39062 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2018 / Notices 

and second-choice NIST laboratories/ 

projects they wish to apply to, previous 

SURF participation/mentor 

identification, academic major/minor, 

current overall GPA, need for housing 

and gender (for housing purposes only), 

special skills (laboratory, computer 

programming etc.) availability dates, 

resume, personal statement of 

commitment and research interests, two 

letters of recommendation, academic 

transcripts, ability to verify U.S. 

citizenship or permanent legal 

residency, acknowledgement of 

background check, and requirements for 

REAL ID Act. 

II. Method of Collection 

The Student Application Information 

form will be available on the web. The 

collection is currently limited to paper 

form and is required to be scanned and 

submitted electronically. 

III. Data 

OMB Control Number: 0693–0042. 

Form Number(s): None. 

Type of Review: Renewal submission. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

households. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

650. 

Estimated Time per Response: 30 

minutes. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 325. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost to 

Public: $0. 

IV. Request for Comments 

NIST invites comments on: (a) 

Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate 

of the burden (including hours and cost) 

of the proposed collection of 

information; (c) ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (d) 

ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on 

respondents, including through the use 

of automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection; 

they also will become a matter of public 

record. 

Sheleen Dumas, 

Departmental Lead PRA Officer, Office of the 

Chief Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2018–16914 Filed 8–7–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XG108 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Unexploded 

Ordnance Investigation Survey off the 

Coast of Virginia 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental 

harassment authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

regulations implementing the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as 

amended, notification is hereby given 

that NMFS has issued an Incidental 

Harassment Authorization (IHA) to 

Virginia Electric and Power Company d/ 

b/a Dominion Energy Virginia 

(Dominion) for the take marine 

mammals, by harassment, incidental to 

high-resolution geophysical (HRG) 

surveys associated with unexploded 

ordnance investigation activities off the 

coast of Virginia in the area of the 

Research Lease of Submerged Lands for 

Renewable Energy Activities on the 

Outer Continental Shelf Offshore 

Virginia (OCS–A 0497) and coastal 

waters where one or more cable route 

corridors will be established (the Survey 

Area). 

DATES: This Authorization is in effect 

for one year from the date of issuance. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dale 

Youngkin, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

Electronic copies of the applications 

and supporting documents, as well as a 

list of the references cited in this 

document, may be obtained by visiting 

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

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

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

problems accessing these documents, 

please call the contact listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

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

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

the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated 

to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the 

incidental, but not intentional, taking of 

small numbers of marine mammals by 

U.S. citizens who engage in a specified 

activity (other than commercial fishing) 

within a specified geographical region if 

certain findings are made and either 

regulations are issued or, if the taking is 

limited to harassment, a notice of a 

proposed authorization is provided to 

the public for review. 

An authorization for incidental 

takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 

that the taking will have a negligible 

impact on the species or stock(s), will 

not have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of the species or 

stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 

relevant), and if the permissible 

methods of taking and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth. 

NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact 

resulting from the specified activity that 

cannot be reasonably expected to, and is 

not reasonably likely to, adversely affect 

the species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

The MMPA states that the term ‘‘take’’ 

means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, 

or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or 

kill any marine mammal. 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) 

has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

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

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering (Level B 

harassment). 

Summary of Request 

On March 7, 2018, NMFS received a 

request from Dominion for an IHA to 

take marine mammals incidental to high 

resolution geophysical (HRG) surveys 

off the coast of Virginia. The purpose of 

these surveys are to acquire data 

regarding the potential presence of UXO 

within the proposed construction and 

operational footprints of the Coastal 

Virginia Offshore Wind (CVOW) Project 

Area in the Lease Area and export cable 

route construction corridor (Survey 

Area). A revised application was 

received on April 26, 2018. NMFS 

deemed that request to be adequate and 

complete. Dominion’s request is for take 

of nine marine mammal species by 

Level B harassment. Neither Dominion 

nor NMFS expects injury, serious injury 

or mortality to result from this activity 

and the activity is expected to last no 

more than one year, therefore, an IHA is 

appropriate. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2018 / Notices 39063 

Description of the Proposed Activity 

Overview 

Dominion proposes to conduct marine 

site characterization surveys including 

HRG surveys to search for UXO in the 

marine environment of the 

approximately 2,135-acre Lease Area 

located offshore of Virginia (see Figure 

1–1 in the IHA application). 

Additionally, an export cable route will 

be established between the Lease Area 

and Virginia Beach, identified as the 

Export Cable Route Area (see Figure 1 

in the IHA application). See the IHA 

application for further information. The 

survey area consists of two 1-kilometer 

(km) X 1-km turbine position locations, 

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

cable route connecting the two turbine 

position locations, and a 43-km X 300 

m Export Corridor Route. For the 

purpose of this IHA, the survey area is 

designated as the Lease Area and cable 

route corridors. Water depths across the 

Lease Area are estimated to range from 

approximately 8 to 40 m (26 to 131 feet 

(ft)) while the cable route corridors will 

extend to shallow water areas near 

landfall locations. Surveys would begin 

no earlier than August 1, 2018 and are 

anticipated to last for up to three 

months. 

The purpose of the marine site 

characterization surveys are to acquire 

data regarding the potential presence of 

UXO within the proposed construction 

and operational footprints of the CVOW 

Project Area (i.e., export cable 

construction corridor, inter-array cable 

area, and wind turbine positions) in 

accordance with the Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management (BOEM) guidelines 

for archaeology surveys as well as 

geophysical activities. No removal of 

ordnance would be conducted as a part 

of the activities. Underwater sound 

resulting from Dominion’s proposed 

HRG surveys for UXO have the potential 

to result in incidental take of marine 

mammals in the form of harassment. 

Dates and Duration 

Surveys will last for approximately 

three months and are anticipated to 

commence no earlier than August 1, 

2018. This schedule is based on 24-hour 

operations and includes potential down 

time due to inclement weather. Based 

on 24-hour operations, the estimated 

duration of the HRG survey activities 

would be approximately 60 days for the 

export cable route corridor and 

approximately 15 days each for the 

inter-array cable route and wind turbine 

positions. 

Specific Geographic Region 

Dominion’s survey activities will 

occur in the approximately 2,135-acre 

Research Lease Area located off the 

coast of Virginia (see Figure 1 in the 

IHA application). Additionally, a cable 

route corridor would be surveyed 

between the Lease Area and the coast of 

Virginia. The cable route corridor to be 

surveyed is anticipated to be 300 m 

wide and 43 km long. The wind turbine 

positions to be surveyed are 

twoapproximately 1 km X 1 km square 

areas connected by an inter-array cable 

route that is 300 m wide and 2 km in 

length. 

A detailed description of the planned 

survey activities, including types of 

survey equipment planned for use, is 

provided in the Federal Register notice 

for the proposed IHA (83 FR 26968; June 

11, 2018). Since that time, no changes 

have been made to the planned 

activities and a detailed description is 

not repeated here. Please refer to that 

Federal Register notice for the 

description of the specific activity. 

Comments and Responses 

NMFS published a notice of proposed 

IHA in the Federal Register on June 11, 

2018 (83 FR 26968). During the 30-day 

public comment period, NMFS received 

one comment letter, which was from the 

Marine Mammal Commission 

(Commission). No other public 

comments were received. NMFS has 

posted the comment letter received 

online at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-otherenergy-activities-renewable. The 

following is a summary of the 

Commission comments received and 

NMFS’s responses. 

Comment 1: The Commission notes 

that impulsive thresholds, rather than 

non-impulsive thresholds, were 

incorrectly used to model Level A 

harassment zones for the ultra-short 

baseline positioning system (UBPS) and 

sub-bottom profiler (SBP) sources, 

which resulted in overly conservative 

Level A harassment zones. The 

Commission states that NMFS should 

not permit applicants to arbitrarily 

choose which thresholds to use, and 

should prohibit applicants from using 

impulsive thresholds for non-impulsive 

sources. 

