa2-s) represents 

the total energy contained within a puls 

and considers both intensity and 

duration of exposure. Peak sound 

pressure (also referred to as zero-to-peak 

sound pressure or 0-p) is the maximum 

instantaneous sound pressure 

measurable in the water at a specified 

distance from the source and is 

represented in the same units as the rms 

sound pressure. Another common 

metric is peak-to-peak sound pressure 

(pk-pk), which is the algebraic 

difference between the peak positive 

and peak negative sound pressures. 

Peak-to-peak pressure is typically 

approximately 6 dB higher than peak 

pressure (Southall et al., 2007). 

When underwater objects vibrate or 

activity occurs, sound-pressure waves 

are created. These waves alternately 

compress and decompress the water as 

the sound wave travels. Underwater 

sound waves radiate in a manner similar 

to ripples on the surface of a pond and 

may be either directed in a beam or 

beams or may radiate in all directions 

(omnidirectional sources), as is the case 

for pulses produced by the airgun arrays 

considered here. The compressions and 

decompressions associated with sound 

waves are detected as changes in 

pressure by aquatic life and man-made 

sound receptors such as hydrophones. 

Even in the absence of sound from the 

specified activity, the underwater 

environment is typically loud due to 

ambient sound. Ambient sound is 

defined as environmental background 

sound levels lacking a single source or 

point (Richardson et al., 1995), and the 

sound level of a region is defined by the 

total acoustical energy being generated 

by known and unknown sources. These 

sources may include physical (e.g., 

wind and waves, earthquakes, ice, 

atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., 

sounds produced by marine mammals, 

fish, and invertebrates), and 

anthropogenic (e.g., vessels, dredging, 

construction) sound. A number of 

sources contribute to ambient sound, 

including the following (Richardson et 

al., 1995): 

• Wind and waves: The complex 

interactions between wind and water 

surface, including processes such as 

breaking waves and wave-induced 

bubble oscillations and cavitation, are a 

main source of naturally occurring 

ambient sound for frequencies between 

200 Hz and 50 kHz (Mitson, 1995). In 

general, ambient sound levels tend to 

increase with increasing wind speed 

and wave height. Surf sound becomes 

important near shore, with 

measurements collected at a distance of 

8.5 km from shore showing an increase 

of 10 dB in the 100 to 700 Hz band 

during heavy surf conditions. 

• Precipitation: Sound from rain and 

hail impacting the water surface can 

become an important component of total 

sound at frequencies above 500 Hz, and 

possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet 

times. 

• Biological: Marine mammals can 

contribute significantly to ambient 

sound levels, as can some fish and 

snapping shrimp. The frequency band 

for biological contributions is from 

approximately 12 Hz to over 100 kHz. 

• Anthropogenic: Sources of ambient 

sound related to human activity include 

transportation (surface vessels), 

dredging and construction, oil and gas 

drilling and production, seismic 

surveys, sonar, explosions, and ocean 

acoustic studies. Vessel noise typically 

dominates the total ambient sound for 

frequencies between 20 and 300 Hz. In 

general, the frequencies of 

anthropogenic sounds are below 1 kHz 

and, if higher frequency sound levels 

are created, they attenuate rapidly. 

Sound from identifiable anthropogenic 

sources other than the activity of 

interest (e.g., a passing vessel) is 

sometimes termed background sound, as 

opposed to ambient sound. 

The sum of the various natural and 

anthropogenic sound sources at any 

given location and time—which 

comprise ‘‘ambient’’ or ‘‘background’’ 

sound—depends not only on the source 

levels (as determined by current 

weather conditions and levels of 

biological and human activity) but also 

on the ability of sound to propagate 

through the environment. In turn, sound 

propagation is dependent on the 

spatially and temporally varying 

properties of the water column and sea 

floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a 

result of the dependence on a large 

number of varying factors, ambient 

sound levels can be expected to vary 

widely over both coarse and fine spatial 

and temporal scales. Sound levels at a 

given frequency and location can vary 

by 10–20 dB from day to day 

(Richardson et al., 1995). The result is 

that, depending on the source type and 

its intensity, sound from a given activity 

may be a negligible addition to the local 

environment or could form a distinctive 

signal that may affect marine mammals. 

Details of source types are described in 

the following text. 

Sounds are often considered to fall 

into one of two general types: Pulsed 

and non-pulsed (defined in the 

following). The distinction between 

these two sound types is important 

because they have differing potential to 

cause physical effects, particularly with 

regard to hearing (e.g., Ward, 1997 in 

Southall et al., 2007). Please see 

Southall et al. (2007) for an in-depth 

discussion of these concepts. 

Pulsed sound sources (e.g., airguns, 

explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, 

impact pile driving) produce signals 

that are brief (typically considered to be 

less than one second), broadband, atonal 

transients (ANSI, 1986, 2005; Harris, 

1998; NIOSH, 1998; ISO, 2003) and 

occur either as isolated events or 

repeated in some succession. Pulsed 

sounds are all characterized by a 

relatively rapid rise from ambient 

pressure to a maximal pressure value 

followed by a rapid decay period that 

may include a period of diminishing, 

oscillating maximal and minimal 

pressures, and generally have an 

increased capacity to induce physical 

injury as compared with sounds that 

lack these features. 

Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal, 

narrowband, or broadband, brief or 

prolonged, and may be either 

continuous or non-continuous (ANSI, 

1995; NIOSH, 1998). Some of these nonpulsed sounds can be transient signals 

of short duration but without the 

essential properties of pulses (e.g., rapid 

rise time). Examples of non-pulsed 

sounds include those produced by 

vessels, aircraft, machinery operations 

such as drilling or dredging, vibratory 

pile driving, and active sonar systems 

(such as those used by the U.S. Navy). 

The duration of such sounds, as 

received at a distance, can be greatly 

extended in a highly reverberant 

environment. 

Airgun arrays produce pulsed signals 

with energy in a frequency range from 

about 10–2,000 Hz, with most energy 

radiated at frequencies below 200 Hz. 

The amplitude of the acoustic wave 

emitted from the source is equal in all 

directions (i.e., omnidirectional), but 

airgun arrays do possess some 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 30499 

directionality due to different phase 

delays between guns in different 

directions. Airgun arrays are typically 

tuned to maximize functionality for data 

acquisition purposes, meaning that 

sound transmitted in horizontal 

directions and at higher frequencies is 

minimized to the extent possible. 

As described above, a Kongsberg EM 

122 MBES, a Knudsen Chirp 3260 SBP, 

and a Teledyne RDI 75 kHz Ocean 

Surveyor ADCP would be operated 

continuously during the proposed 

surveys, but not during transit to and 

from the survey areas. Due to the lower 

source level of the Kongsberg EM 122 

MBES relative to the Langseth’s airgun 

array (242 dB re 1 mPa · m for the MBES 

versus a minimum of 258 dB re 1 mPa 

· m (rms) for the 36 airgun array (NSF– 

USGS, 2011), sounds from the MBES are 

expected to be effectively subsumed by 

the sounds from the airgun array. Thus, 

any marine mammal potentially 

exposed to sounds from the MBES 

would already have been exposed to 

sounds from the airgun array, which are 

expected to propagate further in the 

water. Each ping emitted by the MBES 

consists of eight (in water >1,000 m 

deep) or four (<1,000 m) successive fanshaped transmissions, each ensonifying 

a sector that extends 1° fore–aft. Given 

the movement and speed of the vessel, 

the intermittent and narrow downwarddirected nature of the sounds emitted by 

the MBES would result in no more than 

one or two brief ping exposures of any 

individual marine mammal, if any 

exposure were to occur. 

Due to the lower source levels of both 

the Knudsen Chirp 3260 SBP and the 

Teledyne RDI 75 kHz Ocean Surveyor 

ADCP relative to the Langseth’s airgun 

array (maximum SL of 222 dB re 1 mPa 

· m for the SBP and maximum SL of 224 

dB re 1 mPa · m for the ADCP, versus 

a minimum of 258 dB re 1 mPa · m for 

the 36 airgun array (NSF–USGS, 2011), 

sounds from the SBP and ADCP are 

expected to be effectively subsumed by 

sounds from the airgun array. Thus, any 

marine mammal potentially exposed to 

sounds from the SBP and/or the ADCP 

would already have been exposed to 

sounds from the airgun array, which are 

expected to propagate further in the 

water. As such, we conclude that the 

likelihood of marine mammal take 

resulting from exposure to sound from 

the MBES, SBP or ADCP is discountable 

and therefore we do not consider noise 

from the MBES, SBP or ADCP further in 

this analysis. 

Acoustic Effects 

Here, we discuss the effects of active 

acoustic sources on marine mammals. 

Potential Effects of Underwater 

Sound—Please refer to the information 

given previously (‘‘Description of Active 

Acoustic Sources’’) regarding sound, 

characteristics of sound types, and 

metrics used in this document. 

Anthropogenic sounds cover a broad 

range of frequencies and sound levels 

and can have a range of highly variable 

impacts on marine life, from none or 

minor to potentially severe responses, 

depending on received levels, duration 

of exposure, behavioral context, and 

various other factors. The potential 

effects of underwater sound from active 

acoustic sources can potentially result 

in one or more of the following: 

Temporary or permanent hearing 

impairment, non-auditory physical or 

physiological effects, behavioral 

disturbance, stress, and masking 

(Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon et al., 

2004; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et 

al., 2007; Go ̈tz et al., 2009). The degree 

of effect is intrinsically related to the 

signal characteristics, received level, 

distance from the source, and duration 

of the sound exposure. In general, 

sudden, high level sounds can cause 

hearing loss, as can longer exposures to 

lower level sounds. Temporary or 

permanent loss of hearing will occur 

almost exclusively for noise within an 

animal’s hearing range. We first describe 

specific manifestations of acoustic 

effects before providing discussion 

specific to the use of airgun arrays. 

Richardson et al. (1995) described 

zones of increasing intensity of effect 

that might be expected to occur, in 

relation to distance from a source and 

assuming that the signal is within an 

animal’s hearing range. First is the area 

within which the acoustic signal would 

be audible (potentially perceived) to the 

animal, but not strong enough to elicit 

any overt behavioral or physiological 

response. The next zone corresponds 

with the area where the signal is audible 

to the animal and of sufficient intensity 

to elicit behavioral or physiological 

responsiveness. Third is a zone within 

which, for signals of high intensity, the 

received level is sufficient to potentially 

cause discomfort or tissue damage to 

auditory or other systems. Overlaying 

these zones to a certain extent is the 

area within which masking (i.e., when a 

sound interferes with or masks the 

ability of an animal to detect a signal of 

interest that is above the absolute 

hearing threshold) may occur; the 

masking zone may be highly variable in 

size. 

We describe the more severe effects of 

certain non-auditory physical or 

physiological effects only briefly as we 

do not expect that use of airgun arrays 

are reasonably likely to result in such 

effects (see below for further 

discussion). Potential effects from 

impulsive sound sources can range in 

severity from effects such as behavioral 

disturbance or tactile perception to 

physical discomfort, slight injury of the 

internal organs and the auditory system, 

or mortality (Yelverton et al., 1973). 

Non-auditory physiological effects or 

injuries that theoretically might occur in 

marine mammals exposed to high level 

underwater sound or as a secondary 

effect of extreme behavioral reactions 

(e.g., change in dive profile as a result 

of an avoidance reaction) caused by 

exposure to sound include neurological 

effects, bubble formation, resonance 

effects, and other types of organ or 

tissue damage (Cox et al., 2006; Southall 

et al., 2007; Zimmer and Tyack, 2007; 

Tal et al., 2015). The survey activities 

considered here do not involve the use 

of devices such as explosives or midfrequency tactical sonar that are 

associated with these types of effects. 

Threshold Shift—Marine mammals 

exposed to high-intensity 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 decibels 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2
30500 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 

from terrestrial mammals, a 

precautionary assumption is that the 

PTS thresholds for impulse sounds 

(such as airgun pulses as received close 

to the source) are at least 6 dB higher 

than the TTS threshold on a peakpressure 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. 

For mid-frequency cetaceans in 

particular, potential protective 

mechanisms may help limit onset of 

TTS or prevent onset of PTS. Such 

mechanisms include dampening of 

hearing, auditory adaptation, or 

behavioral amelioration (e.g., Nachtigall 

and Supin, 2013; Miller et al., 2012; 

Finneran et al., 2015; Popov et al., 

2016). 

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 

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. 

Finneran et al. (2015) measured 

hearing thresholds in three captive 

bottlenose dolphins before and after 

exposure to ten pulses produced by a 

seismic airgun in order to study TTS 

induced after exposure to multiple 

pulses. Exposures began at relatively 

low levels and gradually increased over 

a period of several months, with the 

highest exposures at peak SPLs from 

196 to 210 dB and cumulative 

(unweighted) SELs from 193–195 dB. 

No substantial TTS was observed. In 

addition, behavioral reactions were 

observed that indicated that animals can 

learn behaviors that effectively mitigate 

noise exposures (although exposure 

patterns must be learned, which is less 

likely in wild animals than for the 

captive animals considered in this 

study). The authors note that the failure 

to induce more significant auditory 

effects likely due to the intermittent 

nature of exposure, the relatively low 

peak pressure produced by the acoustic 

source, and the low-frequency energy in 

airgun pulses as compared with the 

frequency range of best sensitivity for 

dolphins and other mid-frequency 

cetaceans. 

Currently, TTS data only exist for four 

species of cetaceans (bottlenose 

dolphin, beluga whale, harbor porpoise, 

and Yangtze finless porpoise) exposed 

to a limited number of sound sources 

(i.e., mostly tones and octave-band 

noise) in laboratory settings (Finneran, 

2015). In general, harbor porpoises have 

a lower TTS onset than other measured 

cetacean species (Finneran, 2015). 

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. 

Critical questions remain regarding 

the rate of TTS growth and recovery 

after exposure to intermittent noise and 

the effects of single and multiple pulses. 

Data at present are also insufficient to 

construct generalized models for 

recovery and determine the time 

necessary to treat subsequent exposures 

as independent events. More 

information is needed on the 

relationship between auditory evoked 

potential and behavioral measures of 

TTS for various stimuli. 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). 

Behavioral Effects—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 showed 

pronounced behavioral reactions, 

including avoidance of loud sound 

sources (Ridgway et al., 1997). 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). However, many 

delphinids approach acoustic source 

vessels with no apparent discomfort or 

obvious behavioral change (e.g., 

Barkaszi et al., 2012). 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 30501 

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, let alone 

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; 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. 

Visual tracking, passive acoustic 

monitoring, and movement recording 

tags were used to quantify sperm whale 

behavior prior to, during, and following 

exposure to airgun arrays at received 

levels in the range 140–160 dB at 

distances of 7–13 km, following a phasein of sound intensity and full array 

exposures at 1–13 km (Madsen et al., 

2006; Miller et al., 2009). Sperm whales 

did not exhibit horizontal avoidance 

behavior at the surface. However, 

foraging behavior may have been 

affected. The sperm whales exhibited 19 

percent less vocal (buzz) rate during full 

exposure relative to post exposure, and 

the whale that was approached most 

closely had an extended resting period 

and did not resume foraging until the 

airguns had ceased firing. The 

remaining whales continued to execute 

foraging dives throughout exposure; 

however, swimming movements during 

foraging dives were 6 percent lower 

during exposure than control periods 

(Miller et al., 2009). These data raise 

concerns that seismic surveys may 

impact foraging behavior in sperm 

whales, although more data are required 

to understand whether the differences 

were due to exposure or natural 

variation in sperm whale behavior 

(Miller et al., 2009). 

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, 

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

al., 2016). 

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., 2007). 

In some cases, animals may cease sound 

production during production of 

aversive signals (Bowles et al., 1994). 

Cerchio et al. (2014) used passive 

acoustic monitoring to document the 

presence of singing humpback whales 

off the coast of northern Angola and to 

opportunistically test for the effect of 

seismic survey activity on the number of 

singing whales. Two recording units 

were deployed between March and 

December 2008 in the offshore 

environment; numbers of singers were 

counted every hour. Generalized 

Additive Mixed Models were used to 

assess the effect of survey day 

(seasonality), hour (diel variation), 

moon phase, and received levels of 

noise (measured from a single pulse 

during each ten minute sampled period) 

on singer number. The number of 

singers significantly decreased with 

increasing received level of noise, 

suggesting that humpback whale 

breeding activity was disrupted to some 

extent by the survey activity. 

Castellote et al. (2012) reported 

acoustic and behavioral changes by fin 

whales in response to shipping and 

airgun noise. Acoustic features of fin 

whale song notes recorded in the 

Mediterranean Sea and northeast 

Atlantic Ocean were compared for areas 

with different shipping noise levels and 

traffic intensities and during a seismic 

airgun survey. During the first 72 h of 

the survey, a steady decrease in song 

received levels and bearings to singers 

indicated that whales moved away from 

the acoustic source and out of the study 

area. This displacement persisted for a 

time period well beyond the 10-day 

duration of seismic airgun activity, 

providing evidence that fin whales may 

avoid an area for an extended period in 

the presence of increased noise. The 

authors hypothesize that fin whale 

acoustic communication is modified to 

compensate for increased background 

noise and that a sensitization process 

may play a role in the observed 

temporary displacement. 

Seismic pulses at average received 

levels of 131 dB re 1 mPa2-s caused blue 

whales to increase call production (Di 

Iorio and Clark, 2010). In contrast, 

McDonald et al. (1995) tracked a blue 

whale with seafloor seismometers and 

reported that it stopped vocalizing and 

changed its travel direction at a range of 

10 km from the acoustic source vessel 

(estimated received level 143 dB pk-pk). 

Blackwell et al. (2013) found that 

bowhead whale call rates dropped 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2
30502 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 

significantly at onset of airgun use at 

sites with a median distance of 41–45 

km from the survey. Blackwell et al. 

(2015) expanded this analysis to show 

that whales actually increased calling 

rates as soon as airgun signals were 

detectable before ultimately decreasing 

calling rates at higher received levels 

(i.e., 10-minute SELcum of ∼127 dB). 

Overall, these results suggest that 

bowhead whales may adjust their vocal 

output in an effort to compensate for 

noise before ceasing vocalization effort 

and ultimately deflecting from the 

acoustic source (Blackwell et al., 2013, 

2015). These studies demonstrate that 

even low levels of noise received far 

from the source can induce changes in 

vocalization and/or behavior for 

mysticetes. 

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 

from seismic surveys (Malme et al., 

1984). Humpback whales showed 

avoidance behavior in the presence of 

an active seismic array during 

observational studies and controlled 

exposure experiments in western 

Australia (McCauley et al., 2000). 

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., 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 fiveday 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. 