NMFS Response: NMFS appreciates 

the input from the Commission. We 

acknowledge the error, and have 

corrected it in this final notice (refer to 

Table 4) and IHA, and will ensure it 

does not happen again. Take by Level A 

harassment was not proposed for 

authorization based on the fact that it is 

not considered likely to occur, even 

based on the larger (more conservative) 

isopleths associated with the impulsive 

threshold. The use of the non-impulsive 

threshold does not change our findings 

or determinations under the MMPA. 

Comment 2: The Commission 

recommends that NMFS revise the 

extent of the Level A harassment zones 

for the Geo-Source sparker based on 

both the SPLpk and SELcum thresholds 

and for the GeoPulse SBP based on the 

SELcum threshold. 

NMFS Response: As stated above, the 

thresholds have been revised and are 

presented in Table 4 of this notice. 

Comment 3: The Commission 

continues to recommend that, until 

behavioral thresholds are updated, 

NMFS require applicants to use the 120- 

decibel (dB) re 1 micropascal (mPa), 

rather than 160- dB re 1mPa, behavioral 

harassment threshold for acoustic, nonimpulsive sources (e.g., sub-bottom 

profilers/chirps, echosounders, and 

other sonars including side-scan and 

fish-finding). 

NMFS Response: As NMFS has said 

on numerous other responses to this 

recommendation, certain sub-bottom 

profiling systems are appropriately 

considered to be impulsive sources (e.g., 

boomers, sparkers); therefore, the 

threshold of 160 dB re 1mPa will 

continue to be used for those sources. 

Other source types referenced by the 

Commission produce signals that are 

not necessarily strictly impulsive; 

however, NMFS finds that the 160-dB 

root mean square (rms) threshold is 

most appropriate for use in evaluating 

potential behavioral impacts to marine 

mammals because the temporal 

characteristics (i.e., intermittency) of 

these sources are better captured by this 

threshold. The 120-dB threshold is 

associated with continuous sources and 

was derived based on studies examining 

behavioral responses to drilling and 

dredging. Continuous sounds are those 

whose sound pressure level remains 

above that of the ambient sound, with 

negligibly small fluctuations in level 

(NIOSH, 1998; ANSI, 2005). Examples 

of sounds that NMFS would categorize 

as continuous are those associated with 

drilling or vibratory pile driving 

activities. Intermittent sounds are 

defined as sounds with interrupted 

levels of low or no sound (NIOSH, 

1998). Thus, signals produced by these 

source types are not continuous but 

rather intermittent sounds. With regard 

to behavioral thresholds, we consider 

the temporal and spectral characteristics 

of signals produced by these source 

types to more closely resemble those of 

an impulse sound rather than a 

continuous sound. The threshold of 160 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
39064 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2018 / Notices 

dB re 1mPa is typically associated with 

impulsive sources, which are inherently 

intermittent. Therefore, the 160 dB 

threshold (typically associated with 

impulsive sources) is more appropriate 

than the 120 dB threshold (typically 

associated with continuous sources) for 

estimating takes by behavioral 

harassment incidental to use of such 

sources. 

Comment 4: The Commission 

commented that harbor seals have been 

occurring in the Virginia area earlier in 

fall months. The Commission 

recommends that NMFS include at least 

five harbor seal takes and one gray seal 

take in the Final IHA to account for 

their potential occurrence in the project 

area. 

NMFS Response: NMFS has included 

the takes of five harbor seals and one 

gray seal, as recommended by the 

Commission. 

Comment 5: The Commission noted 

concerns with density information and 

take calculations and recommended the 

following: NMFS should (1) clarify why 

various densities were revised and 

ensure all are correct; (2) report 

densities and ensonified areas out to 

three significant digits to ensure takes 

were calculated properly; (3) include 

takes for Risso’s dolphins based on 

average group size, noting that 

Dominion estimated 0.59 takes for this 

species, but did not request take while 

estimating ‘‘similarly low numbers’’ for 

pilot whales and requesting take for this 

species based on group size. 

NMFS Response: The densities were 

not revised and remain the same as were 

included in the notice for the proposed 

IHA (83 FR 26968, June 11, 2018), with 

the exception of adding three decimal 

places, as requested by the Commission 

(refer to Table 6 of this notice). The 

Commission erroneously states that 0.59 

takes of Risso’s dolphins were 

calculated. As shown in the notice for 

the proposed IHA, only 0.08 takes of 

Risso’s dolphins were estimated based 

on calculations. Calculations of pilot 

whales estimated 1.15 takes. As Risso’s 

dolphin calculations are so low as to not 

round up to one (1) take, and the 

applicant did not request take due to the 

low likelihood of encountering this 

species based on take estimates and lack 

of sighting data, NMFS did not propose 

takes, and is not authorizing takes for 

this species. However, calculated takes 

for pilot whales did estimate over one 

(1) take. Therefore, takes have been 

authorized for this species and the take 

estimate was adjusted to account for 

average group size for this species. 

Comment 6: The Commission 

recommended that NMFS refrain from 

authorizing Level B harassment takes of 

any low frequency (LF) cetacean, 

including humpback whales and minke 

whales. This recommendation is based 

on the fact that the sound source used 

to calculate the Level B harassment zone 

(Innomar sub-bottom profiler) operates 

at frequencies which are 50 kHz beyond 

the best hearing capabilities of these 

species, and the sound source with the 

largest Level B harassment zone within 

the best hearing range of LF cetaceans 

only has a 20 m Level B harassment 

isopleth. 

NMFS Response: NMFS has not 

authorized take of any LF cetaceans, as 

recommended by the Commission. 

Comment 7: The Commission 

continues to express concern that the 

method used to estimate the numbers of 

takes, which summed fractions of takes 

for each species across project days, 

does not account for and negates the 

intent of NMFS’ 24-hour reset policy 

and recommended that NMFS share the 

rounding criteria with the Commission 

in an expeditious manner. 

NMFS Response: NMFS recently 

completed internal guidance on 

rounding and consideration of 

qualitative factors in the estimation of 

instances of take, and provided this 

information to the Commission. As 

discussed with the Commission, we 

believe that the methodology used for 

take calculation in this IHA remains 

appropriate and is not at odds with the 

24-hour reset policy the Commission 

references. 

Comment 8: The Commission 

continues to request clarification 

regarding certain issues associated with 

NMFS’ notice that one-year renewals 

could be issued in certain limited 

circumstances and expressed concern 

that the process would bypass the 

public notice and comment 

requirements. The Commission also 

suggested that NMFS should discuss the 

possibility of renewals through a more 

general route, such as a rulemaking, 

instead of notice in a specific 

authorization. The Commission further 

recommended that if NMFS did not 

pursue a more general route, that the 

agency provide the Commission and the 

public with a legal analysis supporting 

our conclusion that this process is 

consistent with the requirements of 

section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA. The 

Commission also noted that NMFS had 

recently begun utilizing abbreviated 

notices, referencing relevant documents, 

to solicit public input and suggested 

that NMFS use these notices and solicit 

review in lieu of the currently proposed 

renewal process. 

NMFS Response: As stated in 

previous responses to this comment 

from the Commission, the process of 

issuing a renewal IHA does not bypass 

the public notice and comment 

requirements of the MMPA. The notice 

of the proposed IHA expressly notifies 

the public that under certain, limited 

conditions an applicant could seek a 

renewal IHA for an additional year. The 

notice describes the conditions under 

which such a renewal request could be 

considered and expressly seeks public 

comment in the event such a renewal is 

sought. Additional reference to this 

solicitation of public comment has 

recently been added at the beginning of 

the FR notices that consider renewals, 

requesting input specifically on the 

possible renewal itself. NMFS 

appreciates the streamlining achieved 

by the use of abbreviated FR notices and 

intends to continue using them for 

proposed IHAs that include minor 

changes from previously issued IHAs, 

but which do not satisfy the renewal 

requirements. However, we believe our 

proposed method for issuing renewals 

meets statutory requirements and 

maximizes efficiency. 