Stone (2015) reported data from at-sea 

observations during 1,196 seismic 

surveys from 1994 to 2010. When large 

arrays of airguns (considered to be 500 

in3 or more) were firing, lateral 

displacement, more localized 

avoidance, or other changes in behavior 

were evident for most odontocetes. 

However, significant responses to large 

arrays were found only for the minke 

whale and fin whale. Behavioral 

responses observed included changes in 

swimming or surfacing behavior, with 

indications that cetaceans remained 

near the water surface at these times. 

Cetaceans were recorded as feeding less 

often when large arrays were active. 

Behavioral observations of gray whales 

during a seismic survey monitored 

whale movements and respirations pre- 

, during and post-seismic survey (Gailey 

et al., 2016). Behavioral state and water 

depth were the best ‘natural’ predictors 

of whale movements and respiration 

and, after considering natural variation, 

none of the response variables were 

significantly associated with seismic 

survey or vessel sounds. 

Stress Responses—An animal’s 

perception of a threat may be sufficient 

to trigger stress responses consisting of 

some combination of behavioral 

responses, autonomic nervous system 

responses, neuroendocrine responses, or 

immune responses (e.g., Seyle, 1950; 

Moberg, 2000). In many cases, an 

animal’s first and sometimes most 

economical (in terms of energetic costs) 

response is behavioral avoidance of the 

potential stressor. Autonomic nervous 

system responses to stress typically 

involve changes in heart rate, blood 

pressure, and gastrointestinal activity. 

These responses have a relatively short 

duration and may or may not have a 

significant long-term effect on an 

animal’s fitness. 

Neuroendocrine stress responses often 

involve the hypothalamus-pituitaryadrenal system. Virtually all 

neuroendocrine 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, 

altered metabolism, reduced immune 

competence, and behavioral disturbance 

(e.g., Moberg, 1987; Blecha, 2000). 

Increases in the circulation of 

glucocorticoids are also equated with 

stress (Romano et al., 2004). 

The primary distinction between 

stress (which is adaptive and does not 

normally place an animal at risk) and 

‘‘distress’’ is the 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 serious 

fitness consequences. 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 

functions. This state of distress will last 

until the animal replenishes its 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 30503 

energetic reserves sufficiently to restore 

normal function. 

Relationships between these 

physiological mechanisms, animal 

behavior, and the costs of stress 

responses are well-studied through 

controlled experiments and for both 

laboratory and free-ranging animals 

(e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 

1998; Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et 

al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005). Stress 

responses due to exposure to 

anthropogenic sounds or other stressors 

and their effects on marine mammals 

have also been reviewed (Fair and 

Becker, 2000; Romano et al., 2002b) 

and, more rarely, studied in wild 

populations (e.g., Romano et al., 2002a). 

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. These and 

other studies lead to a reasonable 

expectation that some marine mammals 

will experience physiological stress 

responses upon exposure to acoustic 

stressors and that it is possible that 

some of these would be classified as 

‘‘distress.’’ In addition, any animal 

experiencing TTS would likely also 

experience stress responses (NRC, 

2003). 

Auditory Masking—Sound can 

disrupt behavior through masking, or 

interfering with, an animal’s ability to 

detect, recognize, or discriminate 

between acoustic signals of interest (e.g., 

those used for intraspecific 

communication and social interactions, 

prey detection, predator avoidance, 

navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995; 

Erbe et al., 2016). Masking occurs when 

the receipt of a sound is interfered with 

by another coincident sound at similar 

frequencies and at similar or higher 

intensity, and may occur whether the 

sound is natural (e.g., snapping shrimp, 

wind, waves, precipitation) or 

anthropogenic (e.g., shipping, sonar, 

seismic exploration) in origin. The 

ability of a noise source to mask 

biologically important sounds depends 

on the characteristics of both the noise 

source and the signal of interest (e.g., 

signal-to-noise ratio, temporal 

variability, direction), in relation to each 

other and to an animal’s hearing 

abilities (e.g., sensitivity, frequency 

range, critical ratios, frequency 

discrimination, directional 

discrimination, age or TTS hearing loss), 

and existing ambient noise and 

propagation conditions. 

Under certain circumstances, marine 

mammals experiencing significant 

masking could also be impaired from 

maximizing their performance fitness in 

survival and reproduction. Therefore, 

when the coincident (masking) sound is 

man-made, it may be considered 

harassment when disrupting or altering 

critical behaviors. It is important to 

distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist 

after the sound exposure, from masking, 

which occurs during the sound 

exposure. Because masking (without 

resulting in TS) is not associated with 

abnormal physiological function, it is 

not considered a physiological effect, 

but rather a potential behavioral effect. 

The frequency range of the potentially 

masking sound is important in 

determining any potential behavioral 

impacts. For example, low-frequency 

signals may have less effect on highfrequency echolocation sounds 

produced by odontocetes but are more 

likely to affect detection of mysticete 

communication calls and other 

potentially important natural sounds 

such as those produced by surf and 

some prey species. The masking of 

communication signals by 

anthropogenic noise may be considered 

as a reduction in the communication 

space of animals (e.g., Clark et al., 2009) 

and may result in energetic or other 

costs as animals change their 

vocalization behavior (e.g., Miller et al., 

2000; Foote et al., 2004; Parks et al., 

2007; Di Iorio and Clark, 2009; Holt et 

al., 2009). Masking can be reduced in 

situations where the signal and noise 

come from different directions 

(Richardson et al., 1995), through 

amplitude modulation of the signal, or 

through other compensatory behaviors 

(Houser and Moore, 2014). Masking can 

be tested directly in captive species 

(e.g., Erbe, 2008), but in wild 

populations it must be either modeled 

or inferred from evidence of masking 

compensation. There are few studies 

addressing real-world masking sounds 

likely to be experienced by marine 

mammals in the wild (e.g., Branstetter et 

al., 2013). 

Masking affects both senders and 

receivers of acoustic signals and can 

potentially have long-term chronic 

effects on marine mammals at the 

population level as well as at the 

individual level. Low-frequency 

ambient sound levels have increased by 

as much as 20 dB (more than three times 

in terms of SPL) in the world’s ocean 

from pre-industrial periods, with most 

of the increase from distant commercial 

shipping (Hildebrand, 2009). All 

anthropogenic sound sources, but 

especially chronic and lower-frequency 

signals (e.g., from vessel traffic), 

contribute to elevated ambient sound 

levels, thus intensifying masking. 

Masking effects of pulsed sounds 

(even from large arrays of airguns) on 

marine mammal calls and other natural 

sounds are expected to be limited, 

although there are few specific data on 

this. Because of the intermittent nature 

and low duty cycle of seismic pulses, 

animals can emit and receive sounds in 

the relatively quiet intervals between 

pulses. However, in exceptional 

situations, reverberation occurs for 

much or all of the interval between 

pulses (e.g., Simard et al. 2005; Clark 

and Gagnon 2006), which could mask 

calls. Situations with prolonged strong 

reverberation are infrequent. However, 

it is common for reverberation to cause 

some lesser degree of elevation of the 

background level between airgun pulses 

(e.g., Gedamke 2011; Guerra et al. 2011, 

2016; Klinck et al. 2012; Guan et al. 

2015), and this weaker reverberation 

presumably reduces the detection range 

of calls and other natural sounds to 

some degree. Guerra et al. (2016) 

reported that ambient noise levels 

between seismic pulses were elevated as 

a result of reverberation at ranges of 50 

km from the seismic source. Based on 

measurements in deep water of the 

Southern Ocean, Gedamke (2011) 

estimated that the slight elevation of 

background levels during intervals 

between pulses reduced blue and fin 

whale communication space by as much 

as 36–51 percent when a seismic survey 

was operating 450–2,800 km away. 

Based on preliminary modeling, 

Wittekind et al. (2016) reported that 

airgun sounds could reduce the 

communication range of blue and fin 

whales 2000 km from the seismic 

source. Nieukirk et al. (2012) and 

Blackwell et al. (2013) noted the 

potential for masking effects from 

seismic surveys on large whales. 

Some baleen and toothed whales are 

known to continue calling in the 

presence of seismic pulses, and their 

calls usually can be heard between the 

pulses (e.g., Nieukirk et al. 2012; Thode 

et al. 2012; Bro ̈ker et al. 2013; Sciacca 

et al. 2016). As noted above, Cerchio et 

al. (2014) suggested that the breeding 

display of humpback whales off Angola 

could be disrupted by seismic sounds, 

as singing activity declined with 

increasing received levels. In addition, 

some cetaceans are known to change 

their calling rates, shift their peak 

frequencies, or otherwise modify their 

vocal behavior in response to airgun 

sounds (e.g., Di Iorio and Clark 2010; 

Castellote et al. 2012; Blackwell et al. 

2013, 2015). The hearing systems of 

baleen whales are undoubtedly more 

sensitive to low-frequency sounds than 

are the ears of the small odontocetes 

that have been studied directly (e.g., 

MacGillivray et al. 2014). The sounds 

important to small odontocetes are 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2
30504 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 

predominantly at much higher 

frequencies than are the dominant 

components of airgun sounds, thus 

limiting the potential for masking. In 

general, masking effects of seismic 

pulses are expected to be minor, given 

the normally intermittent nature of 

seismic pulses. 

Ship Noise 

Vessel noise from the Langseth could 

affect marine animals in the proposed 

survey areas. Houghton et al. (2015) 

proposed that vessel speed is the most 

important predictor of received noise 

levels, and Putland et al. (2017) also 

reported reduced sound levels with 

decreased vessel speed. Sounds 

produced by large vessels generally 

dominate ambient noise at frequencies 

from 20 to 300 Hz (Richardson et al. 

1995). However, some energy is also 

produced at higher frequencies 

(Hermannsen et al. 2014); low levels of 

high-frequency sound from vessels has 

been shown to elicit responses in harbor 

porpoise (Dyndo et al. 2015). Increased 

levels of ship noise have been shown to 

affect foraging by porpoise (Teilmann et 

al. 2015; Wisniewska et al. 2018); 

Wisniewska et al. (2018) suggest that a 

decrease in foraging success could have 

long-term fitness consequences. 

Ship noise, through masking, can 

reduce the effective communication 

distance of a marine mammal if the 

frequency of the sound source is close 

to that used by the animal, and if the 

sound is present for a significant 

fraction of time (e.g., Richardson et al. 

1995; Clark et al. 2009; Jensen et al. 

2009; Gervaise et al. 2012; Hatch et al. 

2012; Rice et al. 2014; Dunlop 2015; 

Erbe et al. 2015; Jones et al. 2017; 

Putland et al. 2017). In addition to the 

frequency and duration of the masking 

sound, the strength, temporal pattern, 

and location of the introduced sound 

also play a role in the extent of the 

masking (Branstetter et al. 2013, 2016; 

Finneran and Branstetter 2013; Sills et 

al. 2017). Branstetter et al. (2013) 

reported that time-domain metrics are 

also important in describing and 

predicting masking. In order to 

compensate for increased ambient noise, 

some cetaceans are known to increase 

the source levels of their calls in the 

presence of elevated noise levels from 

shipping, shift their peak frequencies, or 

otherwise change their vocal behavior 

(e.g., Parks et al. 2011, 2012, 2016a,b; 

Castellote et al. 2012; Melco ́n et al. 

2012; Azzara et al. 2013; Tyack and 

Janik 2013; Luı ́s et al. 2014; Sairanen 

2014; Papale et al. 2015; Bittencourt et 

al. 2016; Dahlheim and Castellote 2016; 

Gospic ́ and Picciulin 2016; Gridley et al. 

2016; Heiler et al. 2016; Martins et al. 

2016; O’Brien et al. 2016; Tenessen and 

Parks 2016). Harp seals did not increase 

their call frequencies in environments 

with increased low-frequency sounds 

(Terhune and Bosker 2016). Holt et al. 

(2015) reported that changes in vocal 

modifications can have increased 

energetic costs for individual marine 

mammals. A negative correlation 

between the presence of some cetacean 

species and the number of vessels in an 

area has been demonstrated by several 

studies (e.g., Campana et al. 2015; 

Culloch et al. 2016). 

Baleen whales are thought to be more 

sensitive to sound at these low 

frequencies than are toothed whales 

(e.g., MacGillivray et al. 2014), possibly 

causing localized avoidance of the 

proposed survey area during seismic 

operations. Reactions of gray and 

humpback whales to vessels have been 

studied, and there is limited 

information available about the 

reactions of right whales and rorquals 

(fin, blue, and minke whales). Reactions 

of humpback whales to boats are 

variable, ranging from approach to 

avoidance (Payne 1978; Salden 1993). 

Baker et al. (1982, 1983) and Baker and 

Herman (1989) found humpbacks often 

move away when vessels are within 

several kilometers. Humpbacks seem 

less likely to react overtly when actively 

feeding than when resting or engaged in 

other activities (Krieger and Wing 1984, 

1986). Increased levels of ship noise 

have been shown to affect foraging by 

humpback whales (Blair et al. 2016). Fin 

whale sightings in the western 

Mediterranean were negatively 

correlated with the number of vessels in 

the area (Campana et al. 2015). Minke 

whales and gray seals have shown slight 

displacement in response to 

construction-related vessel traffic 

(Anderwald et al. 2013). 

Many odontocetes show considerable 

tolerance of vessel traffic, although they 

sometimes react at long distances if 

confined by ice or shallow water, if 

previously harassed by vessels, or have 

had little or no recent exposure to ships 

(Richardson et al. 1995). Dolphins of 

many species tolerate and sometimes 

approach vessels (e.g., Anderwald et al. 

2013). Some dolphin species approach 

moving vessels to ride the bow or stern 

waves (Williams et al. 1992). Pirotta et 

al. (2015) noted that the physical 

presence of vessels, not just ship noise, 

disturbed the foraging activity of 

bottlenose dolphins. Sightings of striped 

dolphin, Risso’s dolphin, sperm whale, 

and Cuvier’s beaked whale in the 

western Mediterranean were negatively 

correlated with the number of vessels in 

the area (Campana et al. 2015). 

There are few data on the behavioral 

reactions of beaked whales to vessel 

noise, though they seem to avoid 

approaching vessels (e.g., Wu ̈rsig et al. 

1998) or dive for an extended period 

when approached by a vessel (e.g., 

Kasuya 1986). Based on a single 

observation, Aguilar Soto et al. (2006) 

suggest foraging efficiency of Cuvier’s 

beaked whales may be reduced by close 

approach of vessels. 

In summary, project vessel sounds 

would not be at levels expected to cause 

anything more than possible localized 

and temporary behavioral changes in 

marine mammals, and would not be 

expected to result in significant negative 

effects on individuals or at the 

population level. In addition, in all 

oceans of the world, large vessel traffic 

is currently so prevalent that it is 

commonly considered a usual source of 

ambient sound (NSF–USGS 2011). 

Ship Strike 

Vessel collisions with marine 

mammals, or ship strikes, can result in 

death or serious injury of the animal. 

Wounds resulting from ship strike may 

include massive trauma, hemorrhaging, 

broken bones, or propeller lacerations 

(Knowlton and Kraus, 2001). An animal 

at the surface may be struck directly by 

a vessel, a surfacing animal may hit the 

bottom of a vessel, or an animal just 

below the surface may be cut by a 

vessel’s propeller. Superficial strikes 

may not kill or result in the death of the 

animal. These interactions are typically 

associated with large whales (e.g., fin 

whales), which are occasionally found 

draped across the bulbous bow of large 

commercial ships upon arrival in port. 

Although smaller cetaceans are more 

maneuverable in relation to large vessels 

than are large whales, they may also be 

susceptible to strike. The severity of 

injuries typically depends on the size 

and speed of the vessel, with the 

probability of death or serious injury 

increasing as vessel speed increases 

(Knowlton and Kraus, 2001; Laist et al., 

2001; Vanderlaan and Taggart, 2007; 

Conn and Silber, 2013). Impact forces 

increase with speed, as does the 

probability of a strike at a given distance 

(Silber et al., 2010; Gende et al., 2011). 

Pace and Silber (2005) also found that 

the probability of death or serious injury 

increased rapidly with increasing vessel 

speed. Specifically, the predicted 

probability of serious injury or death 

increased from 45 to 75 percent as 

vessel speed increased from 10 to 14 kn, 

and exceeded 90 percent at 17 kn. 

Higher speeds during collisions result in 

greater force of impact, but higher 

speeds also appear to increase the 

chance of severe injuries or death 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 30505 

through increased likelihood of 

collision by pulling whales toward the 

vessel (Clyne, 1999; Knowlton et al., 

1995). In a separate study, Vanderlaan 

and Taggart (2007) analyzed the 

probability of lethal mortality of large 

whales at a given speed, showing that 

the greatest rate of change in the 

probability of a lethal injury to a large 

whale as a function of vessel speed 

occurs between 8.6 and 15 kn. The 

chances of a lethal injury decline from 

approximately 80 percent at 15 kn to 

approximately 20 percent at 8.6 kn. At 

speeds below 11.8 kn, the chances of 

lethal injury drop below 50 percent, 

while the probability asymptotically 

increases toward one hundred percent 

above 15 kn. 

The Langseth travels at a speed of 4.1 

kt (7.6 km/h) while towing seismic 

survey gear (LGL 2018). At this speed, 

both the possibility of striking a marine 

mammal and the possibility of a strike 

resulting in serious injury or mortality 

are discountable. At average transit 

speed, the probability of serious injury 

or mortality resulting from a strike is 

less than 50 percent. However, the 

likelihood of a strike actually happening 

is again discountable. Ship strikes, as 

analyzed in the studies cited above, 

generally involve commercial shipping, 

which is much more common in both 

space and time than is geophysical 

survey activity. Jensen and Silber (2004) 

summarized ship strikes of large whales 

worldwide from 1975–2003 and found 

that most collisions occurred in the 

open ocean and involved large vessels 

(e.g., commercial shipping). No such 

incidents were reported for geophysical 

survey vessels during that time period. 

It is possible for ship strikes to occur 

while traveling at slow speeds. For 

example, a hydrographic survey vessel 

traveling at low speed (5.5 kn) while 

conducting mapping surveys off the 

central California coast struck and killed 

a blue whale in 2009. The State of 

California determined that the whale 

had suddenly and unexpectedly 

surfaced beneath the hull, with the 

result that the propeller severed the 

whale’s vertebrae, and that this was an 

unavoidable event. This strike 

represents the only such incident in 

approximately 540,000 hours of similar 

coastal mapping activity (p = 1.9 × 10¥6; 

95% CI = 0¥5.5 × 10¥6; NMFS, 2013b). 

In addition, a research vessel reported a 

fatal strike in 2011 of a dolphin in the 

Atlantic, demonstrating that it is 

possible for strikes involving smaller 

cetaceans to occur. In that case, the 

incident report indicated that an animal 

apparently was struck by the vessel’s 

propeller as it was intentionally 

swimming near the vessel. While 

indicative of the type of unusual events 

that cannot be ruled out, neither of these 

instances represents a circumstance that 

would be considered reasonably 

foreseeable or that would be considered 

preventable. 

Although the likelihood of the vessel 

striking a marine mammal is low, we 

require a robust ship strike avoidance 

protocol (see ‘‘Proposed Mitigation’’), 

which we believe eliminates any 

foreseeable risk of ship strike. We 

anticipate that vessel collisions 

involving a seismic data acquisition 

vessel towing gear, while not 

impossible, represent unlikely, 

unpredictable events for which there are 

no preventive measures. Given the 

required mitigation measures, the 

relatively slow speed of the vessel 

towing gear, the presence of bridge crew 

watching for obstacles at all times 

(including marine mammals), and the 

presence of marine mammal observers, 

we believe that the possibility of ship 

strike is discountable and, further, that 

were a strike of a large whale to occur, 

it would be unlikely to result in serious 

injury or mortality. No incidental take 

resulting from ship strike is anticipated, 

and this potential effect of the specified 

activity will not be discussed further in 

the following analysis. 

Stranding—When a living or dead 

marine mammal swims or floats onto 

shore and becomes ‘‘beached’’ or 

incapable of returning to sea, the event 

is a ‘‘stranding’’ (Geraci et al., 1999; 

Perrin and Geraci, 2002; Geraci and 

Lounsbury, 2005; NMFS, 2007). The 

legal definition for a stranding under the 

MMPA is that ‘‘(A) a marine mammal is 

dead and is (i) on a beach or shore of 

the United States; or (ii) in waters under 

the jurisdiction of the United States 

(including any navigable waters); or (B) 

a marine mammal is alive and is (i) on 

a beach or shore of the United States 

and is unable to return to the water; (ii) 

on a beach or shore of the United States 

and, although able to return to the 

water, is in need of apparent medical 

attention; or (iii) in the waters under the 

jurisdiction of the United States 

(including any navigable waters), but is 

unable to return to its natural habitat 

under its own power or without 

assistance.’’ 

Marine mammals strand for a variety 

of reasons, such as infectious agents, 

biotoxicosis, starvation, fishery 

interaction, ship strike, unusual 

oceanographic or weather events, sound 

exposure, or combinations of these 

stressors sustained concurrently or in 

series. However, the cause or causes of 

most strandings are unknown (Geraci et 

al., 1976; Eaton, 1979; Odell et al., 1980; 

Best, 1982). Numerous studies suggest 

that the physiology, behavior, habitat 

relationships, age, or condition of 

cetaceans may cause them to strand or 

might pre-dispose them to strand when 

exposed to another phenomenon. These 

suggestions are consistent with the 

conclusions of numerous other studies 

that have demonstrated that 

combinations of dissimilar stressors 

commonly combine to kill an animal or 

dramatically reduce its fitness, even 

though one exposure without the other 

does not produce the same result 

(Chroussos, 2000; Creel, 2005; DeVries 

et al., 2003; Fair and Becker, 2000; Foley 

et al., 2001; Moberg, 2000; Relyea, 

2005a; 2005b, Romero, 2004; Sih et al., 

2004). 

Use of military tactical sonar has been 

implicated in a majority of investigated 

stranding events. Most known stranding 

events have involved beaked whales, 

though a small number have involved 

deep-diving delphinids or sperm whales 

(e.g., Mazzariol et al., 2010; Southall et 

al., 2013). In general, long duration (∼1 

second) and high-intensity sounds (≤235 

dB SPL) have been implicated in 

stranding events (Hildebrand, 2004). 

With regard to beaked whales, midfrequency sound is typically implicated 

(when causation can be determined) 

(Hildebrand, 2004). Although seismic 

airguns create predominantly lowfrequency energy, the signal does 

include a mid-frequency component. 

We have considered the potential for the 

proposed surveys to result in marine 

mammal stranding and have concluded 

that, based on the best available 

information, stranding is not expected 

to occur. 

Effects to Prey—Marine mammal prey 

varies by species, season, and location 

and, for some, is not well documented. 

Fish react to sounds which are 

especially strong and/or intermittent 

low-frequency sounds. Short duration, 

sharp sounds can cause overt or subtle 

changes in fish behavior and local 

distribution. Hastings and Popper (2005) 

identified several studies that suggest 

fish may relocate to avoid certain areas 

of sound energy. Additional studies 

have documented effects of pulsed 

sound on fish, although several are 

based on studies in support of 

construction projects (e.g., Scholik and 

Yan, 2001, 2002; Popper and Hastings, 

2009). Sound pulses at received levels 

of 160 dB may cause subtle changes in 

fish behavior. SPLs of 180 dB may cause 

noticeable changes in behavior (Pearson 

et al., 1992; Skalski et al., 1992). SPLs 

of sufficient strength have been known 

to cause injury to fish and fish 

mortality. The most likely impact to fish 

from survey activities at the project area 

would be temporary avoidance of the 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2
30506 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 

area. The duration of fish avoidance of 

a given area after survey effort stops is 

unknown, but a rapid return to normal 

recruitment, distribution and behavior 

is anticipated. 

Information on seismic airgun 

impacts to zooplankton, which 

represent an important prey type for 

mysticetes, is limited. However, 

McCauley et al. (2017) reported that 

experimental exposure to a pulse from 

a 150 inch3 airgun decreased 

zooplankton abundance when compared 

with controls, as measured by sonar and 

net tows, and caused a two- to threefold 

increase in dead adult and larval 

zooplankton. Although no adult krill 

were present, the study found that all 

larval krill were killed after air gun 

passage. Impacts were observed out to 

the maximum 1.2 km range sampled. 

In general, impacts to marine mammal 

prey are expected to be limited due to 

the relatively small temporal and spatial 

overlap between the proposed survey 

and any areas used by marine mammal 

prey species. The proposed use of 

airguns as part of an active seismic array 

survey would occur over a relatively 

short time period (∼32 days) at two 

locations and would occur over a very 

small area relative to the area available 

as marine mammal habitat in the Pacific 

Ocean near Hawaii and the Emperor 

Seamounts. We believe any impacts to 

marine mammals due to adverse affects 

to their prey would be insignificant due 

to the limited spatial and temporal 

impact of the proposed survey. 

However, adverse impacts may occur to 

a few species of fish and to zooplankton. 

Acoustic Habitat—Acoustic habitat is 

the soundscape—which encompasses 

all of the sound present in a particular 

location and time, as a whole—when 

considered from the perspective of the 

animals experiencing it. Animals 

produce sound for, or listen for sounds 

produced by, conspecifics 

(communication during feeding, mating, 

and other social activities), other 

animals (finding prey or avoiding 

predators), and the physical 

environment (finding suitable habitats, 

navigating). Together, sounds made by 

animals and the geophysical 

environment (e.g., produced by 

earthquakes, lightning, wind, rain, 

waves) make up the natural 

contributions to the total acoustics of a 

place. These acoustic conditions, 

termed acoustic habitat, are one 

attribute of an animal’s total habitat. 

Soundscapes are also defined by, and 

acoustic habitat influenced by, the total 

contribution of anthropogenic sound. 

This may include incidental emissions 

from sources such as vessel traffic, or 

may be intentionally introduced to the 

marine environment for data acquisition 

purposes (as in the use of airgun arrays). 

Anthropogenic noise varies widely in its 

frequency content, duration, and 

loudness and these characteristics 

greatly influence the potential habitatmediated effects to marine mammals 

(please see also the previous discussion 

on masking under ‘‘Acoustic Effects’’), 

which may range from local effects for 

brief periods of time to chronic effects 

over large areas and for long durations. 

Depending on the extent of effects to 

habitat, animals may alter their 

communications signals (thereby 

potentially expending additional 

energy) or miss acoustic cues (either 

conspecific or adventitious). For more 

detail on these concepts see, e.g., Barber 

et al., 2010; Pijanowski et al., 2011; 

Francis and Barber, 2013; Lillis et al., 

2014. 

Problems arising from a failure to 

detect cues are more likely to occur 

when noise stimuli are chronic and 

overlap with biologically relevant cues 

used for communication, orientation, 

and predator/prey detection (Francis 

and Barber, 2013). Although the signals 

emitted by seismic airgun arrays are 

generally low frequency, they would 

also likely be of short duration and 

transient in any given area due to the 

nature of these surveys. As described 

previously, exploratory surveys such as 

these cover a large area but would be 

transient rather than focused in a given 

location over time and therefore would 

not be considered chronic in any given 

location. 

In summary, activities associated with 

the proposed action are not likely to 

have a permanent, adverse effect on any 

fish habitat or populations of fish 

species or on the quality of acoustic 

habitat. Thus, any impacts to marine 

mammal habitat are not expected to 

cause significant or long-term 

consequences for individual marine 

mammals or their populations. 

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 whether the number of 

takes is ‘‘small’’ and the negligible 

impact determination. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any 

act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance 

which (i) has the potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 

or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild by causing disruption 

of behavioral patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

(Level B harassment). 

Authorized takes would primarily be 

by Level B harassment, as use of seismic 

airguns has the potential to result in 

disruption of behavioral patterns for 

individual marine mammals. There is 

also some potential for auditory injury 

(Level A harassment) for mysticetes and 

high frequency cetaceans (i.e., kogiidae 

spp.), due to larger predicted auditory 

injury zones for those functional hearing 

groups. The proposed mitigation and 

monitoring measures are expected to 

minimize the severity of such taking to 

the extent practicable. 

Auditory injury is unlikely to occur 

for mid-frequency species given very 

small modeled zones of injury for those 

species (13.6 m). Moreover, the source 

level of the array is a theoretical 

definition assuming a point source and 

measurement in the far-field of the 

source (MacGillivray, 2006). As 

described by Caldwell and Dragoset 

(2000), an array is not a point source, 

but one that spans a small area. In the 

far-field, individual elements in arrays 

will effectively work as one source 

because individual pressure peaks will 

have coalesced into one relatively broad 

pulse. The array can then be considered 

a ‘‘point source.’’ For distances within 

the near-field, i.e., approximately 2–3 

times the array dimensions, pressure 

peaks from individual elements do not 

arrive simultaneously because the 

observation point is not equidistant 

from each element. The effect is 

destructive interference of the outputs 

of each element, so that peak pressures 

in the near-field will be significantly 

lower than the output of the largest 

individual element. Here, the 230 dB 

peak isopleth distances would in all 

cases be expected to be within the nearfield of the array where the definition of 

source level breaks down. Therefore, 

actual locations within this distance of 

the array center where the sound level 

exceeds 230 dB peak SPL would not 

necessarily exist. In general, Caldwell 

and Dragoset (2000) suggest that the 

near-field for airgun arrays is considered 

to extend out to approximately 250 m. 

As described previously, no mortality 

is anticipated or proposed to be 

authorized for this activity. Below we 

describe how the take is estimated. 

Described in the most basic way, we 

estimate take by considering: (1) 

Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS 

believes the best available science 

indicates marine mammals will be 

behaviorally harassed or incur some 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 30507 

degree of permanent hearing 

impairment; (2) the area or volume of 

water that will be ensonified above 

these levels in a day; (3) the density or 

occurrence of marine mammals within 

these ensonified areas; and (4) and the 

number of days of activities. Below, we 

describe these components in more 

detail and present the exposure estimate 

and associated numbers of take 

proposed for authorization. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

Using the best available science, 

NMFS has developed acoustic 

thresholds that identify the received 

level of underwater sound above which 

exposed marine mammals would be 

reasonably expected to be behaviorally 

harassed (equated to Level B 

harassment) or to incur PTS of some 

degree (equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment for non-explosive 

sources—Though significantly driven by 

received level, the onset of behavioral 

disturbance from anthropogenic noise 

exposure is also informed to varying 

degrees by other factors related to the 

source (e.g., frequency, predictability, 

duty cycle), the environment (e.g., 

bathymetry), and the receiving animals 

(hearing, motivation, experience, 

demography, behavioral context) and 

can be difficult to predict (Southall et 

al., 2007, Ellison et al. 2012). Based on 

the best available science and the 

practical need to use a threshold based 

on a factor that is both predictable and 

measurable for most activities, NMFS 

uses a generalized acoustic threshold 

based on received level to estimate the 

onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS 

predicts that marine mammals are likely 

to be behaviorally harassed in a manner 

we consider to fall under Level B 

harassment when exposed to 

underwater anthropogenic noise above 

received levels of 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) 

for non-explosive impulsive (e.g., 

seismic airguns) sources. L–DEO’s 

proposed activity includes the use of 

impulsive seismic sources. Therefore, 

the 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) criteria is 

applicable for analysis of level B 

harassment. 

Level A harassment for non-explosive 

sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance 

for Assessing the Effects of 

Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing (NMFS, 2016) 

identifies dual criteria to assess auditory 

injury (Level A harassment) to five 

different marine mammal groups (based 

on hearing sensitivity) 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 2 

below. The references, analysis, and 

methodology used in the development 

of the thresholds are described in NMFS 

2016 Technical Guidance. As described 

above, L–DEO’s proposed activity 

includes the use of intermittent and 

impulsive seismic sources. 

TABLE 2—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 relevant acoustic 

thresholds. 

The proposed surveys would acquire 

data with the 36-airgun array with a 

total discharge of 6,600 in3 at a 

maximum tow depth of 12 m. L–DEO 

model results are used to determine the 

160-dBrms radius for the 36-airgun 

array and 40-in3 airgun at a 12-m tow 

depth in deep water (≤1000 m) down to 

a maximum water depth of 2,000 m. 

Received sound levels were predicted 

by L–DEO’s model (Diebold et al., 2010) 

which uses ray tracing for the direct 

wave traveling from the array to the 

receiver and its associated source ghost 

(reflection at the air-water interface in 

the vicinity of the array), in a constantvelocity half-space (infinite 

homogeneous ocean layer, unbounded 

by a seafloor). In addition, propagation 

measurements of pulses from the 36- 

airgun array at a tow depth of 6 m have 

been reported in deep water 

(approximately 1600 m), intermediate 

water depth on the slope (approximately 

600–1100 m), and shallow water 

(approximately 50 m) in the Gulf of 

Mexico in 2007–2008 (Tolstoy et al. 

2009; Diebold et al. 2010). 

For deep and intermediate-water 

cases, the field measurements cannot be 

used readily to derive Level A and Level 

B isopleths, as at those sites the 

calibration hydrophone was located at a 

roughly constant depth of 350–500 m, 

which may not intersect all the sound 

pressure level (SPL) isopleths at their 

widest point from the sea surface down 

to the maximum relevant water depth 

for marine mammals of ∼2,000 m. At 

short ranges, where the direct arrivals 

dominate and the effects of seafloor 

interactions are minimal, the data 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2
30508 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 

recorded at the deep and slope sites are 

suitable for comparison with modeled 

levels at the depth of the calibration 

hydrophone. At longer ranges, the 

comparison with the model— 

constructed from the maximum SPL 

through the entire water column at 

varying distances from the airgun 

array—is the most relevant. 

In deep and intermediate-water 

depths, comparisons at short ranges 

between sound levels for direct arrivals 

recorded by the calibration hydrophone 

and model results for the same array 

tow depth are in good agreement (Fig. 

12 and 14 in Appendix H of NSF–USGS, 

2011). Consequently, isopleths falling 

within this domain can be predicted 

reliably by the L–DEO model, although 

they may be imperfectly sampled by 

measurements recorded at a single 

depth. At greater distances, the 

calibration data show that seafloorreflected and sub-seafloor-refracted 

arrivals dominate, whereas the direct 

arrivals become weak and/or 

incoherent. Aside from local topography 

effects, the region around the critical 

distance is where the observed levels 

rise closest to the model curve. 

However, the observed sound levels are 

found to fall almost entirely below the 

model curve. Thus, analysis of the GoM 

calibration measurements demonstrates 

that although simple, the L–DEO model 

is a robust tool for conservatively 

estimating isopleths. 

For deep water (>1,000 m), L–DEO 

used the deep-water radii obtained from 

model results down to a maximum 

water depth of 2000 m. The radii for 

intermediate water depths (100–1,000 

m) were derived from the deep-water 

ones by applying a correction factor 

(multiplication) of 1.5, such that 

observed levels at very near offsets fall 

below the corrected mitigation curve 

(See Fig. 16 in Appendix H of NSF– 

USGS, 2011). 

Measurements have not been reported 

for the single 40-in3 airgun. L–DEO 

model results are used to determine the 

160-dB (rms) radius for the 40-in3

airgun at a 12 m tow depth in deep 

water (See LGL 2018, Figure A–2). For 

intermediate-water depths, a correction 

factor of 1.5 was applied to the deepwater model results. 

L–DEO’s modeling methodology is 

described in greater detail in the IHA 

application (LGL 2018). The estimated 

distances to the Level B harassment 

isopleth for the Langseth’s 36-airgun 

array and single 40-in3 airgun are shown 

in Table 3. 

TABLE 3—PREDICTED RADIAL DISTANCES FROM R/V LANGSETH SEISMIC SOURCE TO ISOPLETHS CORRESPONDING TO

LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLD

Source and volume Tow depth 

(m) 

Water depth 

(m) 

Predicted distances 

(in m) to the 160-dB 

received sound level 

Single Bolt airgun, 40 in3 ............................................................................. 12 >1000 1 431 

100–1000 2 647 

4 strings, 36 airguns, 6,600 in3 ................................................................... 12 >1000 1 6,733 

100–1000 2 10,100 

1 Distance is based on L–DEO model results. 

2 Distance is based on L–DEO model results with a 1.5 × correction factor between deep and intermediate water depths. 

Predicted distances to Level A 

harassment isopleths, which vary based 

on marine mammal hearing groups, 

were calculated based on modeling 

performed by L–DEO using the 

NUCLEUS software program and the 

NMFS User Spreadsheet, described 

below. The updated acoustic thresholds 

for impulsive sounds (e.g., airguns) 

contained in the Technical Guidance 

were presented as dual metric acoustic 

thresholds using both SELcum and peak 

sound pressure metrics (NMFS 2016). 

As dual metrics, NMFS considers onset 

of PTS (Level A harassment) to have 

occurred when either one of the two 

metrics is exceeded (i.e., metric 

resulting in the largest isopleth). The 

SELcum metric considers both level and 

duration of exposure, as well as 

auditory weighting functions by marine 

mammal hearing group. In recognition 

of the fact that the requirement to 

calculate Level A harassment ensonified 

areas could be more technically 

challenging to predict due to the 

duration component and the use of 

weighting functions in the new SELcum

thresholds, NMFS developed an 

optional User Spreadsheet that includes 

tools to help predict a simple isopleth 

that can be used in conjunction with 

marine mammal density or occurrence 

to facilitate the estimation of take 

numbers. 