Importantly, such renewals would be 

limited to circumstances where: The 

activities are identical or nearly 

identical to those analyzed in the 

proposed IHA; monitoring does not 

indicate impacts that were not 

previously analyzed and authorized; 

and, the mitigation and monitoring 

requirements remain the same, all of 

which allow the public to comment on 

the appropriateness and effects of a 

renewal at the same time the public 

provides comments on the initial IHA. 

NMFS has, however, modified the 

language for future proposed IHAs to 

clarify that all IHAs, including renewal 

IHAs, are valid for no more than one 

year and that the agency would consider 

only one renewal for a project at this 

time. In addition, notice of issuance or 

denial of a renewal IHA would be 

published in the Federal Register, as 

they are for all IHAs. The option for 

issuing renewal IHAs has been in 

NMFS’s incidental take regulations 

since 1996. We will provide any 

additional information to the 

Commission and consider posting a 

description of the renewal process on 

our website before any renewal is issued 

utilizing this process. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activity 

Sections 3 and 4 of Dominion’s IHA 

application summarize available 

information regarding status and trends, 

distribution and habitat preferences, 

and behavior and life history, of the 

potentially affected marine mammal 

species. Additional information 

regarding population trends and threats 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2018 / Notices 39065 

may be found in NMFS’s Stock 

Assessment Reports (SAR; 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

general information about these species 

(e.g., physical and behavioral 

descriptions) may be found on NMFS’s 

website (www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

species-directory). 

Table 1 lists all species with expected 

potential for occurrence in the survey 

area and summarizes information 

related to the population or stock, 

including regulatory status under the 

MMPA and Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) and potential biological removal 

(PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we 

follow Committee on Taxonomy (2017). 

PBR is defined by the MMPA as the 

maximum number of animals, not 

including natural mortalities, that may 

be removed from a marine mammal 

stock while allowing that stock to reach 

or maintain its optimum sustainable 

population (as described in NMFS’s 

SARs). While no mortality is anticipated 

or authorized here, PBR is included here 

as gross indicators of the status of the 

species and other threats. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals that 

make up a given stock or the total 

number estimated within a particular 

study or survey area. NMFS’s stock 

abundance estimates for most species 

represent the total estimate of 

individuals within the geographic area, 

if known, that comprises that stock. For 

some species, this geographic area may 

extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed 

stocks in this region are assessed in 

NMFS’s U.S. 2017 draft SARs (e.g., 

Hayes et al., 2018). All values presented 

in Table 2 are the most recent available 

at the time of publication and are 

available in the 2017 draft SARs (Hayes 

et al., 2018). 

TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMALS WITH POTENTIAL OCCURRENCE IN THE SURVEY AREA

Common name Stock 

NMFS 

MMPA 

and ESA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV,Nmin) 2 PBR 3

Occurrence and seasonality in 

the NW 

atlantic OCS 

Toothed whales (Odontoceti) 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin 

(Lagenorhynchus acutus).

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

Atlantic spotted dolphin (Stenella 

frontalis).

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

Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops 

truncatus).

W. North Atlantic, Southern Migratory Coastal.-; Y 3,751 (0.60; 2,353) ...................... 23 Common year round. 

Clymene dolphin (Stenella 

clymene).

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

Pantropical Spotted dolphin 

(Stenella attenuata).

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

Risso’s dolphin (Grampus 

griseus).

W. North Atlantic ......................... -; N 18,250 (0.46; 12,619) .................. 126 rare. 

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

Striped dolphin (Stenella 

coeruleoalba).

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

Spinner Dolphin (Stenella 

longirostris).

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

Harbor porpoise (Phocoena 

phocoena).

Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy ........ -; N 79,833 (0.32; 61,415) .................. 706 Common year round. 

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

False killer whale (Pseudorca 

crassidens).

W. North Atlantic ......................... -; Y 442 (1.06; 212) ............................ 2.1 rare. 

Long-finned pilot whale 

(Globicephala melas).

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

Short-finned pilot whale 

(Globicephala macrorhynchus).

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

Sperm whale (Physeter 

macrocephalus).

North Atlantic ............................... E; Y 2,288 (0.28; 1,815) ...................... 3.6 Year round in continental shelf 

and slope waters, occur seasonally to forage. 

Pygmy sperm whale 4 (Kogia 

breviceps).

W. North Atlantic ......................... -; N 3,785 (0.47; 2,598) ...................... 26 rare. 

Dwarf sperm whale 4 (Kogia 

sima).

W. North Atlantic ......................... -; N 3,785 (0.47; 2,598) ...................... 26 rare. 

Cuvier’s beaked whale (Ziphius 

cavirostris).

W. North Atlantic ......................... -; N 6,532 (0.32; 5,021) ...................... 50 rare. 

Blainville’s beaked whale 5

(Mesoplodon densirostris).

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

Gervais’ beaked whale 5

(Mesoplodon europaeus).

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

True’s beaked whale 5

(Mesoplodon mirus).

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

Sowerby’s Beaked Whale 5

(Mesoplodon bidens).

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

Melon-headed whale 

(Peponocephala electra).

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

Baleen whales (Mysticeti) 

Minke whale (Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata).

Canadian East Coast .................. -; N 2,591 (0.81; 1,425) ...................... 14 Year round in continental shelf 

and slope waters, occur seasonally to forage. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
39066 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2018 / Notices 

TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMALS WITH POTENTIAL OCCURRENCE IN THE SURVEY AREA—Continued 

Common name Stock 

NMFS 

MMPA 

and ESA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV,Nmin) 2 PBR 3

Occurrence and seasonality in 

the NW 

atlantic OCS 

Blue whale (Balaenoptera 

musculus).

W. North Atlantic ......................... E; Y Unknown (unk; 440) .................... 0.9 Year round in continental shelf 

and slope waters, occur seasonally to forage. 

Fin whale (Balaenoptera 

physalus).

W. North Atlantic ......................... E; Y 1,618 (0.33; 1,234) ...................... 2.5 Year round in continental shelf 

and slope waters, occur seasonally to forage. 

Humpback whale (Megaptera 

novaeangliae).

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

North Atlantic right whale 

(Eubalaena glacialis).

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

and slope waters, occur seasonally to forage. 

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

and slope waters, occur seasonally to forage. 

Earless seals (Phocidae) 

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

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

Hooded seal (Cystophora 

cristata).

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

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

1ESA status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR (see footnote 3) or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically designated 

under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2 CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. For certain stocks, abundance estimates 

are actual counts of animals and there is no associated CV. The most recent abundance survey that is reflected in the abundance estimate is presented; there may 

be more recent surveys that have not yet been incorporated into the estimate. All values presented here are from the 2017 Draft Atlantic SARs. 3Potential biological removal, defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine 

mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population size (OSP). 4Abundance estimate includes both dwarf and pygmy sperm whales. 

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

All species that could potentially 

occur in the proposed survey areas are 

included in Table 1. However, the 

temporal and/or spatial occurrence for 

all but 11 of the species listed in Table 

2 is such that take of these species is not 

expected to occur, and they are not 

discussed further beyond the 

explanation provided here. Take of 

these species is not anticipated either 

because they have very low densities in 

the project area, are known to occur 

further offshore or further north than the 

project area, or are considered very 

unlikely to occur in the project area 

during the proposed survey due to the 

species’ seasonal occurrence in the area. 

The 11 species/stocks evaluated for 

incidental take in the proposed IHA 

included: North Atlantic right whale; 

humpback whale; fin whale; minke 

whale; Atlantic white-sided dolphin; 

common dolphin; bottlenose dolphin; 

Atlantic spotted dolphin; long-finned 

pilot whale; short-finned pilot whale; 

and harbor porpoise. However, as 

discussed below, takes for harbor seals 

and gray seals have been authorized as 

a result of consideration of public 

comment on the proposed IHA. 

Five marine mammal species listed in 

Table 2 are listed under the ESA and are 

known to be present, at least seasonally, 

in waters of the mid-Atlantic (sperm 

whale, north Atlantic right whale, fin 

whale, blue whale, and sei whale). All 

of these species are highly migratory 

and do not spend extended periods of 

time in the localized survey area. The 

offshore waters of Virginia (including 

the survey area) are primarily used as a 

migration corridor for these species, 

particularly north Atlantic right whales, 

during seasonal movements north or 

south between feeding and breeding 

grounds (Knowlton et al., 2002; 

Firestone et al., 2008). While fin and 

north Atlantic right whales have the 

potential to occur within the survey 

area, sperm, blue, and sei whales are 

more pelagic and/or northern species 

and their presence within the survey 

area is unlikely (Waring et al., 2007; 

2010; 2012; 2013) and these species are 

therefore not considered further in this 

analysis. In addition, the proposed IHA 

(83 FR 26968, June 11, 2018) noted that, 

while stranding data exists for harbor 

and gray seals along the mid-Atlantic 

coast south of New Jersey, their 

preference for colder, northern waters 

during the survey period makes their 

presence in the survey area unlikely. 

Winter haulout sites for harbor seals 

have been identified within the 

Chesapeake Bay region. However, the 

proposed IHA noted that the seals were 

not expected to be present during the 

summer and fall months when the 

survey activities are planned (Waring et 

al., 2016). In addition, the proposed IHA 

noted that coastal Virginia represents 

the southern extent of the habitat range 

for gray seals, with few stranding 

records reported and sightings only 

occur during winter months as far south 

as New Jersey (Waring et al., 2016). 

Therefore pinniped species were not 

considered for take in the proposed 

IHA. However, after review of public 

comments received on the proposed 

IHA that stated harbor seals and gray 

seals have more recently been observed 

to be present in the area earlier than 

expected, NMFS has added a small 

number of takes for these species out of 

an abundance of caution. 

A detailed description of the species 

likely to be affected by Dominion’s UXO 

survey activities, including brief 

introductions to the species and 

relevant stocks as well as available 

information regarding population trends 

and threats, and information regarding 

local occurrence, were provided in the 

Federal Register notice for the proposed 

IHA (83 FR 26968; June 11, 2018); since 

that time, we are not aware of any 

changes in the status of these species 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2018 / Notices 39067 

and stocks; therefore, detailed 

descriptions are not repeated here. 

Please refer to the Federal Register 

notice for the proposed IHA for 

descriptions of species. Please also refer 

to NMFS’ website 

(www.fisheries.noaa.gov/speciesdirectory) for generalized species 

accounts. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

The potential effects of Dominion’s 

UXO survey activities have the potential 

to result in incidental take of marine 

mammals by harassment in the vicinity 

of the survey area. The Federal Register 

notice for the proposed IHA (83 FR 

26968; June 11, 2018) included a 

discussion of the potential effects of 

Dominion’s UXO survey activities on 

marine mammals and their habitat, and 

that information is not repeated here; 

please refer to that Federal Register 

notice for that information. No instances 

of injury, serious injury, or mortality are 

expected as a result of the planned 

activities. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes 

authorized through this IHA, which 

informed both NMFS’ consideration of 

‘‘small numbers’’ and the negligible 

impact determination. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, the MMPA defines 

‘‘harassment’’ as any act of pursuit, 

torment, or annoyance which (i) has the 

potential to injure a marine mammal or 

marine mammal stock in the wild (Level 

A harassment); or (ii) has the potential 

to disturb a marine mammal or marine 

mammal stock in the wild by causing 

disruption of behavioral patterns, 

including, but not limited to, migration, 

breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering (Level B harassment). 

Authorized takes would be by Level B 

harassment only, as use of the HRG 

equipment has the potential to result in 

disruption of behavioral patterns for 

individual marine mammals. NMFS has 

determined take by Level A harassment 

is not an expected outcome of the 

proposed activity as discussed in greater 

detail below. As described previously, 

no mortality or serious injury is 

anticipated, nor is any authorized for 

this activity. Below we describe how the 

take is estimated for this project. 

Described in the most basic way, we 

estimate take by considering: (1) 

Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS 

believes the best available science 

indicates marine mammals will be 

behaviorally harassed or incur some 

degree of permanent hearing 

impairment; (2) the area or volume of 

water that will be ensonified above 

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

occurrence of marine mammals within 

these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the 

number of days of activities. Below, we 

describe these components in more 

detail and present the take estimate. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

NMFS uses acoustic thresholds that 

identify the received level of 

underwater sound above which exposed 

marine mammals would be reasonably 

expected to be behaviorally harassed 

(equated to Level B harassment) or to 

incur PTS of some degree (equated to 

Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment—Though 

significantly driven by received level, 

the onset of behavioral disturbance from 

anthropogenic noise exposure is also 

informed to varying degrees by other 

factors related to the sound source (e.g., 

frequency, predictability, duty cycle); 

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

the receiving animals (hearing, 

motivation, experience, demography, 

behavioral context); therefore can be 

difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007, 

Ellison et al. 2011). NMFS uses a 

generalized acoustic threshold based on 

received level to estimate the onset of 

Level B (behavioral) harassment. NMFS 

predicts that marine mammals may be 

behaviorally harassed when exposed to 

underwater anthropogenic noise above 

received levels 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) for 

non-explosive impulsive (e.g., seismic 

HRG equipment) or intermittent (e.g., 

scientific sonar) sources. Dominion’s 

proposed activity includes the use of 

impulsive sources. Therefore, the 160 

dB re 1 mPa (rms) criteria is applicable 

for analysis of Level B harassment. 

Level A harassment—NMFS’ 

Technical Guidance for Assessing the 

Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on 

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, which may 

be accessed at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/ 

acoustics/guidelines.htm. As described 

above, Dominion’s proposed activity 

includes the use of intermittent and 

impulsive sources. We note here that for 

intermittent sources such as the GeoSource 800 sparker and the Innomar 

Medium 100 sub-bottom profiler, it is 

more appropriate to consider these 

sources as non-impulsive for 

consideration of potential for Level A 

harassment but due to their intermittent 

nature they are considered impulsive for 

consideration of potential for Level B 

harassment. 

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. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
39068 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2018 / Notices 

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 feed into estimating the area 

ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds. 

The proposed survey would entail the 

use of HRG survey equipment. The 

distance to the isopleth corresponding 

to the threshold for Level B harassment 

was calculated for all HRG survey 

equipment with the potential to result 

in harassment of marine mammals (see 

Table 1 of the Proposed IHA (83 FR 

26968; June 11, 2018)). Of the HRG 

survey equipment planned for use that 

has the potential to result in harassment 

of marine mammals, acoustic modeling 

indicated the Innomar Medium 100 subbottom profiler would be expected to 

produce sound that would propagate the 

furthest in water (Table 3); therefore, for 

the purposes of the take calculation, it 

was assumed this equipment would be 

active during the entirety of the survey. 

Thus the distance to the isopleth 

corresponding to the threshold for Level 

B harassment for the Innomar Medium 

100 sub-bottom profiler (100 m; Table 3) 

was used as the basis of the Level B take 

calculation for all marine mammals. 