The values for SELcum and peak SPL 

for the Langseth airgun array were 

derived from calculating the modified 

farfield signature (Table 4). The farfield 

signature is often used as a theoretical 

representation of the source level. To 

compute the farfield signature, the 

source level is estimated at a large 

distance below the array (e.g., 9 km), 

and this level is back projected 

mathematically to a notional distance of 

1 m from the array’s geometrical center. 

However, when the source is an array of 

multiple airguns separated in space, the 

source level from the theoretical farfield 

signature is not necessarily the best 

measurement of the source level that is 

physically achieved at the source 

(Tolstoy et al. 2009). Near the source (at 

short ranges, distances <1 km), the 

pulses of sound pressure from each 

individual airgun in the source array do 

not stack constructively, as they do for 

the theoretical farfield signature. The 

pulses from the different airguns spread 

out in time such that the source levels 

observed or modeled are the result of 

the summation of pulses from a few 

airguns, not the full array (Tolstoy et al. 

2009). At larger distances, away from 

the source array center, sound pressure 

of all the airguns in the array stack 

coherently, but not within one time 

sample, resulting in smaller source 

levels (a few dB) than the source level 

derived from the farfield signature. 

Because the farfield signature does not 

take into account the large array effect 

near the source and is calculated as a 

point source, the modified farfield 

signature is a more appropriate measure 

of the sound source level for distributed 

sound sources, such as airgun arrays. 

L–DEO used the acoustic modeling 

methodology as used for Level B 

harassment with a small grid step of 1 

m in both the inline and depth 

directions. The propagation modeling 

takes into account all airgun 

interactions at short distances from the 

source, including interactions between 

subarrays which are modeled using the 

NUCLEUS software to estimate the 

notional signature and MATLAB 

software to calculate the pressure signal 

at each mesh point of a grid. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 30509 

TABLE 4—MODELED SOURCE LEVELS BASED ON MODIFIED FARFIELD SIGNATURE FOR THE R/V LANGSETH 6,600 IN3

AIRGUN ARRAY, AND SINGLE 40 IN3 AIRGUN

Low frequency 

cetaceans 

(Lpk,flat: 219 

dB; LE,LF,24h:

183 dB) 

Mid frequency 

cetaceans 

(Lpk,flat: 230 

dB; LE,MF,24h: 

185 dB 

High 

frequency 

cetaceans 

(Lpk,flat: 202 

dB; LE,HF,24h: 

155 dB) 

Phocid 

pinnipeds 

(underwater) 

(Lpk,flat: 218 

dB; LE,HF,24h: 

185 dB) 

Otariid 

pinnipeds 

(underwater) 

(Lpk,flat: 232 

dB; LE,HF,24h: 

203 dB) 

6,600 in3 airgun array (Peak SPLflat) .................................. 252.06 252.65 253.24 252.25 252.52 

6,600 in3 airgun array (SELcum) ........................................... 232.98 232.83 233.08 232.83 232.07 

40 in3 airgun (Peak SPLflat) ................................................. 223.93 N.A. 223.92 223.95 N.A. 

40 in3 airgun (SELcum) ......................................................... 202.99 202.89 204.37 202.89 202.35 

In order to more realistically 

incorporate the Technical Guidance’s 

weighting functions over the seismic 

array’s full acoustic band, unweighted 

spectrum data for the Langseth’s airgun 

array (modeled in 1 hertz (Hz) bands) 

was used to make adjustments (dB) to 

the unweighted spectrum levels, by 

frequency, according to the weighting 

functions for each relevant marine 

mammal hearing group. These adjusted/ 

weighted spectrum levels were then 

converted to pressures (mPa) in order to 

integrate them over the entire 

broadband spectrum, resulting in 

broadband weighted source levels by 

hearing group that could be directly 

incorporated within the User 

Spreadsheet (i.e., to override the 

Spreadsheet’s more simple weighting 

factor adjustment). Using the User 

Spreadsheet’s ‘‘safe distance’’ 

methodology for mobile sources 

(described by Sivle et al., 2014) with the 

hearing group-specific weighted source 

levels, and inputs assuming spherical 

spreading propagation and source 

velocities and shot intervals specific to 

each of the three planned surveys (Table 

1), potential radial distances to auditory 

injury zones were then calculated for 

SELcum thresholds. 

Inputs to the User Spreadsheets in the 

form of estimated SLs are shown in 

Table 5. User Spreadsheets used by L– 

DEO to estimate distances to Level A 

harassment isopleths for the 36-airgun 

array and single 40 in3 airgun for the 

surveys are shown is Tables A–2, A–3, 

A–5, and A–8 in Appendix A of the IHA 

application (LGL 2018). Outputs from 

the User Spreadsheets in the form of 

estimated distances to Level A 

harassment isopleths for the surveys are 

shown in Table 5. As described above, 

NMFS considers onset of PTS (Level A 

harassment) to have occurred when 

either one of the dual metrics (SELcum

and Peak SPLflat) is exceeded (i.e., 

metric resulting in the largest isopleth). 

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

Low frequency 

cetaceans 

(Lpk,flat: 219 

dB; LE,LF,24h: 

183 dB) 

Mid frequency 

cetaceans 

(Lpk,flat: 230 

dB; LE,MF,24h: 

185 dB 

High 

frequency 

cetaceans 

(Lpk,flat: 202 

dB; LE,HF,24h: 

155 dB) 

Phocid 

pinnipeds 

(underwater) 

(Lpk,flat: 218 

dB; LE,HF,24h: 

185 dB) 

Otariid 

pinnipeds 

(underwater) 

(Lpk,flat: 232 

dB; LE,HF,24h: 

203 dB) 

6,600 in3 airgun array (Peak SPLflat) .................................. 38.9 13.6 268.3 43.7 10.6 

6,600 in3 airgun array (SELcum) .......................................... 320.2 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 

40 in3 airgun (Peak SPLflat) ................................................. 1.76 N.A. 12.5 1.98 N.A. 

40 in3 airgun (SELcum) ......................................................... 2.38 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 

Note that because of some of the 

assumptions included in the methods 

used, isopleths produced may be 

overestimates to some degree, which 

will ultimately result in some degree of 

overestimate of Level A harassment. 

However, these tools offer the best way 

to predict appropriate isopleths when 

more sophisticated modeling methods 

are not available, and NMFS continues 

to develop ways to quantitatively refine 

these tools and will qualitatively 

address the output where appropriate. 

For mobile sources, such as the 

proposed seismic survey, the User 

Spreadsheet predicts the closest 

distance at which a stationary animal 

would not incur PTS if the sound source 

traveled by the animal in a straight line 

at a constant speed. 

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). 

In the proposed survey area in the 

Hawaiian EEZ, densities from Bradford 

et al. (2017) were used, when available. 

For the pygmy sperm whale, dwarf 

sperm whale, and spinner dolphin, 

densities from Barlow et al. (2009) were 

used because densities were not 

provided by Bradford et al. (2017). For 

the humpback, minke, and killer 

whales, the calculated take was 

increased to mean group size, based on 

Bradford et al. (2017). For Hawaiian 

monk seals, NMFS recommended 

following the methods used by the U.S. 

Navy (Navy 2017a) to determine 

densities. L–DEO followed a similar 

method, but did not correct for hauled 

out animals as haul-out sites are not 

accessible in offshore areas. We 

determined density by dividing the 

number of animals expected to occur in 

the Hawaiian EEZ in water depths >200 

m. According to the U.S. Navy (Navy 

2017a), 90 percent of the population 

may be found within the 200-m isobath; 

therefore 10 percent of the population 

(127 of 1272 animals; Carretta et al. 

2017) is expected to occur outside of the 

200-m isobath. The area within the 

Hawaii EEZ but outside of the 200-m 

isobath was estimated by the U.S. Navy 

to be 2,461,994 km2 (Navy 2017a). Thus, 

we estimated the average density of 

monk seals at sea where they could be 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2
30510 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 

exposed to seismic sounds as 127/ 

2,461,994 km2 = 0.0000517/km2. No 

haul-out factors were used to adjust this 

density, as it is not possible that animals 

would haul out beyond the 200-m 

isobath. Densities for the Hawaii portion 

of the survey are shown in Table 7. 

There are very few published data on 

the densities of cetaceans or pinnipeds 

in the Emperor Seamounts area, so 

NMFS relied on a range of sources to 

establish marine mammal densities. As 

part of the Navy’s Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement/ 

Supplemental Overseas Environmental 

Impact Statement for SURTASS LFA 

Sonar Routine Training, Testing, and 

Military Operations, the Navy modelled 

densities for a designated mission area 

northeast of Japan during the summer 

season. These values were used for the 

North Pacific right whale, sei whale, fin 

whale, sperm whale, Cuvier’s beaked 

whale, Stejneger’s beaked whale, and 

Baird’s beaked whale. 

For northern right whale dolphin, 

Dall’s porpoise, and northern fur seal, 

L–DEO used densities from Buckland et 

al. (1993). Forney and Wade (2006) 

reported a density of 0.3/100 km2 for 

killer whales at latitudes 43–48° N 

where the proposed survey would be 

conducted. Although Miyashita (1993) 

published data on the abundance of 

striped, Pantropical spotted, bottlenose, 

and Risso’s dolphins, and false killer 

and short-finned pilot whales in the 

Northwest Pacific Ocean as far north as 

41° N, the distributional range of the 

Pantropical spotted and bottlenose 

dolphins does not extend as far north as 

the proposed survey area. For the other 

species, we used data from 40–41° N, 

160–180° E to calculate densities and 

estimate the numbers of individuals that 

could be exposed to seismic sounds 

during the proposed survey. Risso’s 

dolphin, false killer whale, and shortfinned pilot whale are expected to be 

rare in the proposed survey area, and 

the calculated densities were zero. 

Thus, we used the mean group size from 

Bradford et al. (2017) for Risso’s 

dolphin and short-finned pilot whale, 

and the mean group size of false killer 

whales from Barlow (2006). 

The short-beaked common dolphin is 

expected to be rare in the Emperor 

Seamounts survey area; thus, there are 

no density estimates available. L–DEO 

used the mean group size (rounded up) 

for the California Current from Barlow 

(2016). The density of Bryde’s whale in 

the proposed survey area was assumed 

to be zero, based on information from 

Hakamada et al. (2009, 2017) and 

Forney et al. (2015); its known 

distribution range does not appear to 

extend that far north. For this species, 

L–DEO rounded up the mean group size 

from Bradford et al. (2017). For pygmy 

and dwarf sperm whales NMFS 

assumed densities in the Emperor 

Seamounts would be equivalent to those 

in the Hawaii survey are and used 

densities from Bradford et al. 2017. 

The densities for the remaining 

species were obtained from calculations 

using data from the papers presented to 

the IWC. For blue and humpback 

whales, L–DEO used a weighted mean 

density from Matsuoka et al. (2009) for 

the years 1994–2007 and Hakamada and 

Matsuoka (2015) for the years 2008– 

2014. L–DEO used Matsuoka et al. 

(2009) instead of Matsuoka et al. (2015), 

as the later document did not contain all 

of the necessary information to calculate 

densities. L–DEO used densities for 

their Block 9N which coincides with the 

proposed Emperor Seamounts survey 

area. The density for each survey period 

was weighted by the number of years in 

the survey period; that is, 14 years for 

Matsuoka et al. (2009) and 7 years for 

Hakamada and Matsuoka (2015), to 

obtain a final density for the 21-year 

period. For minke whales L–DEO used 

the estimates of numbers of whales in 

survey blocks overlapping the Emperor 

Seamounts survey area from Hakamada 

et al. (2009); densities were estimated 

by dividing the number of whales in 

Block 9N by the area of Block 9N. For 

gray whales, NMFS used a paper by 

Rugh et al. (2005) that looked at 

abundance of eastern DPS gray whales. 

The paper provides mean group sizes 

for their surveys, which ranged from 1 

to 2 individuals. For purposes of 

estimating exposures we will assume 

that the western DPS group sizes would 

not vary greatly from the eastern DPS. 

As such, NMFS assumes that there will 

be two western DPS gray whales Level 

B takes, based on mean group size. 

Finally, no northern elephant seals 

have been reported during any of the 

above surveys although Buckland et al. 

(1993) estimated fur seal abundance 

during their surveys. Telemetry studies, 

however, indicate that elephant seals do 

forage as far west as the proposed 

Emperor Seamounts survey area. Here, 

L–DEO assumed a density of 0.00831/ 

1000 km2, which is 10 percent of that 

used by LGL Limited (2017) for an area 

off the west coast of the United States. 

However, densities of northern elephant 

seals in the region are expected to be 

much less than densities of northern fur 

seals. For species that are unlikely to 

occur in the survey area, such as ribbon 

seals, proposed exposures are set at 5 

individuals. Densities for Emperor are 

shown in Table 8. 

Take Calculation and Estimation 

Here we describe how the information 

provided above is brought together to 

produce a quantitative take estimate. In 

order to estimate the number of marine 

mammals predicted to be exposed to 

sound levels that would result in Level 

A harassment or Level B harassment, 

radial distances from the airgun array to 

predicted isopleths corresponding to the 

Level A harassment and Level B 

harassment thresholds are calculated, as 

described above. Those radial distances 

are then used to calculate the area(s) 

around the airgun array predicted to be 

ensonified to sound levels that exceed 

the Level A harassment and Level B 

harassment thresholds. The area 

estimated to be ensonified in a single 

day of the survey is then calculated 

(Table 6), based on the areas predicted 

to be ensonified around the array and 

the estimated trackline distance traveled 

per day. This number is then multiplied 

by the number of survey days. Active 

seismic operations are planned for 13 

days at Emperor Seamounts and 19 days 

at Hawaii. 

TABLE 6—AREAS (km2) ESTIMATED TO BE ENSONIFIED TO LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS, PER DAY

FOR HAWAII AND EMPEROR SEAMOUNTS SURVEYS

Survey Criteria 

Daily 

ensonified 

area 

(km 2) 

Total 

survey days 

25% 

increase 

Total 

ensonified 

area 

(km 2) 

Relevant 

isopleth 

(m) 

Hawaii Level B 

Multi-depth line (intermediate water) ....... 160 dB ........... 538.5 12 1.25 8076.9 10,100 

Multi-depth line (deep water) ................... 160 dB ........... 2349.8 12 1.25 35246.4 6,733 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 30511 

TABLE 6—AREAS (km2) ESTIMATED TO BE ENSONIFIED TO LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS, PER DAY

FOR HAWAII AND EMPEROR SEAMOUNTS SURVEYS—Continued 

Survey Criteria 

Daily 

ensonified 

area 

(km 2) 

Total 

survey days 

25% 

increase 

Total 

ensonified 

area 

(km 2) 

Relevant 

isopleth 

(m) 

Multi-depth line (total) .............................. 160 dB ........... 2888.2 12 1.25 43323.3 6,733 

Deep-water line ........................................ 160 dB ........... 2566.3 7 1.25 22455.1 6,733 

Hawaii Level A1

Hawaii ...................................................... LF Cetacean .. 115.6 19 1.25 2745.4 320.2 

MF Cetacean 4.9 19 1.25 116.3 13.6 

HF Cetacean 96.8 19 1.25 2299.3 268.3 

Phocid ............ 15.7 19 1.25 373.8 43.7 

Emperor Seamounts Level B 

Emperor Seamounts ................................ 160 dB ........... 2566.3 13 1.25 41702.4 6,733 

Emperor Seamounts Level A1

Emperor Seamounts ................................ LF Cetacean .. 115.6 13 1.25 1878.4 320.2 

MF Cetacean 4.9 13 1.25 79.6 13.6 

HF Cetacean 96.8 13 1.25 1573.2 268.3 

Phocid ............ 15.7 13 1.25 255.7 43.7 

Otariid ............ 3.8 13 1.25 62 10.6 

1 Level A ensonified areas are estimated based on the greater of the distances calculated to Level A isopleths using dual criteria (SELcum and 

peakSPL). 

The product is then multiplied by 

1.25 to account for the additional 25 

percent contingency. This results in an 

estimate of the total areas (km2) 

expected to be ensonified to the Level 

A harassment and Level B harassment 

thresholds. For purposes of Level B take 

calculations, areas estimated to be 

ensonified to Level A harassment 

thresholds are subtracted from total 

areas estimated to be ensonified to Level 

B harassment thresholds in order to 

avoid double counting the animals 

taken (i.e., if an animal is taken by Level 

A harassment, it is not also counted as 

taken by Level B harassment). The 

marine mammals predicted to occur 

within these respective areas, based on 

estimated densities, are assumed to be 

incidentally taken. 

Estimated exposures for the Hawaii 

survey and the Emperor Seamounts 

survey are shown respectively in Table 

7 and Table 8. 

TABLE 7—DENSITIES, ESTIMATED LEVEL A AND LEVEL B EXPOSURES, AND PERCENTAGE OF STOCK OR POPULATION

EXPOSED DURING HAWAII SURVEY

Species Stock Density 

(#/1000 km2 ) 

Total 

exposures Level A Level B 

Percentage 

of stock/ 

population 

Takes proposed for 

authorization 

Level A Level B 

Mysticetes: 

Humpback Whale ........................ Central North Pacific......................... 4 2 .................... 2 <0.01 0 2 

Western North Pacific......................... .................... 0.2 .................... .................... .................... ....................

Minke whale ................................ Hawaii .................. 3 0 4 1 0 0 <0.01 0 1 

Bryde’s whale .............................. Hawaii .................. 1 0.72 49 2 47 2.8 2 47 

Sei whale ..................................... Hawaii .................. 1 0.16 11 0 11 6.2 0 11 

Fin whale ..................................... Hawaii .................. 1 0.06 4 0 4 2.7 0 4 

Blue whale ................................... Central north Pacific.