However, this sound source operates at 

frequencies that are 50 kHz beyond the 

best hearing capabilities of LF 

cetaceans, so there is no potential for 

behavioral harassment of these species. 

The sound source with the next-largest 

Level B harassment threshold distance 

was the Geo-Source 800 sparker and this 

distance is 20 m, which is well within 

the required 100-m exclusion zone for 

large whales. Therefore, no take for LF 

cetaceans have been authorized. 

TABLE 3—PREDICTED RADIAL DISTANCES (m) FROM HRG SOURCES TO ISOPLETHS CORRESPONDING TO LEVEL B 

HARASSMENT THRESHOLD

HRG system HRG survey equipment 

Modeled 

distance to 

threshold 

(160 dB re 1 

μPa) 

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

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

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

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

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

Predicted distances to Level A 

harassment isopleths, which vary based 

on marine mammal functional hearing 

groups (Table 4), were also calculated 

by Dominion. The updated acoustic 

thresholds for impulsive sounds (such 

as HRG survey equipment) contained in 

the Technical Guidance (NMFS, 2016) 

were presented as dual metric acoustic 

thresholds using both SELcum and peak 

sound pressure level (SPL) metrics for 

all equipment in the notice of the 

proposed IHA (83 FR 26968, June 11, 

2018). 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). 

However, the Geo-Source 800 sparker 

and Innomar 100 sub-bottom profiler are 

more appropriately considered as nonimpulsive sources, which considers the 

SELcum metric only. This information 

has been corrected in Table 4 below, 

and NMFS notes that the correction 

results in smaller distances to the Level 

A threshold than reported in the 

proposed IHA notice and reinforces our 

determination that Level A harassment 

is so unlikely to occur as to be 

discountable. The SELcum metric 

considers both level and duration of 

exposure, as well as auditory weighting 

functions by marine mammal hearing 

group. In recognition of the fact that 

calculating Level A harassment 

ensonified areas could be more 

technically challenging to predict due to 

the duration component and the use of 

weighting functions in the new SELcum

thresholds, NMFS developed an 

optional User Spreadsheet that includes 

tools to help predict a simple isopleth 

that can be used in conjunction with 

marine mammal density or occurrence 

to facilitate the estimation of take 

numbers. Dominion used the NMFS 

optional User Spreadsheet to calculate 

distances to Level A harassment 

isopleths (see Appendix A of the IHA 

application). Modeled distances to 

isopleths corresponding to Level A 

harassment thresholds for the proposed 

HRG equipment and marine mammal 

hearing groups are shown in Table 4. 

TABLE 4—MODELED RADIAL DISTANCES (m) TO ISOPLETHS CORRESPONDING TO LEVEL A HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS

Functional hearing group 

(Level A harassment thresholds) PTS onset 

Lateral 

distance 

(m) 

GeoPulse Sub-Bottom Profiler 

Low frequency cetaceans ........................................................... 199 dB SELcum .......................................................................... — 

Mid frequency cetaceans ............................................................ 198 dB SELcum .......................................................................... — 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2018 / Notices 39069 

TABLE 4—MODELED RADIAL DISTANCES (m) TO ISOPLETHS CORRESPONDING TO LEVEL A HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS— 

Continued 

Functional hearing group 

(Level A harassment thresholds) PTS onset 

Lateral 

distance 

(m) 

High frequency cetaceans .......................................................... 173 dB SELcum .......................................................................... <1 

Phocid Pinnipeds (Underwater) .................................................. 201 dB SELcum .......................................................................... — 

Geo-Source 800 Sparker 

Low frequency cetaceans ........................................................... 219 dBpeak/183 dB SELcum ........................................................ 5 

Mid frequency cetaceans ............................................................ 230 dBpeak/185 dB SELcum ........................................................ <1 

High frequency cetaceans .......................................................... 202 dBpeak/155 dB SELcum ........................................................ <1; 24 

Phocid Pinnipeds (Underwater) .................................................. 218 dBpeak/185 dB SELcum ........................................................ 3 

Innomar Medium 100 Sub-Bottom Profiler 

Low frequency cetaceans ........................................................... 199 dB SELcum .......................................................................... N/A 

Mid frequency cetaceans ............................................................ 198 dB SELcum .......................................................................... — 

High frequency cetaceans .......................................................... 173 dB SELcum .......................................................................... <5 

Phocid Pinnipeds (Underwater) .................................................. 201 dB SELcum .......................................................................... N/A 

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

group. 

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

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

In this case, due to the very small 

estimated distances to Level A 

harassment thresholds for all marine 

mammal functional hearing groups, 

based on both SELcum and peak SPL 

(Table 4), and in consideration of the 

mitigation measures that must be 

implemented, including marine 

mammal exclusion zones to avoid Level 

A harassment (see the Mitigation section 

for more detail) NMFS has determined 

that the likelihood of Level A 

harassment take of marine mammals 

occurring as a result of the proposed 

survey is so low as to be discountable. 

Therefore, NMFS has not authorized 

Level A harassment take of any marine 

mammals in the IHA. 

We note that because of some of the 

assumptions included in the methods 

used, isopleths produced may be 

overestimates to some degree. The 

acoustic sources proposed for use in 

Dominion’s survey do not radiate sound 

equally in all directions but were 

designed instead to focus acoustic 

energy directly toward the sea floor. 

Therefore, the acoustic energy produced 

by these sources is not received equally 

in all directions around the source but 

is instead concentrated along some 

narrower plane depending on the 

beamwidth of the source. For example, 

in the case of the Innomar Medium 100 

sub-bottom profiler, the beamwidth is 

only one degree. However, the 

calculated distances to isopleths do not 

account for this directionality of the 

sound source and are therefore 

conservative. For mobile sources, such 

as the proposed survey, the User 

Spreadsheet predicts the closest 

distance at which a stationary animal 

would not incur PTS if the sound source 

traveled by the animal in a straight line 

at a constant speed. In addition to the 

conservative estimation of calculated 

distances to isopleths associated with 

the Innomar Medium 100 sub-bottom 

profiler, calculated takes may be 

conservative due to the fact that this 

sound source operates at frequencies 

beyond the best hearing capabilities of 

LF cetaceans, but calculated takes for all 

species were based on the isopleths 

associated with this sound source. As 

discussed above, the Innomar Medium 

100 sub-bottom profiler operates at 

frequencies between 85 and 115 kHz 

and the best hearing range of LF 

cetaceans is between 7 and 35 kHz. 

Therefore, we would not expect that 

take of LF cetaceans would likely occur 

due to the use of this equipment 

because it operates beyond their hearing 

capabilities. The proposed IHA (83 FR 

26968, June 11, 2018) noted takes were 

estimated based on these isopleths due 

to the fact that the largest distances were 

associated with this equipment. 

However, after consideration of public 

comments, NMFS has determined not to 

issue take of LF cetaceans for the 

following reasons: (1) the Innomar 

Medium 100 sub-bottom profiler 

operates at frequencies that are 50 kHz 

beyond the best hearing capabilities for 

these species, so there would be no 

potential for behavioral disturbance, 

and (2) the sound source with the next 

largest Level B harassment isopleth is 

the Geo-Source 800 Sparker, for which 

the distance to the Level B harassment 

threshold has been calculated to be 20 

m, and this is well within the required 

100-m exclusion zone (EZ) for large 

whales. 

Marine Mammal Occurrence 

In this section we provide the 

information about the presence, density, 

or group dynamics of marine mammals 

that will inform the take calculations. 

The best available scientific 

information was considered in 

conducting marine mammal exposure 

estimates (the basis for estimating take). 