1 0.05 5 0 5 3.9 0 5 

Odontocetes: 

Sperm whale ............................... Hawaii .................. 1 1.86 122 0 122 2.7 0 122 

Pygmy sperm whale .................... Hawaii .................. 2 2.91 198 7 191 2.8 7 191 

Dwarf sperm whale ..................... Hawaii .................. 2 7.14 486 16 470 2.8 16 470 

Cuvier’s beaked whale ................ Hawaii pelagic ...... 1 0.30 20 0 20 2.7 0 20 

Longman’s beaked whale ........... Hawaii .................. 1 3.11 205 0 205 2.7 0 205 

Blainville’s beaked whale ............ Hawaii pelagic ...... 1 0.86 57 0 57 2.7 0 57 

Ginkgo-toothed beaked whale .... N/A ....................... 6 0.63 41 0 41 0.16 0 41 

Deraniygala’s beaked whale ....... N/A ....................... 6 0.63 41 0 41 0.16 0 41 

Hubb’s beaked whale .................. N/A ....................... 6 0.63 41 0 41 0.16 0 41 

Rough-toothed dolphin ................ Hawaii .................. 1 29.63 1,952 3 1,949 2.7 0 1,952 

Common bottlenose dolphin ....... HI Pelagic ............. 1 8.99 592 1 591 7 2.7 0 592 

Oahu .................... 0.4 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

4 islands ............... 1.5 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

HI Islands ............. 2.3 .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

Pantropical spotted dolphin ......... HI Pelagic ............. 1 23.32 1,534 3 1531 8 1.3 0 1,354 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2
30512 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 

TABLE 7—DENSITIES, ESTIMATED LEVEL A AND LEVEL B EXPOSURES, AND PERCENTAGE OF STOCK OR POPULATION

EXPOSED DURING HAWAII SURVEY—Continued 

Species Stock Density 

(#/1000 km2 ) 

Total 

exposures Level A Level B 

Percentage 

of stock/ 

population 

Takes proposed for 

authorization 

Level A Level B 

Oahu .................... N.A. .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

4 island ................. N.A. .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

HI Islands ............. N.A. .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

Spinner dolphin ........................... HI Pelagic ............. 2 6.99 461 1 460 N.A. 0 461 

HI Island ............... ........................ .................... .................... .................... 9 10.9 .................... ....................

Oahu/4 island ....... ........................ .................... .................... .................... 19.4 .................... ....................

Striped dolphin ............................ HI Pelagic ............. 1 5.36 354 1 353 0.6 0 354 

Fraser’s dolphin ........................... Hawaii .................. 1 21.0 1,383 2 1381 2.7 0 1,383 

Risso’s dolphin ............................ Hawaii .................. 1 4.74 313 1 312 2.7 0 313 

Melon-headed whale ................... HI Islands ............. 1 3.54 233 0 233 10 2.4 0 233 

Kohala resident .... ........................ .................... .................... .................... 5.2 .................... ....................

Pygmy killer whale ...................... Hawaii .................. 1 4.35 287 1 286 2.7 0 287 

False killer whale ......................... MHI Insular ........... 5 0.0.09 6 0 6 3.5 0 6 

HI Pelagic ............. 5 0.06 4 0 4 0.26 0 4 

Killer whale .................................. Hawaiian Islands .. 1 0.06 4 5 0 4 2.7 0 5 

Short-finned pilot whale ............... Hawaii .................. 1 7.97 525 1 524 2.7 0 525 

Pinnipeds: 

Hawaiian monk seal .................... Hawaii .................. 3 0.051 3 0 3 0.15 0 3 

1Bradford et al. 2017. 2Barlow et al. 2009. 3 U.S. Department of the Navy. (2017a). U.S. Navy Marine Species Density Database Phase III for the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area. 

NAVFAC Pacific Technical Report. Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific, Pearl Harbor, HI. 274 pp. Navy, 2017. 4 Requested take authorization (Level B only) increased to mean group size from Bradford et al., 2017. 5Bradford et al. 2015. 6From Bradford et al. (2017) for ‘Unidentified Mesoplodon’ proportioned equally among Mesoplodon spp., except M. densirostris. 7Assumes 98.5 percent of proposed takes are from Hawaii pelagic stock (583) with remaining 9 animals split evenly among Oahu, 4 Islands, and Hawaiian Islands 

stock. 8Assumes 50 percent of proposed takes are from Hawaii pelagic stock (767) since most sightings occur in waters between 1,500 -5,000 m. The remainder are split 

evenly (256) between Hawaiian Islands, 4 islands, and Oahu stocks. Populations of insular stocks are unknown. 9Assumes 70 percent of proposed takes from Hawaii pelagic stock (323) since most of the survey tracklines will occur outside of boundary ranges of Hawaii Island 

and Oahu/4 island stocks. Assumes remaining takes (138) are split evenly between Hawaii Island (69) and Oahu/4 island (69) stocks. 10Assumes 90 percent of takes from Hawaiian Islands stock (210) and 10 percent from Kohala resident stock which has a small range. 

TABLE 8—DENSITIES, ESTIMATED LEVEL A AND LEVEL B EXPOSURES, PERCENTAGE OF STOCK OR POPULATION

EXPOSED, AND NUMBER OF TAKES PROPOSED FOR AUTHORIZATION DURING EMPEROR SEAMOUNTS SURVEY

Species Stock 

Estimated 

density 

(#/1000 km 2) 

Total 

exposures 

Level A 

takes 

Level B 

takes 

% of Pop. 

(total takes) 

Takes proposed for 

authorization 

Level A Level B 

Mysticetes.

Gray whale ......................................... N/A ....................... N.A. 2 2 0 2 1.43 0 2 

North Pacific right whale .................... N/A/ ...................... 1 0.01 10 2 0 0 0.44 0 2 

Humpback whale ................................ Central North Pacific.

1 0.41 16 1 15 11 0.16 1 16 

Western North Pacific DPS.2 0 2 11 0.18 0 2 

Minke whale ........................................ N/A ....................... 2.48 108 5 103 0.49 5 108 

Bryde’s whale ..................................... N/A ....................... N.A. 3 2 N.A. N.A. <0.01 0 2 

Sei whale ............................................ N/A ....................... 1 0.29 13 1 12 0.05 1 12 

Fin whale ............................................ N/A ....................... 1 0.20 9 0 8 0.06 0 8 

Blue whale .......................................... Central north Pacific.0.13 5 0 5 3.7 0 5 

Odontocetes: 

Sperm whale ............................... N/A ....................... 1 2.20 92 0 92 0.31 0 92 

Pygmy sperm whale .................... N/A ....................... 4 2.91 126 5 121 1.76 5 121 

Dwarf sperm whale ..................... N/A ....................... 4 7.14 309 11 298 1.76 11 298 

Cuvier’s beaked whale ................ N/A ....................... 1 5.40 225 0 225 1.13 0 225 

Stejner’s beaked whale ............... Alaska .................. 1 0.5 21 0 21 0.08 0 21 

Baird’s beaked whale .................. N/A ....................... 1 2.9 121 0 121 1.19 0 121 

Short-beaked common dolphin ... N/A ....................... 5 180 N.A. N.A. N.A. <0.01 0 180 

Striped dolphin ............................ N/A ....................... 6 9.21 385 1 384 0.04 0 385 

Pacific white-sided dolphin .......... N/A ....................... 7 68.81 2,875 5 2,870 0.29 0 2,875 

Northern right whale dolphin ....... N/A ....................... 7 3.37 141 0 141 0.05 0 141 

Risso’s dolphin ............................ N/A ....................... 3 27 1,128 2 1,126 1.02 0 1,128 

False killer whale ......................... N/A ....................... 5 10 418 1 417 2.51 0 418 

Killer whale .................................. N/A ....................... 8 3.00 125 0 125 1.47 0 125 

Short-finned pilot whale ............... N/A ....................... 3 41 1,713 3 1,710 3.2 0 1,713 

Dall’s porpoise ............................. N/A ....................... 35.46 1,535 56 1,479 0.13 56 1,479 

Pinnipeds: 

Northern fur seal ......................... N/A ....................... 7 3.56 149 0 148 0.01 0 148 

Northern elephant seal ................ N/A ....................... 8.31 349 2 347 0.16 2 347 

Ribbon seal ................................. Alaska .................. N.A. 9 5 0 5 <0.01 0 5 

1 Navy 2017b. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Supplemental Overseas Environmental Impact Statement. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 30513 

2 Mean group size based on Rugh et al. (2005). 3 Mean group size from Bradford et al. (2017). 4Bradford et al. (2017). 5 Mean group size from Barlow (2016). 

6 Miyashita (1993). 

7Buckland et al. (1993). 8Forney and Wade (2006). 

9Estimated exposures increased to 5 for pinnipeds. 

10 Mean group size from Matsuoka et al. (2009). 11Based on population size, take is split proportionally between central north Pacific (91.2 percent of total take) and western north Pacific DPS stocks (9.8 percent 

of total take). 

Estimated exposures are tabulated in 

Table 7 and Table 8. The sum will be 

the total number of takes proposed for 

authorization. Table 7 and Table 8 

contain the numbers of animals 

proposed for authorized take. 

It should be noted that the proposed 

take numbers shown in Tables 7 and 8 

are expected to be conservative for 

several reasons. First, in the calculations 

of estimated take, 25 percent has been 

added in the form of operational survey 

days to account for the possibility of 

additional seismic operations associated 

with airgun testing and repeat coverage 

of any areas where initial data quality is 

sub-standard, and in recognition of the 

uncertainties in the density estimates 

used to estimate take as described 

above. Additionally, marine mammals 

would be expected to move away from 

a loud sound source that represents an 

aversive stimulus, such as an airgun 

array, potentially reducing the number 

of Level A takes. However, the extent to 

which marine mammals would move 

away from the sound source is difficult 

to quantify and is, therefore, not 

accounted for in the take estimates. 

Note that for some marine mammal 

species, we propose to authorize a 

different number of incidental takes 

than the number of incidental takes 

requested by L–DEO (see Table 5 and 

Table 6 in the IHA application for 

requested take numbers). 

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 cost, 

impact on operations,. 

L–DEO has reviewed mitigation 

measures employed during seismic 

research surveys authorized by NMFS 

under previous incidental harassment 

authorizations, as well as recommended 

best practices in Richardson et al. 

(1995), Pierson et al. (1998), Weir and 

Dolman (2007), Nowacek et al. (2013), 

Wright (2014), and Wright and 

Cosentino (2015), and has incorporated 

a suite of proposed mitigation measures 

into their project description based on 

the above sources. 

To reduce the potential for 

disturbance from acoustic stimuli 

associated with the activities, L–DEO 

has proposed to implement mitigation 

measures for marine mammals. 

Mitigation measures that would be 

adopted during the proposed surveys 

include (1) Vessel-based visual 

mitigation monitoring; (2) Vessel-based 

passive acoustic monitoring; (3) 

Establishment of an exclusion zone; (4) 

Power down procedures; (5) Shutdown 

procedures; (6) Ramp-up procedures; 

and (7) Vessel strike avoidance 

measures. 

Vessel-Based Visual Mitigation 

Monitoring 

Visual monitoring requires the use of 

trained observers (herein referred to as 

visual PSOs) to scan the ocean surface 

visually for the presence of marine 

mammals. The area to be scanned 

visually includes primarily the 

exclusion zone, but also the buffer zone. 

The buffer zone means an area beyond 

the exclusion zone to be monitored for 

the presence of marine mammals that 

may enter the exclusion zone. During 

pre-clearance monitoring (i.e., before 

ramp-up begins), the buffer zone also 

acts as an extension of the exclusion 

zone in that observations of marine 

mammals within the buffer zone would 

also prevent airgun operations from 

beginning (i.e. ramp-up). The buffer 

zone encompasses the area at and below 

the sea surface from the edge of the 0– 

500 meter exclusion zone, out to a 

radius of 1,000 meters from the edges of 

the airgun array (500–1,000 meters). 

Visual monitoring of the exclusion 

zones and adjacent waters is intended to 

establish and, when visual conditions 

allow, maintain zones around the sound 

source that are clear of marine 

mammals, thereby reducing or 

eliminating the potential for injury and 

minimizing the potential for more 

severe behavioral reactions for animals 

occurring close to the vessel. Visual 

monitoring of the buffer zone is 

intended to (1) provide additional 

protection to naı ̈ve marine mammals 

that may be in the area during preclearance, and (2) during airgun use, aid 

in establishing and maintaining the 

exclusion zone by alerting the visual 

observer and crew of marine mammals 

that are outside of, but may approach 

and enter, the exclusion zone. 

L–DEO must use at least five 

dedicated, trained, NMFS-approved 

Protected Species Observers (PSOs). The 

PSOs must have no tasks other than to 

conduct observational effort, record 

observational data, and communicate 

with and instruct relevant vessel crew 

with regard to the presence of marine 

mammals and mitigation requirements. 

PSO resumes shall be provided to 

NMFS for approval. 

At least one of the visual and two of 

the acoustic PSOs aboard the vessel 

must have a minimum of 90 days at-sea 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2
30514 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 

experience working in those roles, 

respectively, during a deep penetration 

(i.e., ‘‘high energy’’) seismic survey, 

with no more than 18 months elapsed 

since the conclusion of the at-sea 

experience. One visual PSO with such 

experience shall be designated as the 

lead for the entire protected species 

observation team. The lead PSO shall 

serve as primary point of contact for the 

vessel operator and ensure all PSO 

requirements per the IHA are met. To 

the maximum extent practicable, the 

experienced PSOs should be scheduled 

to be on duty with those PSOs with 

appropriate training but who have not 

yet gained relevant experience. 

During survey operations (e.g., any 

day on which use of the acoustic source 

is planned to occur, and whenever the 

acoustic source is in the water, whether 

activated or not), a minimum of two 

visual PSOs must be on duty and 

conducting visual observations at all 

times during daylight hours (i.e., from 

30 minutes prior to sunrise through 30 

minutes following sunset) and 30 

minutes prior to and during nighttime 

ramp-ups of the airgun array. Visual 

monitoring of the exclusion and buffer 

zones must begin no less than 30 

minutes prior to ramp-up and must 

continue until one hour after use of the 

acoustic source ceases or until 30 

minutes past sunset. Visual PSOs shall 

coordinate to ensure 360° visual 

coverage around the vessel from the 

most appropriate observation posts, and 

shall conduct visual observations using 

binoculars and the naked eye while free 

from distractions and in a consistent, 

systematic, and diligent manner. PSOs 

shall establish and monitor the 

exclusion and buffer zones. These zones 

shall be based upon the radial distance 

from the edges of the acoustic source 

(rather than being based on the center of 

the array or around the vessel itself). 

During use of the acoustic source (i.e., 

anytime airguns are active, including 

ramp-up), occurrences of marine 

mammals within the buffer zone (but 

outside the exclusion zone) shall be 

communicated to the operator to 

prepare for the potential shutdown or 

powerdown of the acoustic source. 

During use of the airgun (i.e., anytime 

the acoustic source is active, including 

ramp-up), occurrences of marine 

mammals within the buffer zone (but 

outside the exclusion zone) should be 

communicated to the operator to 

prepare for the potential shutdown or 

powerdown of the acoustic source. 

Visual PSOs will immediately 

communicate all observations to the on 

duty acoustic PSO(s), including any 

determination by the PSO regarding 

species identification, distance, and 

bearing and the degree of confidence in 

the determination. Any observations of 

marine mammals by crew members 

shall be relayed to the PSO team. During 

good conditions (e.g., daylight hours; 

Beaufort sea state (BSS) 3 or less), visual 

PSOs shall conduct observations when 

the acoustic source is not operating for 

comparison of sighting rates and 

behavior with and without use of the 

acoustic source and between acquisition 

periods, to the maximum extent 

practicable. Visual PSOs may be on 

watch for a maximum of two 

consecutive hours followed by a break 

of at least one hour between watches 

and may conduct a maximum of 12 

hours of observation per 24-hour period. 

Combined observational duties (visual 

and acoustic but not at same time) may 

not exceed 12 hours per 24-hour period 

for any individual PSO. 

Passive Acoustic Monitoring 

Acoustic monitoring means the use of 

trained personnel (sometimes referred to 

as passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) 

operators, herein referred to as acoustic 

PSOs) to operate PAM equipment to 

acoustically detect the presence of 

marine mammals. Acoustic monitoring 

involves acoustically detecting marine 

mammals regardless of distance from 

the source, as localization of animals 

may not always be possible. Acoustic 

monitoring is intended to further 

support visual monitoring (during 

daylight hours) in maintaining an 

exclusion zone around the sound source 

that is clear of marine mammals. In 

cases where visual monitoring is not 

effective (e.g., due to weather, 

nighttime), acoustic monitoring may be 

used to allow certain activities to occur, 

as further detailed below. 

Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) 

would take place in addition to the 

visual monitoring program. Visual 

monitoring typically is not effective 

during periods of poor visibility or at 

night, and even with good visibility, is 

unable to detect marine mammals when 

they are below the surface or beyond 

visual range. Acoustical monitoring can 

be used in addition to visual 

observations to improve detection, 

identification, and localization of 

cetaceans. The acoustic monitoring 

would serve to alert visual PSOs (if on 

duty) when vocalizing cetaceans are 

detected. It is only useful when marine 

mammals call, but it can be effective 

either by day or by night, and does not 

depend on good visibility. It would be 

monitored in real time so that the visual 

observers can be advised when 

cetaceans are detected. 

The R/V Langseth will use a towed 

PAM system, which must be monitored 

by at a minimum one on duty acoustic 

PSO beginning at least 30 minutes prior 

to ramp-up and at all times during use 

of the acoustic source. Acoustic PSOs 

may be on watch for a maximum of four 

consecutive hours followed by a break 

of at least one hour between watches 

and may conduct a maximum of 12 

hours of observation per 24-hour period. 

Combined observational duties (acoustic 

and visual but not at same time) may 

not exceed 12 hours per 24-hour period 

for any individual PSO. 

Survey activity may continue for 30 

minutes when the PAM system 

malfunctions or is damaged, while the 

PAM operator diagnoses the issue. If the 

diagnosis indicates that the PAM system 

must be repaired to solve the problem, 

operations may continue for an 

additional two hours without acoustic 

monitoring during daylight hours only 

under the following conditions: 

• Sea state is less than or equal to 

BSS 4; 

• No marine mammals (excluding 

delphinids) detected solely by PAM in 

the applicable exclusion zone in the 

previous two hours; 

• NMFS is notified via email as soon 

as practicable with the time and 

location in which operations began 

occurring without an active PAM 

system; and 

• Operations with an active acoustic 

source, but without an operating PAM 

system, do not exceed a cumulative total 

of four hours in any 24-hour period. 

Establishment of an Exclusion Zone and 

Buffer Zone 

An exclusion zone (EZ) is a defined 

area within which occurrence of a 

marine mammal triggers mitigation 

action intended to reduce the potential 

for certain outcomes, e.g., auditory 

injury, disruption of critical behaviors. 

The PSOs would establish a minimum 

EZ with a 500 m radius for the 36 airgun 

array. The 500 m EZ would be based on 

radial distance from any element of the 

airgun array (rather than being based on 

the center of the array or around the 

vessel itself). With certain exceptions 

(described below), if a marine mammal 

appears within or enters this zone, the 

acoustic source would be shut down. 