For cetacean species, densities 

calculated by Roberts et al. (2016) were 

used. The density data presented by 

Roberts et al. (2016) incorporates aerial 

and shipboard line-transect survey data 

from NMFS and from other 

organizations collected over the period 

1992–2014. Roberts et al. (2016) 

modeled density from 8 physiographic 

and 16 dynamic oceanographic and 

biological covariates, and controlled for 

the influence of sea state, group size, 

availability bias, and perception bias on 

the probability of making a sighting. In 

general, NMFS considers the models 

produced by Roberts et al. (2016) to be 

the best available source of data 

regarding cetacean density in the 

Atlantic Ocean. More information, 

including the model results and 

supplementary information for each 

model, is available online at: 

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

For the purposes of the take 

calculations, density data from Roberts 

et al. (2016) were mapped within the 

boundary of the survey area for each 

survey segment (i.e., the Lease Area 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
39070 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2018 / Notices 

survey segment and the cable route area 

survey segment; See Figure 1 in the IHA 

application) using a geographic 

information system. Monthly density 

data for all cetacean species potentially 

taken by the proposed survey was 

available via Roberts et al. (2016). 

Monthly mean density within the 

survey area, as provided in Roberts et al. 

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

Summer (June, July, August), and Fall 

(September, October, November)) to 

provide seasonal density estimates. The 

highest average seasonal density as 

reported by Roberts et al. (2016), for 

each species, was used based on the 

planned survey dates of August through 

October. 

Take Calculation and Estimation 

Here we describe how the information 

provided above is brought together to 

produce a quantitative take estimate. 

In order to estimate the number of 

marine mammals predicted to be 

exposed to sound levels that would 

result in harassment, radial distances to 

predicted isopleths corresponding to 

harassment thresholds are calculated, as 

described above. Those distances are 

then used to calculate the area(s) around 

the HRG survey equipment predicted to 

be ensonified to sound levels that 

exceed harassment thresholds. The area 

estimated to be ensonified to relevant 

thresholds in a single day of the survey 

is then calculated, based on areas 

predicted to be ensonified around the 

HRG survey equipment and estimated 

trackline distance traveled per day by 

the survey vessel. The estimated daily 

vessel track line distance was 

determined using the estimated average 

speed of the vessel (4 kn) multiplied by 

24 (to account for the 24 hour 

operational period of the survey). Using 

the maximum distance to the regulatory 

threshold criteria (Tables 4 and 5) and 

estimated daily track line distance of 

approximately 177.8 km (110.5 mi), it 

was estimated that an area of 35.59 km2

(13.74 mi2) per day would be ensonified 

to the largest Level B harassment 

threshold, and 17.78 km2 (0.69 mi2) per 

day would be ensonifed to the Level A 

harassment threshold (largest threshold 

of 155 dB SELcum for HF cetaceans was 

used) (Table 5). 

TABLE 5—ESTIMATED TRACK LINE DISTANCE PER DAY (km) AND AREA

(km2) ESTIMATED TO BE

ENSONIFIED TO LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLD PER DAY

Estimated 

track line 

distance 

per day 

(km) 

Estimated 

area 

ensonified 

to Level A 

harassment 

threshold 

per day 

(km2) 

Estimated 

area 

ensonified 

to Level B 

harassment 

threshold 

per day 

(km2) 

177.8 ......... 17.78 35.59 

The number of marine mammals 

expected to be incidentally taken per 

day is then calculated by estimating the 

number of each species predicted to 

occur within the daily ensonified area, 

using estimated marine mammal 

densities as described above. In this 

case, estimated marine mammal density 

values varied between the turbine 

positions, inter-array cable route 

corridor survey areas, and export cable 

route corridors; therefore, the estimated 

number of each species taken per survey 

day was calculated separately for the 

these survey areas. Estimated numbers 

of each species taken per day are then 

multiplied by the number of survey 

days to generate an estimate of the total 

number of each species expected to be 

taken over the duration of the survey. In 

this case, as the estimated number of 

each species taken per day varied 

depending on survey area (turbine 

positions, inter-array cable route, and 

export cable route corridor), the number 

of each species taken per day in each 

respective survey area was multiplied 

by the number of survey days 

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

survey days each in the turbine position 

location and inter-array cable route, and 

60 survey days in the export cable route 

corridor portion of the survey) to get a 

total number of takes per species in each 

respective survey area. 

As described above, due to the very 

small estimated distances to Level A 

harassment thresholds (based on both 

SELcum and peak SPL; Table 4), and in 

consideration of the mitigation 

measures that must be implemented, the 

likelihood of the proposed survey 

resulting in take in the form of Level A 

harassment is considered so unlikely as 

to be discountable. Authorized take 

numbers are shown in Table 6. As 

described above, the zone of influence 

(ZOI) were calculated based on the 

sound source with the largest isopleths 

to the regulatory thresholds (the 

Innomar Medium 100 sub-bottom 

profiler) without consideration of the 

fact that this equipment operates 

beyond the best hearing capability of LF 

cetaceans, so calculated takes of these 

species are likely to be overestimates 

due to the fact that we would not 

necessarily expect LF cetaceans to be 

harassed by sound produced by this 

equipment. Additionally, as shown in 

Table 3, the Geo-Source 800 Sparker has 

the next largest Level B harassment 

threshold distance of 20 m, which is 

well within the required distance of 100 

m for which vessels are required to 

avoid large cetaceans. Therefore, take 

for all low frequency cetaceans have 

been adjusted to zero. 

TABLE 6—NUMBERS OF INCIDENTAL TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS CALCULATED AND AUTHORIZED FOR LEVEL B 

HARASSMENT

Species 

Turbine positions Export cable route Inter-array cable route Totals 

Max. 

seasonal 

density a

(#/100 km 2) 

Calculated 

takes 

Max. 

seasonal 

density a

(#/100 km 2) 

Calculated 

takes 

Max. 

seasonal 

density a

(#/100 km 2) 

Calculated 

takes 

Adjusted 

take 

% of 

population 

North Atlantic right whale 0.003 0.018 0.003 0.070 0.003 0.018 b c 0 0.000 

Humpback whale ............. 0.018 0.097 0.018 0.387 0.018 0.097 b c 0 0.000 

Fin whale .......................... 0.107 0.570 0.107 2.279 0.107 0.570 b c 0 0.00 

Minke whale ..................... 0.027 0.144 0.027 0.575 0.027 0.144 b c 0 0.39 

Bottlenose dolphin—N 

Coastal Migratory ......... 13.991 74.691 13.991 298.765 13.991 74.691 cde 350 9.33 

Bottlenose dolphin—Offshore ............................. 13.991 74.691 13.991 298.765 13.991 74.691 cde 350 9.33 

Atlantic spotted dolphin .... 0.899 4.800 1.231 26.289 0.899 4.800 d 300 0.67 

Common dolphin .............. 2.501 13.349 2.501 53.397 2.501 13.349 d 400 0.57 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin ............................... 0.389 2.076 0.389 8.305 0.389 2.076 d 200 0.41 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2018 / Notices 39071 

TABLE 6—NUMBERS OF INCIDENTAL TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS CALCULATED AND AUTHORIZED FOR LEVEL B 

HARASSMENT—Continued 

Species 

Turbine positions Export cable route Inter-array cable route Totals 

Max. 

seasonal 

density a

(#/100 km 2) 

Calculated 

takes 

Max. 

seasonal 

density a

(#/100 km 2) 

Calculated 

takes 

Max. 

seasonal 

density a

(#/100 km 2) 

Calculated 

takes 

Adjusted 

take 

% of 

population 

Risso’s dolphin ................. 0.007 0.035 0.001 0019 0.007 0.035 0 0.00 

Short-finned/long-finned 

pilot whale .................... 0.058 0.310 0.025 0.532 0.058 0.310 f 15 0.27 

Harbor porpoise ............... 0.272 1.452 0.230 4.915 0.272 1.452 6 0.01 

Harbor seal ...................... 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 5 0.007 

Gray seal .......................... 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 

a Density values from Duke University (Roberts et al., 2016). b Mitigation (exclusion zone) will prevent take. 

cTake calculations based on largest Level B harassment isopleth; however, the sound source is 50 kHz beyond the best hearing sensitivity for 

LF cetaceans and the Level B harassment isopleth for the next largest source is 20 m, which is well within the required 100-m exclusion zone for 

large whales. No take has been authorized for LF cetaceans. d Calculated take has been modified to account for increases in actual sighting data to date (Smultea Environmental Sciences 2016; Gardline 

2016b) based on similar project activities. eTake adjusted to account for possible overlap of the Western North Atlantic southern migratory coastal and offshore stocks. 

fTake adjusted to account for potential overlap of stocks (assume 50 percent of each). 

Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under 

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, 

NMFS must set forth the permissible 

methods of taking pursuant to such 

activity, and other means of effecting 

the least practicable impact on such 

species or stock and its habitat, paying 

particular attention to rookeries, mating 

grounds, and areas of similar 

significance, and on the availability of 

such species or stock for taking for 

certain subsistence uses (latter not 

applicable for this action). NMFS 

regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting such activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, we carefully consider two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat. This considers 

the nature of the potential adverse 

impact being mitigated (likelihood, 

scope, range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned) the likelihood 

of effective implementation (probability 

implemented as planned), and; 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as relative 

cost and impact on operations. 

Mitigation Measures 

With NMFS’ input during the 

application process, and as per the 

BOEM Lease, Dominion must 

implement the following mitigation 

measures during the proposed marine 

site characterization surveys. 

Marine Mammal Exclusion and Watch 

Zones 

Marine mammal exclusion zones (EZ) 

must be established around the HRG 

survey equipment and monitored by 

protected species observers (PSO) 

during HRG surveys as follows: 

• 50 m (164.0 ft) EZ for harbor 

porpoises, which is the extent of the 

largest calculated distance to the 

potential for onset of PTS (Level A 

harassment); 

• 100 m (328.1 ft) EZ for ESA-listed 

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

the largest calculated distance to the 

potential for behavioral harassment 

(Level B behavioral harassment), and for 

species for which authorization has not 

been granted, or for species for which 

authorization has been granted but the 

authorized number of takes have been 

met; and 

• 500 m (1,640.4 ft) EZ for North 

Atlantic right whales. In addition, PSOs 

must visually monitor to the extent of 

the Level B zone (100 m (328.1 ft)) for 

all other marine mammal species not 

listed above. 

Visual Monitoring 

Visual monitoring of the established 

exclusion and monitoring zones must be 

performed by qualified and NMFSapproved PSOs. It must be the 

responsibility of the Lead PSO on duty 

to communicate the presence of marine 

mammals as well as to communicate 

and enforce the action(s) that are 

necessary to ensure mitigation and 

monitoring requirements are 

implemented as appropriate. PSOs must 

be equipped with binoculars and have 

the ability to estimate distances to 

marine mammals located in proximity 

to the vessel and/or exclusion zone 

using range finders. Reticulated 

binoculars must also be available to 

PSOs for use as appropriate based on 

conditions and visibility to support the 

siting and monitoring of marine species. 

Digital single-lens reflex camera 

equipment must be used to record 

sightings and verify species 

identification. During surveys 

conducted at night, night-vision 

equipment and infrared technology 

must be available for PSO use. 

Pre-Clearance of the Exclusion Zone 

For all HRG survey activities, 

Dominion must implement a 30-minute 

pre-clearance period of the relevant EZs 

prior to the initiation of HRG survey 

equipment. During this period the EZs 

must be monitored by PSOs, using the 

appropriate visual technology for a 30- 

minute period. HRG survey equipment 

must not be initiated if marine 

mammals are observed within or 

approaching the relevant EZs during 

this pre-clearance period. If a marine 

mammal were observed within or 

approaching the relevant EZ during the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
39072 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2018 / Notices 

pre-clearance period, ramp-up must not 

begin until the animal(s) has been 

observed exiting the EZ or until an 

additional time period has elapsed with 

no further sighting of the animal (15 

minutes for small delphinoid cetaceans 

and pinnipeds and 30 minutes for all 

other species). This pre-clearance 

requirement must include small 

cetaceans (dolphins and harbor 

porpoises) that approach the vessel (e.g., 

bow ride). PSOs must also continue to 

monitor the zone for 30 minutes after 

survey equipment is shut down or 

survey activity has concluded. 

Ramp-Up of Survey Equipment 

Where technically feasible, a ramp-up 

procedure must be used for HRG survey 

equipment capable of adjusting energy 

levels at the start or re-start of HRG 

survey activities. The ramp-up 

procedure must be used at the beginning 

of HRG survey activities in order to 

provide additional protection to marine 

mammals near the survey area by 

allowing them to vacate the area prior 

to the commencement of survey 

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

smallest acoustic equipment at its 

lowest practical power output 

appropriate for the survey. When 

technically feasible the power must then 

be gradually turned up and other 

acoustic sources added in way such that 

the source level would increase 

gradually. 

Shutdown Procedures 

If a marine mammal is observed 

within or approaching the relevant EZ 

(as described above) an immediate 

shutdown of the survey equipment is 

required. Subsequent restart of the 

survey equipment must only occur after 

the animal(s) has either been observed 

exiting the relevant EZ or until an 

additional time period has elapsed with 

no further sighting of the animal (15 

minutes for harbor porpoises and 30 

minutes for all other species). 

If the HRG equipment shuts down for 

reasons other than mitigation (i.e., 

mechanical or electronic failure) 

resulting in the cessation of the survey 

equipment for a period greater than 20 

minutes, a 30 minute pre-clearance 

period (as described above) must 

precede the restart of the HRG survey 

equipment. If the pause is less than less 

than 20 minutes, the equipment shall be 

restarted as soon as practicable at its full 

operational level only if visual surveys 

were continued diligently throughout 

the silent period and the EZs remained 

clear of marine mammals during that 

entire period. If visual surveys were not 

continued diligently during the pause of 

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

must precede the re-start of the HRG 

survey equipment. Following a 

shutdown, HRG survey equipment shall 

be restarted following pre-clearance of 

the zones as described above. 

Vessel Strike Avoidance 

Dominion must ensure that vessel 

operators and crew maintain a vigilant 

watch for cetaceans and pinnipeds by 

slowing down or stopping the vessel to 

avoid striking marine mammals. Survey 

vessel crew members responsible for 

navigation duties must receive sitespecific training on marine mammal 

sighting/reporting and vessel strike 

avoidance measures. Vessel strike 

avoidance measures must include, but 

are not limited to, the following, except 

under circumstances when complying 

with these requirements would put the 

safety of the vessel or crew at risk: 

• All vessel operators and crew must 

maintain vigilant watch for cetaceans 

and pinnipeds, and slow down or stop 

their vessel to avoid striking these 

protected species; 

• All vessel operators must comply 

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

restrictions in any DMA. This applies to 

all vessels operating at any time of year. 

In addition (if applicable, as surveys are 

not anticipated to occur during this time 

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

operating from November 1 through 

April 30 must operate at speeds of 10 kn 

or less; 

• All vessel operators must reduce 

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

less when any large whale, any mother/ 

calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages of 

non-delphinoid cetaceans are observed 

near (within 100 m (330 ft)) an 

underway vessel; 

• All survey vessels must maintain a 

separation distance of 500 m (1640 ft) or 

greater from any sighted North Atlantic 

right whale; 

• If underway, vessels must steer a 

course away from any sighted North 

Atlantic right whale at 10 kn (18.5 km/ 

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

minimum separation distance has been 

established. If a North Atlantic right 

whale is sighted in a vessel’s path, or 

within 500 m (1640 ft)) to an underway 

vessel, the underway vessel must reduce 

speed and shift the engine to neutral. 