The 500 m EZ is intended to be 

precautionary in the sense that it would 

be expected to contain sound exceeding 

the injury criteria for all cetacean 

hearing groups, (based on the dual 

criteria of SELcum and peak SPL), while 

also providing a consistent, reasonably 

observable zone within which PSOs 

would typically be able to conduct 

effective observational effort. 

Additionally, a 500 m EZ is expected to 

minimize the likelihood that marine 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 30515 

mammals will be exposed to levels 

likely to result in more severe 

behavioral responses. Although 

significantly greater distances may be 

observed from an elevated platform 

under good conditions, we believe that 

500 m is likely regularly attainable for 

PSOs using the naked eye during typical 

conditions. 

Pre-Clearance and Ramp-Up 

Ramp-up (sometimes referred to as 

‘‘soft start’’) means the gradual and 

systematic increase of emitted sound 

levels from an airgun array. Ramp-up 

begins by first activating a single airgun 

of the smallest volume, followed by 

doubling the number of active elements 

in stages until the full complement of an 

array’s airguns are active. Each stage 

should be approximately the same 

duration, and the total duration should 

not be less than approximately 20 

minutes. The intent of pre-clearance 

observation (30 minutes) is to ensure no 

protected species are observed within 

the buffer zone prior to the beginning of 

ramp-up. During pre-clearance is the 

only time observations of protected 

species in the buffer zone would 

prevent operations (i.e., the beginning of 

ramp-up). The intent of ramp-up is to 

warn protected species of pending 

seismic operations and to allow 

sufficient time for those animals to leave 

the immediate vicinity. A ramp-up 

procedure, involving a step-wise 

increase in the number of airguns firing 

and total array volume until all 

operational airguns are activated and 

the full volume is achieved, is required 

at all times as part of the activation of 

the acoustic source. All operators must 

adhere to the following pre-clearance 

and ramp-up requirements: 

• The operator must notify a 

designated PSO of the planned start of 

ramp-up as agreed upon with the lead 

PSO; the notification time should not be 

less than 60 minutes prior to the 

planned ramp-up in order to allow the 

PSOs time to monitor the exclusion and 

buffer zones for 30 minutes prior to the 

initiation of ramp-up (pre-clearance). 

• Ramp-ups shall be scheduled so as 

to minimize the time spent with the 

source activated prior to reaching the 

designated run-in. 

• One of the PSOs conducting preclearance observations must be notified 

again immediately prior to initiating 

ramp-up procedures and the operator 

must receive confirmation from the PSO 

to proceed. 

• Ramp-up may not be initiated if any 

marine mammal is within the applicable 

exclusion or buffer zone. If a marine 

mammal is observed within the 

applicable exclusion zone or the buffer 

zone during the 30 minute pre-clearance 

period, ramp-up may not begin until the 

animal(s) has been observed exiting the 

zones or until an additional time period 

has elapsed with no further sightings 

(15 minutes for small odontocetes and 

30 minutes for all other species). 

• Ramp-up shall begin by activating a 

single airgun of the smallest volume in 

the array and shall continue in stages by 

doubling the number of active elements 

at the commencement of each stage, 

with each stage of approximately the 

same duration. Duration shall not be 

less than 20 minutes. The operator must 

provide information to the PSO 

documenting that appropriate 

procedures were followed. 

• PSOs must monitor the exclusion 

and buffer zones during ramp-up, and 

ramp-up must cease and the source 

must be shut down upon observation of 

a marine mammal within the applicable 

exclusion zone. Once ramp-up has 

begun, observations of marine mammals 

within the buffer zone do not require 

shutdown or powerdown, but such 

observation shall be communicated to 

the operator to prepare for the potential 

shutdown or powerdown. 

• Ramp-up may occur at times of 

poor visibility, including nighttime, if 

appropriate acoustic monitoring has 

occurred with no detections in the 30 

minutes prior to beginning ramp-up. 

Acoustic source activation may only 

occur at times of poor visibility where 

operational planning cannot reasonably 

avoid such circumstances. 

• If the acoustic source is shut down 

for brief periods (i.e., less than 30 

minutes) for reasons other than that 

described for shutdown and powerdown 

(e.g., mechanical difficulty), it may be 

activated again without ramp-up if PSOs 

have maintained constant visual and/or 

acoustic observation and no visual or 

acoustic detections of marine mammals 

have occurred within the applicable 

exclusion zone. For any longer 

shutdown, pre-clearance observation 

and ramp-up are required. For any 

shutdown at night or in periods of poor 

visibility (e.g., BSS 4 or greater), rampup is required, but if the shutdown 

period was brief and constant 

observation was maintained, preclearance watch of 30 min is not 

required. 

• Testing of the acoustic source 

involving all elements requires rampup. Testing limited to individual source 

elements or strings does not require 

ramp-up but does require pre-clearance 

of 30 min. 

Shutdown and Powerdown 

The shutdown of an airgun array 

requires the immediate de-activation of 

all individual airgun elements of the 

array while a powerdown requires 

immediate de-activation of all 

individual airgun elements of the array 

except the single 40-in3 airgun. Any 

PSO on duty will have the authority to 

delay the start of survey operations or to 

call for shutdown or powerdown of the 

acoustic source if a marine mammal is 

detected within the applicable 

exclusion zone. The operator must also 

establish and maintain clear lines of 

communication directly between PSOs 

on duty and crew controlling the 

acoustic source to ensure that shutdown 

and powerdown commands are 

conveyed swiftly while allowing PSOs 

to maintain watch. When both visual 

and acoustic PSOs are on duty, all 

detections will be immediately 

communicated to the remainder of the 

on-duty PSO team for potential 

verification of visual observations by the 

acoustic PSO or of acoustic detections 

by visual PSOs. When the airgun array 

is active (i.e., anytime one or more 

airguns is active, including during 

ramp-up and powerdown) and (1) a 

marine mammal appears within or 

enters the applicable exclusion zone 

and/or (2) a marine mammal (other than 

delphinids, see below) is detected 

acoustically and localized within the 

applicable exclusion zone, the acoustic 

source will be shut down. When 

shutdown is called for by a PSO, the 

acoustic source will be immediately 

deactivated and any dispute resolved 

only following deactivation. 

Additionally, shutdown will occur 

whenever PAM alone (without visual 

sighting), confirms presence of marine 

mammal(s) in the EZ. If the acoustic 

PSO cannot confirm presence within the 

EZ, visual PSOs will be notified but 

shutdown is not required. 

Following a shutdown, airgun activity 

would not resume until the marine 

mammal has cleared the 500 m EZ. The 

animal would be considered to have 

cleared the 500 m EZ if it is visually 

observed to have departed the 500 m 

EZ, or it has not been seen within the 

500 m EZ for 15 min in the case of small 

odontocetes and pinnipeds, or 30 min in 

the case of mysticetes and large 

odontocetes, including sperm, pygmy 

sperm, dwarf sperm, and beaked 

whales. 

The shutdown requirement can be 

waived for small dolphins in which case 

the acoustic source shall be powered 

down to the single 40-in3 airgun if an 

individual is visually detected within 

the exclusion zone. As defined here, the 

small delphinoid group is intended to 

encompass those members of the Family 

Delphinidae most likely to voluntarily 

approach the source vessel for purposes 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2
30516 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 

of interacting with the vessel and/or 

airgun array (e.g., bow riding). This 

exception to the shutdown requirement 

would apply solely to specific genera of 

small dolphins—Tursiops, Delphinus, 

Lagenodelphis, Lagenorhynchus, 

Lissodelphis, Stenella and Steno—The 

acoustic source shall be powered down 

to 40-in3 airgun if an individual 

belonging to these genera is visually 

detected within the 500 m exclusion 

zone. 

b. Powerdown conditions shall be 

maintained until delphinids for which 

shutdown is waived are no longer 

observed within the 500 m exclusion 

zone, following which full-power 

operations may be resumed without 

ramp-up. Visual PSOs may elect to 

waive the powerdown requirement if 

delphinids for which shutdown is 

waived to be voluntarily approaching 

the vessel for the purpose of interacting 

with the vessel or towed gear, and may 

use best professional judgment in 

making this decision. 

We include this small delphinoid 

exception because power-down/ 

shutdown requirements for small 

delphinoids under all circumstances 

represent practicability concerns 

without likely commensurate benefits 

for the animals in question. Small 

delphinoids are generally the most 

commonly observed marine mammals 

in the specific geographic region and 

would typically be the only marine 

mammals likely to intentionally 

approach the vessel. As described 

above, auditory injury is extremely 

unlikely to occur for mid-frequency 

cetaceans (e.g., delphinids), as this 

group is relatively insensitive to sound 

produced at the predominant 

frequencies in an airgun pulse while 

also having a relatively high threshold 

for the onset of auditory injury (i.e., 

permanent threshold shift). 

A large body of anecdotal evidence 

indicates that small delphinoids 

commonly approach vessels and/or 

towed arrays during active sound 

production for purposes of bow riding, 

with no apparent effect observed in 

those delphinoids (e.g., Barkaszi et al., 

2012). The potential for increased 

shutdowns resulting from such a 

measure would require the Langseth to 

revisit the missed track line to reacquire 

data, resulting in an overall increase in 

the total sound energy input to the 

marine environment and an increase in 

the total duration over which the survey 

is active in a given area. Although other 

mid-frequency hearing specialists (e.g., 

large delphinoids) are no more likely to 

incur auditory injury than are small 

delphinoids, they are much less likely 

to approach vessels. Therefore, retaining 

a power-down/shutdown requirement 

for large delphinoids would not have 

similar impacts in terms of either 

practicability for the applicant or 

corollary increase in sound energy 

output and time on the water. We do 

anticipate some benefit for a powerdown/shutdown requirement for large 

delphinoids in that it simplifies 

somewhat the total range of decisionmaking for PSOs and may preclude any 

potential for physiological effects other 

than to the auditory system as well as 

some more severe behavioral reactions 

for any such animals in close proximity 

to the source vessel. 

Powerdown conditions shall be 

maintained until the marine mammal(s) 

of the above listed genera are no longer 

observed within the exclusion zone, 

following which full-power operations 

may be resumed without ramp-up. 

Additionally, visual PSOs may elect to 

waive the powerdown requirement if 

the small dolphin(s) appear to be 

voluntarily approaching the vessel for 

the purpose of interacting with the 

vessel or towed gear, and may use best 

professional judgment in making this 

decision. Visual PSOs shall use best 

professional judgment in making the 

decision to call for a shutdown if there 

is uncertainty regarding identification 

(i.e., whether the observed marine 

mammal(s) belongs to one of the 

delphinid genera for which shutdown is 

waived or one of the species with a 

larger exclusion zone). If PSOs observe 

any behaviors in a small delphinid for 

which shutdown is waived that indicate 

an adverse reaction, then powerdown 

will be initiated immediately. 

Upon implementation of shutdown, 

the source may be reactivated after the 

marine mammal(s) has been observed 

exiting the applicable exclusion zone 

(i.e., animal is not required to fully exit 

the buffer zone where applicable) or 

following 15 minutes for small 

odontocetes and 30 minutes for all other 

species with no further observation of 

the marine mammal(s). 

Vessel Strike Avoidance 

These measures apply to all vessels 

associated with the planned survey 

activity; however, we note that these 

requirements do not apply in any case 

where compliance would create an 

imminent and serious threat to a person 

or vessel or to the extent that a vessel 

is restricted in its ability to maneuver 

and, because of the restriction, cannot 

comply. These measures include the 

following: 

1. Vessel operators and crews must 

maintain a vigilant watch for all marine 

mammals and slow down, stop their 

vessel, or alter course, as appropriate 

and regardless of vessel size, to avoid 

striking any marine mammal. A single 

marine mammal at the surface may 

indicate the presence of submerged 

animals in the vicinity of the vessel; 

therefore, precautionary measures 

should be exercised when an animal is 

observed. A visual observer aboard the 

vessel must monitor a vessel strike 

avoidance zone around the vessel 

(specific distances detailed below), to 

ensure the potential for strike is 

minimized. Visual observers monitoring 

the vessel strike avoidance zone can be 

either third-party observers or crew 

members, but crew members 

responsible for these duties must be 

provided sufficient training to 

distinguish marine mammals from other 

phenomena and broadly to identify a 

marine mammal to broad taxonomic 

group (i.e., as a large whale or other 

marine mammal). 

2. Vessel speeds must be reduced to 

10 kn or less when mother/calf pairs, 

pods, or large assemblages of any 

marine mammal are observed near a 

vessel. 

3. All vessels must maintain a 

minimum separation distance of 100 m 

from large whales (i.e., sperm whales 

and all baleen whales. 

4. All vessels must attempt to 

maintain a minimum separation 

distance of 50 m from all other marine 

mammals, with an exception made for 

those animals that approach the vessel. 

5. When marine mammals are sighted 

while a vessel is underway, the vessel 

should take action as necessary to avoid 

violating the relevant separation 

distance (e.g., attempt to remain parallel 

to the animal’s course, avoid excessive 

speed or abrupt changes in direction 

until the animal has left the area). If 

marine mammals are sighted within the 

relevant separation distance, the vessel 

should reduce speed and shift the 

engine to neutral, not engaging the 

engines until animals are clear of the 

area. This recommendation does not 

apply to any vessel towing gear. 

We have carefully evaluated the suite 

of mitigation measures described here 

and considered a range of other 

measures in the context of ensuring that 

we prescribe the means of effecting the 

least practicable adverse impact on the 

affected marine mammal species and 

stocks and their habitat. Based on our 

evaluation of the proposed measures, 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that the mitigation measures provide the 

means effecting the least practicable 

impact on the affected species or stocks 

and their habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 30517 

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 action area. Effective 

reporting is critical both to compliance 

as well as ensuring that the most value 

is obtained from the required 

monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density). 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life 

history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence 

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or 

feeding areas). 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors. 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) Long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks. 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat). 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Vessel-Based Visual Monitoring 

As described above, PSO observations 

would take place during daytime airgun 

operations and nighttime start ups (if 

applicable) of the airguns. During 

seismic operations, at least five visual 

PSOs would be based aboard the 

Langseth. Monitoring shall be 

conducted in accordance with the 

following requirements: 

• The operator shall provide PSOs 

with bigeye binoculars (e.g., 25 × 150; 

2.7 view angle; individual ocular focus; 

height control) of appropriate quality 

(i.e., Fujinon or equivalent) solely for 

PSO use. These shall be pedestalmounted on the deck at the most 

appropriate vantage point that provides 

for optimal sea surface observation, PSO 

safety, and safe operation of the vessel. 

• The operator will work with the 

selected third-party observer provider to 

ensure PSOs have all equipment 

(including backup equipment) needed 

to adequately perform necessary tasks, 

including accurate determination of 

distance and bearing to observed marine 

mammals. (c) PSOs must have the 

following requirements and 

qualifications: 

• PSOs shall be independent, 

dedicated, trained visual and acoustic 

PSOs and must be employed by a thirdparty observer provider. 

• PSOs shall have no tasks other than 

to conduct observational effort (visual or 

acoustic), collect data, and 

communicate with and instruct relevant 

vessel crew with regard to the presence 

of protected species and mitigation 

requirements (including brief alerts 

regarding maritime hazards), 

• PSOs shall have successfully 

completed an approved PSO training 

course appropriate for their designated 

task (visual or acoustic). Acoustic PSOs 

are required to complete specialized 

training for operating PAM systems and 

are encouraged to have familiarity with 

the vessel with which they will be 

working. 

• PSOs can act as acoustic or visual 

observers (but not at the same time) as 

long as they demonstrate that their 

training and experience are sufficient to 

perform the task at hand. 

• NMFS must review and approve 

PSO resumes accompanied by a relevant 

training course information packet that 

includes the name and qualifications 

(i.e., experience, training completed, or 

educational background) of the 

instructor(s), the course outline or 

syllabus, and course reference material 

as well as a document stating successful 

completion of the course. 

• NMFS shall have one week to 

approve PSOs from the time that the 

necessary information is submitted, 

after which PSOs meeting the minimum 

requirements shall automatically be 

considered approved. 

• PSOs must successfully complete 

relevant training, including completion 

of all required coursework and passing 

(80 percent or greater) a written and/or 

oral examination developed for the 

training program. 

• PSOs must have successfully 

attained a bachelor’s degree from an 

accredited college or university with a 

major in one of the natural sciences, a 

minimum of 30 semester hours or 

equivalent in the biological sciences, 

and at least one undergraduate course in 

math or statistics. 

• The educational requirements may 

be waived if the PSO has acquired the 

relevant skills through alternate 

experience. Requests for such a waiver 

shall be submitted to NMFS and must 

include written justification. Requests 

shall be granted or denied (with 

justification) by NMFS within one week 

of receipt of submitted information. 

Alternate experience that may be 

considered includes, but is not limited 

to (1) secondary education and/or 

experience comparable to PSO duties; 

(2) previous work experience 

conducting academic, commercial, or 

government-sponsored protected 

species surveys; or (3) previous work 

experience as a PSO; the PSO should 

demonstrate good standing and 

consistently good performance of PSO 

duties. 

For data collection purposes, PSOs 

shall use standardized data collection 

forms, whether hard copy or electronic. 

PSOs shall record detailed information 

about any implementation of mitigation 

requirements, including the distance of 

animals to the acoustic source and 

description of specific actions that 

ensued, the behavior of the animal(s), 

any observed changes in behavior before 

and after implementation of mitigation, 

and if shutdown was implemented, the 

length of time before any subsequent 

ramp-up of the acoustic source. If 

required mitigation was not 

implemented, PSOs should record a 

description of the circumstances. At a 

minimum, the following information 

must be recorded: 

• Vessel names (source vessel and 

other vessels associated with survey) 

and call signs; 

• PSO names and affiliations; 

• Dates of departures and returns to 

port with port name; 

• Date and participants of PSO 

briefings; 

• Dates and times (Greenwich Mean 

Time) of survey effort and times 

corresponding with PSO effort; 

• Vessel location (latitude/longitude) 

when survey effort began and ended and 

vessel location at beginning and end of 

visual PSO duty shifts; 

• Vessel heading and speed at 

beginning and end of visual PSO duty 

shifts and upon any line change; 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2
30518 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 

• Environmental conditions while on 

visual survey (at beginning and end of 

PSO shift and whenever conditions 

changed significantly), including BSS 

and any other relevant weather 

conditions including cloud cover, fog, 

sun glare, and overall visibility to the 

horizon; 

• Factors that may have contributed 

to impaired observations during each 

PSO shift change or as needed as 

environmental conditions changed (e.g., 

vessel traffic, equipment malfunctions); 

and 

• Survey activity information, such as 

acoustic source power output while in 

operation, number and volume of 

airguns operating in the array, tow 

depth of the array, and any other notes 

of significance (i.e., pre-clearance, rampup, shutdown, testing, shooting, rampup completion, end of operations, 

streamers, etc.). 