Engines must not be engaged until the 

North Atlantic right whale has moved 

outside of the vessel’s path and beyond 

500 m. If stationary, the vessel must not 

engage engines until the North Atlantic 

right whale has moved beyond 100 m; 

• All vessels must maintain a 

separation distance of 100 m (330 ft) or 

greater from any sighted non-delphinoid 

cetacean. If sighted, the vessel 

underway must reduce speed and shift 

the engine to neutral, and must not 

engage the engines until the nondelphinoid cetacean has moved outside 

of the vessel’s path and beyond 100 m. 

If a survey vessel is stationary, the 

vessel must not engage engines until the 

non-delphinoid cetacean has moved out 

of the vessel’s path and beyond 100 m; 

• All vessels must maintain a 

separation distance of 100 m or greater 

from any sighted non-delphinoid 

cetacean. If sighted, the vessel 

underway must reduce speed and shift 

the engine to neutral, and must not 

engage the engines until the nondelphinoid cetacean has moved outside 

of the vessel’s path and beyond 100 m. 

If a survey vessel is stationary, the 

vessel must not engage the engines until 

the non-delphinoid cetacean has moved 

out of the vessel’s path and beyond 

100 m. 

• Any vessel underway must remain 

parallel to a sighted delphinoid 

cetacean’s course whenever possible, 

and avoid excessive speed or abrupt 

changes in direction. Any vessel 

underway must reduce vessel speed to 

10 kn (18.5 km/hr) or less when pods 

(including mother/calf pairs) or large 

assemblages of delphinoid cetaceans are 

observed. Vessels must not adjust 

course and speed until the delphinoid 

cetaceans have moved beyond 50 m 

and/or the abeam of the underway 

vessel; 

• All vessels underway must not 

divert or alter course in order to 

approach any whale, delphinoid 

cetacean, or pinniped. Any vessel 

underway must avoid excessive speed 

or abrupt changes in direction to avoid 

injury to the sighted cetacean or 

pinniped; and 

• All vessels must maintain a 

separation distance of 50 m (164 ft) or 

greater from any sighted pinniped. 

Seasonal Operating Requirements 

Between watch shifts, members of the 

monitoring team must consult NMFS’ 

North Atlantic right whale reporting 

systems for the presence of North 

Atlantic right whales throughout survey 

operations. The proposed survey 

activities will occur in the vicinity of 

the Right Whale Mid-Atlantic SMA 

located at the mouth of the Chesapeake 

Bay. The proposed survey start date in 

August, 2018 and would last for up to 

three months. Therefore, it is possible 

that the HRG survey activities would 

occur outside of the seasonal mandatory 

speed restriction period for this SMA 

(November 1 through April 30). 

Members of the monitoring team must 

monitor the NMFS North Atlantic right 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2018 / Notices 39073 

whale reporting systems for the 

establishment of a Dynamic 

Management Area (DMA). If NMFS 

should establish a DMA in the survey 

area, within 24 hours of the 

establishment of the DMA Dominion 

must work with NMFS to shut down 

and/or alter the survey activities as 

needed to avoid right whales to the 

extent possible. 

These mitigation measures are 

designed to avoid the already low 

potential for injury in addition to some 

Level B harassment, and to minimize 

the potential for vessel strikes. There are 

no known marine mammal feeding 

areas, rookeries, or mating grounds in 

the survey area that would otherwise 

potentially warrant increased mitigation 

measures for marine mammals or their 

habitat (or both). The proposed survey 

would occur in an area that has been 

identified as a biologically important 

area for migration for North Atlantic 

right whales. However, given the small 

spatial extent of the survey area relative 

to the substantially larger spatial extent 

of the right whale migratory area, the 

survey is not expected to appreciably 

reduce migratory habitat nor to 

negatively impact the migration of 

North Atlantic right whales, thus 

additional mitigation to address the 

proposed survey’s occurrence in North 

Atlantic right whale migratory habitat is 

not warranted. Further, these mitigation 

measures are practicable for the 

applicant to implement. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

mitigation measures, NMFS has 

determined that the measures provide 

the means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on the affected 

species or stocks and their habitat, 

paying particular attention to rookeries, 

mating grounds, and areas of similar 

significance. 

Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the 

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present in the proposed action area. 

Effective reporting is critical both to 

compliance as well as ensuring that the 

most value is obtained from the required 

monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density); 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

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

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

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

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

feeding areas); 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors; 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) Long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks; 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat); and 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Monitoring Measures 

As described above, visual monitoring 

of the EZs and monitoring zone must be 

performed by qualified and NMFSapproved PSOs. Observer qualifications 

must include direct field experience on 

a marine mammal observation vessel 

and/or aerial surveys and completion of 

a PSO training program, as appropriate. 

An observer team comprising a 

minimum of four NMFS-approved PSOs 

operating in shifts, must be employed 

by Dominion during the proposed 

surveys. PSOs must work in shifts such 

that no one monitor must work more 

than 4 consecutive hours without a 2 

hour break or longer than 12 hours 

during any 24-hour period. During 

daylight hours the PSOs must rotate in 

shifts of one on and three off, while 

during nighttime operations PSOs must 

work in pairs. During ramp-up 

procedures, two PSOs must be required. 

Each PSO must monitor 360 degrees of 

the field of vision. 

Also as described above, PSOs must 

be equipped with binoculars and have 

the ability to estimate distances to 

marine mammals located in proximity 

to the vessel and/or exclusion zone 

using range finders. Reticulated 

binoculars must also be available to 

PSOs for use as appropriate based on 

conditions and visibility to support the 

siting and monitoring of marine species. 

Digital single-lens reflex camera 

equipment must be used to record 

sightings and verify species 

identification. During night operations, 

night-vision equipment, and infrared 

technology must be used to increase the 

ability to detect marine mammals. 

Position data must be recorded using 

hand-held or vessel global positioning 

system (GPS) units for each sighting. 

Observations must take place from the 

highest available vantage point on the 

survey vessel. General 360-degree 

scanning must occur during the 

monitoring periods, and target scanning 

by the PSO must occur when alerted of 

a marine mammal presence. 

Data on all PSO observations must be 

recorded based on standard PSO 

collection requirements. This must 

include dates and locations of survey 

operations; time of observation, location 

and weather; details of the sightings 

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

known), numbers, behavior); and details 

of any observed ‘‘taking’’ (behavioral 

disturbances). The data sheet must be 

provided to NMFS for review and 

approval prior to the start of survey 

activities. In addition, prior to initiation 

of survey work, all crew members must 

undergo environmental training, a 

component of which must focus on the 

procedures for sighting and protection 

of marine mammals. A briefing must 

also be conducted between the survey 

supervisors and crews, the PSOs, and 

Dominion. The purpose of the briefing 

must be to establish responsibilities of 

each party, define the chains of 

command, discuss communication 

procedures, provide an overview of 

monitoring purposes, and review 

operational procedures. 

Reporting Measures 

Dominion must provide the following 

reports as necessary during survey 

activities: 

Notification of Injured or Dead 

Marine Mammals—In the unanticipated 

event that the specified HRG activities 

lead to an injury of a marine mammal 

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

ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or 

entanglement), Dominion must 

immediately cease the specified 

activities and report the incident to the 

Chief of the Permits and Conservation 

Division, Office of Protected Resources 

and the NMFS Greater Atlantic 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
39074 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2018 / Notices 

Stranding Coordinator. The report must 

include the following information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the incident; 

• Name and type of vessel involved; 

• Vessel’s speed during and leading 

up to the incident; 

• Description of the incident; 

• Status of all sound source use in the 

24 hours preceding the incident; 

• Water depth; 

• Environmental conditions