The following information should be 

recorded upon visual observation of any 

protected species: 

• Watch status (sighting made by PSO 

on/off effort, opportunistic, crew, 

alternate vessel/platform); 

• PSO who sighted the animal; 

• Time of sighting; 

• Vessel location at time of sighting; 

• Water depth; 

• Direction of vessel’s travel (compass 

direction); 

• Direction of animal’s travel relative 

to the vessel; 

• Pace of the animal; 

• Estimated distance to the animal 

and its heading relative to vessel at 

initial sighting; 

• Identification of the animal (e.g., 

genus/species, lowest possible 

taxonomic level, or unidentified) and 

the composition of the group if there is 

a mix of species; 

• Estimated number of animals (high/ 

low/best); 

• Estimated number of animals by 

cohort (adults, yearlings, juveniles, 

calves, group composition, etc.); 

• Description (as many distinguishing 

features as possible of each individual 

seen, including length, shape, color, 

pattern, scars or markings, shape and 

size of dorsal fin, shape of head, and 

blow characteristics); 

• Detailed behavior observations (e.g., 

number of blows/breaths, number of 

surfaces, breaching, spyhopping, diving, 

feeding, traveling; as explicit and 

detailed as possible; note any observed 

changes in behavior); 

• Animal’s closest point of approach 

(CPA) and/or closest distance from any 

element of the acoustic source; 

• Platform activity at time of sighting 

(e.g., deploying, recovering, testing, 

shooting, data acquisition, other); and 

• Description of any actions 

implemented in response to the sighting 

(e.g., delays, shutdown, ramp-up) and 

time and location of the action. 

If a marine mammal is detected while 

using the PAM system, the following 

information should be recorded: 

• An acoustic encounter 

identification number, and whether the 

detection was linked with a visual 

sighting; 

• Date and time when first and last 

heard; 

• Types and nature of sounds heard 

(e.g., clicks, whistles, creaks, burst 

pulses, continuous, sporadic, strength of 

signal); 

• Any additional information 

recorded such as water depth of the 

hydrophone array, bearing of the animal 

to the vessel (if determinable), species 

or taxonomic group (if determinable), 

spectrogram screenshot, and any other 

notable information. 

A report would be submitted to NMFS 

within 90 days after the end of the 

cruise. The report would describe the 

operations that were conducted and 

sightings of marine mammals near the 

operations. The report would provide 

full documentation of methods, results, 

and interpretation pertaining to all 

monitoring. The 90-day report would 

summarize the dates and locations of 

seismic operations, and all marine 

mammal sightings (dates, times, 

locations, activities, associated seismic 

survey activities). The report would also 

include estimates of the number and 

nature of exposures that occurred above 

the harassment threshold based on PSO 

observations, including an estimate of 

those on the trackline but not detected. 

L–DEO will be required to shall 

submit a draft comprehensive report to 

NMFS on all activities and monitoring 

results within 90 days of the completion 

of the survey or expiration of the IHA, 

whichever comes sooner. The report 

must describe all activities conducted 

and sightings of protected species near 

the activities, must provide full 

documentation of methods, results, and 

interpretation pertaining to all 

monitoring, and must summarize the 

dates and locations of survey operations 

and all protected species sightings 

(dates, times, locations, activities, 

associated survey activities). The draft 

report shall also include geo-referenced 

time-stamped vessel tracklines for all 

time periods during which airguns were 

operating. Tracklines should include 

points recording any change in airgun 

status (e.g., when the airguns began 

operating, when they were turned off, or 

when they changed from full array to 

single gun or vice versa). GIS files shall 

be provided in ESRI shapefile format 

and include the UTC date and time, 

latitude in decimal degrees, and 

longitude in decimal degrees. All 

coordinates shall be referenced to the 

WGS84 geographic coordinate system. 

In addition to the report, all raw 

observational data shall be made 

available to NMFS. The report must 

summarize the information submitted in 

interim monthly reports as well as 

additional data collected as described 

above and the IHA. The draft report 

must be accompanied by a certification 

from the lead PSO as to the accuracy of 

the report, and the lead PSO may submit 

directly NMFS a statement concerning 

implementation and effectiveness of the 

required mitigation and monitoring. A 

final report must be submitted within 30 

days following resolution of any 

comments on the draft report. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as ‘‘an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival’’ 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number 

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any responses (e.g., intensity, 

duration), the context of any responses 

(e.g., critical reproductive time or 

location, migration), as well as effects 

on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 

of the mitigation. We also assess the 

number, intensity, and context of 

estimated takes by evaluating this 

information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’ implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the environmental baseline 

(e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status 

of the species, population size and 

growth rate where known, ongoing 

sources of human-caused mortality, or 

ambient noise levels). 

To avoid repetition, our analysis 

applies to all species listed in Table 7 

and 8, given that NMFS expects the 

anticipated effects of the proposed 

seismic survey to be similar in nature. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 30519 

Where there are meaningful differences 

between species or stocks, or groups of 

species, in anticipated individual 

responses to activities, impact of 

expected take on the population due to 

differences in population status, or 

impacts on habitat, NMFS has identified 

species-specific factors to inform the 

analysis. 

NMFS does not anticipate that serious 

injury or mortality would occur as a 

result of L–DEO’s proposed survey, even 

in the absence of proposed mitigation. 

Thus the proposed authorization does 

not authorize any mortality. As 

discussed in the Potential Effects 

section, non-auditory physical effects, 

stranding, and vessel strike are not 

expected to occur. 

We propose to authorize a limited 

number of instances of Level A 

harassment of 18 species and Level B 

harassment of 39 marine mammal 

species. However, we believe that any 

PTS incurred in marine mammals as a 

result of the proposed activity would be 

in the form of only a small degree of 

PTS, not total deafness, and would be 

unlikely to affect the fitness of any 

individuals, because of the constant 

movement of both the Langseth and of 

the marine mammals in the project 

areas, as well as the fact that the vessel 

is not expected to remain in any one 

area in which individual marine 

mammals would be expected to 

concentrate for an extended period of 

time (i.e., since the duration of exposure 

to loud sounds will be relatively short). 

Also, as described above, we expect that 

marine mammals would be likely to 

move away from a sound source that 

represents an aversive stimulus, 

especially at levels that would be 

expected to result in PTS, given 

sufficient notice of the Langseth’s 

approach due to the vessel’s relatively 

low speed when conducting seismic 

surveys. We expect that the majority of 

takes would be in the form of short-term 

Level B behavioral harassment in the 

form of temporary avoidance of the area 

or decreased foraging (if such activity 

were occurring), reactions that are 

considered to be of low severity and 

with no lasting biological consequences 

(e.g., Southall et al., 2007). 

Potential impacts to marine mammal 

habitat were discussed 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. Feeding behavior 

is not likely to be significantly 

impacted, as marine mammals appear to 

be less likely to exhibit behavioral 

reactions or avoidance responses while 

engaged in feeding activities 

(Richardson et al., 1995). Prey species 

are mobile and are broadly distributed 

throughout the project areas; therefore, 

marine mammals that may be 

temporarily displaced during survey 

activities are expected to be able to 

resume foraging once they have moved 

away from areas with disturbing levels 

of underwater noise. Because of the 

relatively short duration (∼32 days) and 

temporary nature of the disturbance, the 

availability of similar habitat and 

resources in the surrounding area, the 

impacts to marine mammals and the 

food sources that they utilize are not 

expected to cause significant or longterm consequences for individual 

marine mammals or their populations. 

The activity is expected to impact a 

small percentage of all marine mammal 

stocks that would be affected by L– 

DEO’s proposed survey (less than 20 

percent of all species). Additionally, the 

acoustic ‘‘footprint’’ of the proposed 

survey would be small relative to the 

ranges of the marine mammals that 

would potentially be affected. Sound 

levels would increase in the marine 

environment in a relatively small area 

surrounding the vessel compared to the 

range of the marine mammals within the 

proposed survey area. 

The proposed mitigation measures are 

expected to reduce the number and/or 

severity of takes by allowing for 

detection of marine mammals in the 

vicinity of the vessel by visual and 

acoustic observers, and by minimizing 

the severity of any potential exposures 

via power downs and/or shutdowns of 

the airgun array. Based on previous 

monitoring reports for substantially 

similar activities that have been 

previously authorized by NMFS, we 

expect that the proposed mitigation will 

be effective in preventing at least some 

extent of potential PTS in marine 

mammals that may otherwise occur in 

the absence of the proposed mitigation. 

The ESA-listed marine mammal 

species under our jurisdiction that are 

likely to be taken by the proposed 

surveys include the endangered sei, fin, 

blue, sperm, gray, North Pacific Right, 

Western North Pacific DPS humpback, 

and Main Hawaiian Islands Insular DPS 

false killer whale as well as the 

Hawaiian monk seal. We propose to 

authorize very small numbers of takes 

for these species relative to their 

population sizes. Therefore, we do not 

expect population-level impacts to any 

of these species. The other marine 

mammal species that may be taken by 

harassment during the proposed survey 

are not listed as threatened or 

endangered under the ESA. With the 

exception of the northern fur seal, none 

of the non-listed marine mammals for 

which we propose to authorize take are 

considered ‘‘depleted’’ or ‘‘strategic’’ by 

NMFS under the MMPA. 

The tracklines of the Hawaii survey 

either traverse or are proximal to BIAs 

for 11 species that NMFS has proposed 

to authorize for take. Ten of the BIAs 

pertain to small and resident cetacean 

populations while a breeding BIA has 

been delineated for humpback whales. 

However, this designation is only 

applicable to humpback whales in the 

December through March timeframe 

(Baird et al., 2015). Since the Hawaii 

survey is proposed for August, there 

will be no effects on humpback whales. 

For cetacean species with small and 

resident BIAs in the Hawaii survey area, 

that designation is applicable yearround. There are 19 days of seismic 

operations proposed for the Hawaii 

survey. Only a portion of those days 

would maintain seismic operations 

along Tracklines 1 and 2. No physical 

impacts to BIA habitat are anticipated 

from seismic activities. While SPLs of 

sufficient strength have been known to 

cause injury to fish and fish mortality, 

the most likely impact to prey species 

from survey activities would be 

temporary avoidance of the affected 

area. The duration of fish avoidance of 

a given area after survey effort stops is 

unknown, but a rapid return to normal 

recruitment, distribution and behavior 

is expected. Given the short operational 

seismic time near or traversing BIAs, as 

well as the ability of cetaceans and prey 

species to move away from acoustic 

sources, NMFS expects that there would 

be, at worst, minimal impacts to animals 

and habitat within the designated BIAs. 

NMFS concludes that exposures to 

marine mammal species and stocks due 

to L–DEO’s proposed survey would 

result in only short-term (temporary and 

short in duration) effects to individuals 

exposed. Animals may temporarily 

avoid the immediate area, but are not 

expected to permanently abandon the 

area. Major shifts in habitat use, 

distribution, or foraging success are not 

expected. NMFS does not anticipate the 

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 

marine mammal species or stocks 

through effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival: 

• No mortality is anticipated or 

authorized; 

• The proposed activity is temporary 

and of relatively short duration (∼32 

days); 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2
30520 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 

• The anticipated impacts of the 

proposed activity on marine mammals 

would primarily be temporary 

behavioral changes due to avoidance of 

the area around the survey vessel; 

• The number of instances of PTS 

that may occur are expected to be very 

small in number. Instances of PTS that 

are incurred in marine mammals would 

be of a low level, due to constant 

movement of the vessel and of the 

marine mammals in the area, and the 

nature of the survey design (not 

concentrated in areas of high marine 

mammal concentration); 

• The availability of alternate areas of 

similar habitat value for marine 

mammals to temporarily vacate the 

survey area during the proposed survey 

to avoid exposure to sounds from the 

activity; 

• The potential adverse effects on fish 

or invertebrate species that serve as prey 

species for marine mammals from the 

proposed survey would be temporary 

and spatially limited; 

• The proposed mitigation measures, 

including visual and acoustic 

monitoring, power-downs, and 

shutdowns, are expected to minimize 

potential impacts to marine mammals. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

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; 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. Tables 7 and 8 provide 

numbers of take by Level A harassment 

and Level B harassment proposed for 

authorization. These are the numbers 

we use for purposes of the small 

numbers analysis. 

The numbers of marine mammals that 

we propose for authorized take would 

be considered small relative to the 

relevant populations (19.4 percent for 

all species) for the species for which 

abundance estimates are available. 

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. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of the affected marine mammal stocks or 

species implicated by this action. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

the total taking of affected species or 

stocks would not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

such species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally, in this 

case with the ESA Interagency 

Cooperation Division, whenever we 

propose to authorize take for 

endangered or threatened species. 

The NMFS Permits and Conservation 

Division is proposing to authorize the 

incidental take of marine mammals 

which are listed under the ESA (the 

North Pacific right, sei, fin, blue, sperm 

whales, Western North Pacific DPS 

humpback whale, gray whale, the 

Hawaiian Islands Insular DPS false 

killer whale, and the Hawaiian monk 

seal. We have requested initiation of 

Section 7 consultation with the 

Interagency Cooperation Division for the 

issuance of this IHA. NMFS will 

conclude the ESA section 7 consultation 

prior to reaching a determination 

regarding the proposed issuance of the 

authorization. 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes to issue 

an IHA to L–DEO for conducting 

seismic surveys in the Pacific Ocean 

near Hawaii in summer/early fall of 

2018 and in the Emperor Seamounts 

area in spring/early summer 2019, 

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 incidental harassment 

authorization (IHA) is valid for a period 

of one year from the date of issuance. 

2. This IHA is valid only for marine 

geophysical survey activity, as specified 

in L–DEO’s IHA application and using 

an array aboard the R/V Langseth with 

characteristics specified in the IHA 

application, in the Pacific Ocean near 

the Main Hawaiian Islands and the 

Emperor Seamounts. 

3. General Conditions 

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

possession of the vessel operator, other 

relevant personnel, the lead PSO, and 

any other relevant designees operating 

under the authority of the IHA. 

(b) L–DEO shall instruct relevant 

vessel personnel with regard to the 

authority of the protected species 

monitoring team, and shall ensure that 

relevant vessel personnel and the 

protected species monitoring team 

participate in a joint onboard briefing 

(hereafter PSO briefing) led by the 

vessel operator and lead PSO to ensure 

that responsibilities, communication 

procedures, protected species 

monitoring protocols, operational 

procedures, and IHA requirements are 

clearly understood. This PSO briefing 

must be repeated when relevant new 

personnel join the survey operations. 

(c) The species authorized for taking 

are listed in Table 7 and 8. The taking, 

by Level A and Level B harassment 

only, is limited to the species and 

numbers listed in Table 7 and 8. Any 

taking exceeding the authorized 

amounts listed in Table 7 and 8 is 

prohibited and may result in the 

modification, suspension, or revocation 

of this IHA. 

(d) The taking by serious injury or 

death of any species of marine mammal 

is prohibited and may result in the 

modification, suspension, or revocation 

of this IHA. 

(e) During use of the airgun(s), if 

marine mammal species other than 

those listed in Table 7 and 8 are 

detected by PSOs, the airgun array must 

be shut down. 

4. Mitigation Requirements 

The holder of this Authorization is 

required to implement the following 

mitigation measures: 

(a) L–DEO must use at least five 

dedicated, trained, NMFS-approved 

Protected Species Observers (PSOs). The 

PSOs must have no tasks other than to 

conduct observational effort, record 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 30521 

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. 

(b) At least one of the visual and two 

of the acoustic PSOs aboard the vessel 

must have a minimum of 90 days at-sea 

experience working in those roles, 

respectively, during a deep penetration 

seismic survey, with no more than 18 

months elapsed since the conclusion of 

the at-sea experience. 

(c) Visual Observation 

(i) During survey operations (e.g., any 

day on which use of the acoustic source 

is planned to occur, and whenever the 

acoustic source is in the water, whether 

activated or not), a minimum of two 

visual PSOs must be on duty and 

conducting visual observations at all 

times during daylight hours (i.e., from 

30 minutes prior to sunrise through 30 

minutes following and 30 minutes prior 

to and during nighttime ramp-ups of the 

airgun array. 

(ii) Visual PSOs shall coordinate to 

ensure 360° visual coverage around the 

vessel from the most appropriate 

observation posts, and shall conduct 

visual observations using binoculars 

and the naked eye while free from 

distractions and in a consistent, 

systematic, and diligent manner. 

(iii) PSOs shall establish and monitor 

the exclusion and buffer zones. These 

zones shall be based upon the radial 

distance from the edges of the acoustic 

source (rather than being based on the 

center of the array or around the vessel 

itself). During use of the acoustic source 

(i.e., anytime airguns are active, 

including ramp-up), occurrences of 

marine mammals within the buffer zone 

(but outside the exclusion zone) shall be 

communicated to the operator to 

prepare for the potential shutdown or 

powerdown of the acoustic source. 

(iv) Visual PSOs shall immediately 

communicate all observations to the on 

duty acoustic PSO(s), including any 

determination by the PSO regarding 

species identification, distance, and 

bearing and the degree of confidence in 

the determination. 

(v) During good conditions (e.g., 

daylight hours; Beaufort sea state (BSS) 

3 or less), visual PSOs shall conduct 

observations when the acoustic source 

is not operating for comparison of 

sighting rates and behavior with and 

without use of the acoustic source and 

between acquisition periods, to the 

maximum extent practicable. 

(vi) Visual PSOs may be on watch for 

a maximum of two consecutive hours 

followed by a break of at least one hour 

between watches and may conduct a 

maximum of 12 hours of observation per 

24-hour period. Combined observational 

duties (visual and acoustic but not at 

same time) may not exceed 12 hours per 

24-hour period for any individual PSO 

(d) Acoustic Monitoring 

(i) The source vessel must use a towed 

PAM system, which must be monitored 

by at a minimum one on duty acoustic 

PSO beginning at least 30 minutes prior 

to ramp-up and at all times during use 

of the acoustic source. 

(ii) Acoustic PSOs shall immediately 

communicate all detections to visual 

PSOs, when visual PSOs are on duty, 

including any determination by the PSO 

regarding species identification, 

distance, and bearing and the degree of 

confidence in the determination. 

(iii) Acoustic PSOs may be on watch 

for a maximum of four consecutive 

hours followed by a break of at least one 

hour between watches and may conduct 

a maximum of 12 hours of observation 

per 24-hour period. Combined 

observational duties may not exceed 12 

hours per 24-hour period for any 

individual PSO. 

(iv) Survey activity may continue for 

30 minutes when the PAM system 

malfunctions or is damaged, while the 

PAM operator diagnoses the issue. If the 

diagnosis indicates that the PAM system 

must be repaired to solve the problem, 

operations may continue for an 

additional two hours without acoustic 

monitoring during daylight hours only 

under the following conditions: 

a. Sea state is less than or equal to 

BSS 4; 

b. With the exception of delphinids, 

no marine mammals detected solely by 

PAM in the applicable exclusion zone 

in the previous two hours; 

c. NMFS is notified via email as soon 

as practicable with the time and 

location in which operations began 

occurring without an active PAM 

system; and 

d. Operations with an active acoustic 

source, but without an operating PAM 

system, do not exceed a cumulative total 

of four hours in any 24-hour period. 

(e) Exclusion zone and buffer zone 

(i) PSO shall establish and monitor a 

500 m exclusion zone and 1,000 m 

buffer zone. The exclusion zone 

encompasses the area at and below the 

sea surface out to a radius of 500 meters 

from the edges of the airgun array (0– 

500 meters). The buffer zone 

encompasses the area at and below the 

sea surface from the edge of the 0–500 

meter exclusion zone, out to a radius of 

1000 meters from the edges of the airgun 

array (500–1,000 meters). 

(f) Pre-clearance and Ramp-up 

(i) A ramp-up procedure shall be 

required at all times as part of the 

activation of the acoustic source. 

(v) Ramp-up may not be initiated if 

any marine mammal is within the 

exclusion or buffer zone. If a marine 

mammal is observed within the 

exclusion zone or the buffer zone during 

the 30 minute pre-clearance period, 

ramp-up may not begin until the 

animal(s) has been observed exiting the 

zone or until an additional time period 

has elapsed with no further sightings 

(15 minutes for small odontocetes and 

pinnipeds and 30 minutes for all other 

species). 

(vi) Ramp-up shall begin by activating 

a single airgun of the smallest volume 

in the array and shall continue in stages 

by doubling the number of active 

elements at the commencement of each 

stage, with each stage of approximately 

the same duration. Duration shall not be 

less than 20 minutes. 

(vii) PSOs must monitor the exclusion 

and buffer zones during ramp-up, and 

ramp-up must cease and the source 

must be shut down upon observation of 

a marine mammal within the exclusion 

zone. Once ramp-up has begun, 

observations of marine mammals within 

the buffer zone do not require shutdown 

or powerdown, but such observation 

shall be communicated to the operator 

to prepare for the potential shutdown or 

powerdown. 

(viii) Ramp-up may occur at times of 

poor visibility, including nighttime, if 

appropriate acoustic monitoring has 

occurred with no detections in the 30 

minutes prior to beginning ramp-up. 

(ix) If the acoustic source is shut 

down for brief periods (i.e., less than 30 

minutes) for reasons other than that 

described for shutdown and powerdown 

(e.g., mechanical difficulty), it may be 

activated again without ramp-up if PSOs 

have maintained constant visual and/or 

acoustic observation and no visual or 

acoustic detections of marine mammals 

have occurred within the applicable 

exclusion zone. For any longer 

shutdown, pre-clearance observation 

and ramp-up are required. For any 

shutdown at night or in periods of poor 

visibility (e.g., BSS 4 or greater), rampup is required, but if the shutdown 

period was brief and constant 

observation was maintained, preclearance watch of 30 min is not 

required. 

(x) Testing of the acoustic source 

involving all elements requires rampup. Testing limited to individual source 

elements or strings does not require 

ramp-up but does require pre-clearance 

of 30 min. 

(g) Shutdown and Powerdown 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2
30522 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 

(i) Any PSO on duty shall have the 

authority to delay the start of survey 

operations or to call for shutdown or 

powerdown of the acoustic source if a 

marine mammal is detected within the 

applicable exclusion zone. 

(ii) The operator shall establish and 

maintain clear lines of communication 

directly between PSOs on duty and 

crew controlling the acoustic source to 

ensure that shutdown and powerdown 

commands are conveyed swiftly while 

allowing PSOs to maintain watch. 

(iii) When both visual and acoustic 

PSOs are on duty, all detections shall be 

immediately communicated to the 

remainder of the on-duty PSO team for 

potential verification of visual 

observations by the acoustic PSO or of 

acoustic detections by visual PSOs. 

(iv) When the airgun array is active 

(i.e., anytime one or more airguns is 

active, including during ramp-up and 

powerdown) and (1) a marine mammal 

(excluding delphinids) appears within 

or enters the exclusion zone and/or (2) 

a marine mammal is detected 

acoustically and localized within the 

exclusion zone, the acoustic source 

shall be shut down. When shutdown is 

called for by a PSO, the airgun array 

shall be immediately deactivated. Any 

questions regarding a PSO shutdown 

shall be resolved after deactivation. 

(v) Shutdown shall occur whenever 

PAM alone (without visual sighting), 

confirms presence of marine mammal(s) 

(other than delphinids) in the 500 m 

exclusion zone. If the acoustic PSO 

cannot confirm presence within 

exclusion zone, visual PSOs shall be 

notified but shutdown is not required. 

(v) The shutdown requirement shall 

be waived for small dolphins of the 

following genera: Tursiops, Delphinus, 

Lagenodelphis, Lagenorhynchus, 

Lissodelphis, Stenella and Steno. 

a. The acoustic source shall be 

powered down to 40-in3 airgun if an 

individual belonging to these genera is 

visually detected within the 500 m 

exclusion zone. 

b. Powerdown conditions shall be 

maintained until delphinids for which 

shutdown is waived are no longer 

observed within the 500 m exclusion 

zone, following which full-power 

operations may be resumed without 

ramp-up. Visual PSOs may elect to 

waive the powerdown requirement if 

delphinids for which shutdown is 

waived to be voluntarily approaching 

the vessel for the purpose of interacting 

with the vessel or towed gear, and may 

use best professional judgment in 

making this decision. 

d. If PSOs observe any behaviors in 

delphinids for which shutdown is 

waived that indicate an adverse 

reaction, then powerdown shall be 

initiated. 

(vi) Visual PSOs shall use best 

professional judgment in making the 

decision to call for a shutdown if there 

is uncertainty regarding identification 

(i.e., whether the observed marine 

mammal(s) belongs to one of the 

delphinid genera for which shutdown is 

waived). 

(vii) Upon implementation of 

shutdown, the source may be 

reactivated after the marine mammal(s) 

has been observed exiting the applicable 

exclusion zone (i.e., animal is not 

required to fully exit the buffer zone 

where applicable) or following a 30- 

minute clearance period with no further 

observation of the marine mammal(s). 

(g) Vessel operators and crews must 

maintain a vigilant watch for all marine 

mammals and slow down, stop their 

vessel, or alter course, as appropriate 

and regardless of vessel size, to avoid 

striking any marine mammal. A visual 

observer aboard the vessel must monitor 

a vessel strike avoidance zone around 

the vessel (specific distances detailed 

below), to ensure the potential for strike 

is minimized. 

(i) Vessel speeds must be reduced to 

10 kn or less when mother/calf pairs, 

pods, or large assemblages of any 

marine mammal are observed near a 

vessel. 

a. Vessels must maintain a minimum 

separation distance of 100 m from large 

whales (i.e., sperm whales and all 

baleen whales. 

b. Vessels must attempt to maintain a 

minimum separation distance of 50 m 

from all other marine mammals, with an 

exception made for those animals that 

approach the vessel. 

c. When marine mammals are sighted 

while a vessel is underway, the vessel 

should take action as necessary to avoid 

violating the relevant separation 

distance. If marine mammals are sighted 

within the relevant separation distance, 

the vessel should reduce speed and shift 

the engine to neutral, not engaging the 

engines until animals are clear of the 

area. This recommendation does not 

apply to any vessel towing gear. 

5. Monitoring Requirements. 

The holder of this Authorization is 

required to conduct marine mammal 

monitoring during survey activity. 

Monitoring shall be conducted in 

accordance with the following 

requirements: 

(a) The operator shall provide PSOs 

with bigeye binoculars (e.g., 25 x 150; 

2.7 view angle; individual ocular focus; 

height control) of appropriate quality 

(i.e., Fujinon or equivalent) solely for 

PSO use. These shall be pedestalmounted on the deck at the most 

appropriate vantage point that provides 

for optimal sea surface observation, PSO 

safety, and safe operation of the vessel. 

(b) The operator shall work with the 

selected third-party observer provider to 

ensure PSOs have all equipment 

(including backup equipment) needed 

to adequately perform necessary tasks, 

including accurate determination of 

distance and bearing to observed marine 

mammals. Such equipment, at a 

minimum, shall include: 

(i) PAM shall include a system that 

has been verified and tested by the 

acoustic PSO that will be using it during 

the trip for which monitoring is 

required. 

(ii) At least one night-vision device 

suited for the marine environment for 

use during nighttime pre-clearance and 

ramp-up that features automatic 

brightness and gain control, bright light 

protection, infrared illumination, and/or 

optics suited for low-light situations 

(e.g., Exelis PVS–7 night vision goggles; 

Night Optics D–300 night vision 

monocular; FLIR M324XP thermal 

imaging camera or equivalents). 

(iii) Reticle binoculars (e.g., 7 x 50) of 

appropriate quality (i.e., Fujinon or 

equivalent) (at least one per PSO, plus 

backups) 

(iv) Global Positioning Units (GPS) (at 

least one per PSO, plus backups) 

(v) Digital single-lens reflex cameras 

of appropriate quality that capture 

photographs and video (i.e., Canon or 

equivalent) (at least one per PSO, plus 

backups) 

(vi) Compasses (at least one per PSO, 

plus backups) 

(vii) Radios for communication among 

vessel crew and PSOs (at least one per 

PSO, plus backups) 

(viii) Any other tools necessary to 

adequately perform necessary PSO 

tasks. 

(c) Protected Species Observers 

(PSOs, Visual and Acoustic) 

Qualifications 

(i) PSOs shall be independent, 

dedicated, trained visual and acoustic 

PSOs and must be employed by a thirdparty observer provider, 

(ii) PSOs shall have no tasks other 

than to conduct observational effort 

(visual or acoustic), collect data, and 

communicate with and instruct relevant 

vessel crew with regard to the presence 

of protected species and mitigation 

requirements (including brief alerts 

regarding maritime hazards), and 

(iii) PSOs shall have successfully 

completed an approved PSO training 

course appropriate for their designated 

task (visual or acoustic). Acoustic PSOs 

are required to complete specialized 

training for operating PAM systems and 

are encouraged to have familiarity with 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 30523 

the vessel with which they will be 

working. 

(iv) PSOs can act as acoustic or visual 

observers (but not at the same time) as 

long as they demonstrate that their 

training and experience are sufficient to 

perform the task at hand. 

(v) NMFS must review and approve 

PSO resumes accompanied by a relevant 

training course information packet that 

includes the name and qualifications 

(i.e., experience, training completed, or 

educational background) of the 

instructor(s), the course outline or 

syllabus, and course reference material 

as well as a document stating successful 

completion of the course. 

(vi) NMFS shall have one week to 

approve PSOs from the time that the 

necessary information is submitted, 

after which PSOs meeting the minimum 

requirements shall automatically be 

considered approved. 

(vii) One visual PSO with experience 

as shown in 4(b) shall be designated as 

the lead for the entire protected species 

observation team. The lead shall 

coordinate duty schedules and roles for 

the PSO team and serve as primary 

point of contact for the vessel operator. 

To the maximum extent practicable, the 

lead PSO shall devise the duty schedule 

such that experienced PSOs are on duty 

with those PSOs with appropriate 

training but who have not yet gained 

relevant experience. 

(viii) PSOs must successfully 

complete relevant training, including 

completion of all required coursework 

and passing (80 percent or greater) a 

written and/or oral examination 

developed for the training program. 

(ix). PSOs must have successfully 

attained a bachelor’s degree from an 

accredited college or university with a 

major in one of the natural sciences, a 

minimum of 30 semester hours or 

equivalent in the biological sciences, 

and at least one undergraduate course in 

math or statistics. 

(x) The educational requirements may 

be waived if the PSO has acquired the 

relevant skills through alternate 

experience. Requests for such a waiver 

shall be submitted to NMFS and must 

include written justification. Requests 

shall be granted or denied (with 

justification) by NMFS within one week 

of receipt of submitted information. 

Alternate experience that may be 

considered includes, but is not limited 

to (1) secondary education and/or 

experience comparable to PSO duties; 

(2) previous work experience 

conducting academic, commercial, or 

government-sponsored protected 

species surveys; or (3) previous work 

experience as a PSO; the PSO should 

demonstrate good standing and 

consistently good performance of PSO 

duties. 

(d) Data Collection 

(i) PSOs shall use standardized data 

collection forms, whether hard copy or 

electronic. PSOs shall record detailed 

information about any implementation 

of mitigation requirements, including 

the distance of animals to the acoustic 

source and description of specific 

actions that ensued, the behavior of the 

animal(s), any observed changes in 

behavior before and after 

implementation of mitigation, and if 

shutdown was implemented, the length 

of time before any subsequent ramp-up 

of the acoustic source. If required 

mitigation was not implemented, PSOs 

should record a description of the 

circumstances. 

(ii) At a minimum, the following 

information must be recorded: 

a. Vessel names (source vessel and 

other vessels associated with survey) 

and call signs; 

b. PSO names and affiliations; 

c. Dates of departures and returns to 

port with port name; 

d. Date and participants of PSO 

briefings (as discussed in General 

Requirements. 2.) 

e. Dates and times (Greenwich Mean 

Time) of survey effort and times 

corresponding with PSO effort; 

f. Vessel location (latitude/longitude) 

when survey effort began and ended and 

vessel location at beginning and end of 

visual PSO duty shifts; 

g. Vessel heading and speed at 

beginning and end of visual PSO duty 

shifts and upon any line change; 

h. Environmental conditions while on 

visual survey (at beginning and end of 

PSO shift and whenever conditions 

changed significantly), including BSS 

and any other relevant weather 

conditions including cloud cover, fog, 

sun glare, and overall visibility to the 

horizon; 

i. Factors that may have contributed 

to impaired observations during each 

PSO shift change or as needed as 

environmental conditions changed (e.g., 

vessel traffic, equipment malfunctions); 

j. Survey activity information, such as 

acoustic source power output while in 

operation, number and volume of 

airguns operating in the array, tow 

depth of the array, and any other notes 

of significance (i.e., pre-clearance, rampup, shutdown, testing, shooting, rampup completion, end of operations, 

streamers, etc.); and 

(iii). Upon visual observation of any 

protected species, the following 

information shall 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) and 

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/breaths, 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 

(CPA) and/or closest distance from any 

element of the acoustic source; 

p. Platform activity at time of sighting 

(e.g., deploying, recovering, testing, 

shooting, data acquisition, other); and 

q. Description of any actions 

implemented in response to the sighting 

(e.g., delays, shutdown, ramp-up) and 

time and location of the action. 

(iv) If a marine mammal is detected 

while using the PAM system, the 

following information should be 

recorded: 

a. An acoustic encounter 

identification number, and whether the 

detection was linked with a visual 

sighting; 

b. Date and time when first and last 

heard; 

c. Types and nature of sounds heard 

(e.g., clicks, whistles, creaks, burst 

pulses, continuous, sporadic, strength of 

signal); 

d. Any additional information 

recorded such as water depth of the 

hydrophone array, bearing of the animal 

to the vessel (if determinable), species 

or taxonomic group (if determinable), 

spectrogram screenshot, and any other 

notable information. 

6. Reporting 

(a) L–DEO shall submit a draft 

comprehensive report to NMFS on all 

activities and monitoring results within 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2
30524 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Notices 

90 days of the completion of the survey 

or expiration of the IHA, whichever 

comes sooner. The report must describe 

all activities conducted and sightings of 

protected species near the activities, 

must provide full documentation of 

methods, results, and interpretation 

pertaining to all monitoring, and must 

summarize the dates and locations of 

survey operations and all protected 

species sightings (dates, times, 

locations, activities, associated survey 

activities). The draft report shall also 

include geo-referenced time-stamped 

vessel tracklines for all time periods 

during which airguns were operating. 

Tracklines should include points 

recording any change in airgun status 

(e.g., when the airguns began operating, 

when they were turned off, or when 

they changed from full array to single 

gun or vice versa). GIS files shall be 

provided in ESRI shapefile format and 

include the UTC date and time, latitude 

in decimal degrees, and longitude in 

decimal degrees. All coordinates shall 

be referenced to the WGS84 geographic 

coordinate system. In addition to the 

report, all raw observational data shall 

be made available to NMFS. The report 

must summarize the information 

submitted in interim monthly reports as 

well as additional data collected as 

described above in Data Collection and 

the IHA. The draft report must be 

accompanied by a certification from the 

lead PSO as to the accuracy of the 

report, and the lead PSO may submit 

directly NMFS a statement concerning 

implementation and effectiveness of the 

required mitigation and monitoring. A 

final report must be submitted within 30 

days following resolution of any 

comments on the draft report. 

(b) Reporting injured or dead 

protected species: 

(i) In the event that the specified 

activity clearly causes the take of a 

marine mammal in a manner not 

permitted by this IHA, such as serious 

injury or mortality, L–DEO shall 

immediately cease the specified 

activities and immediately report the 

incident to the NMFS Office of 

Protected Resources and the NMFS 

Pacific Islands Regional Stranding 

Coordinator. 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 L–DEO to 

determine what measures are necessary 

to minimize the likelihood of further 

prohibited take and ensure MMPA 

compliance. L–DEO may not resume 

their activities until notified by NMFS. 

(ii) In the event that L–DEO discovers 

an injured or dead marine mammal, and 

the lead observer 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), L–DEO shall 

immediately report the incident to the 

NMFS Office of Protected Resources and 

the NMFS Pacific Islands Regional 

Stranding Coordinator. 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 L–DEO 

to determine whether additional 

mitigation measures or modifications to 

the activities are appropriate. 

(iii) In the event that L–DEO discovers 

an injured or dead marine mammal, and 

the lead observer 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), 

L–DEO shall report the incident to the 

NMFS Office of Protected Resources and 

the Pacific Islands Regional Stranding 

Coordinator within 24 hours of the 

discovery. L–DEO 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 proposed authorization, and any 

other aspect of this Notice of Proposed 

IHA for L–DEO’s proposed surveys. We 

also request comment on the potential 

for renewal of this proposed IHA as 

described in the paragraph below. 

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 second one-year 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 a second IHA would 

allow for 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. 

(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 21, 2018. 

Elaine T. Saiz, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13732 Filed 6–27–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES2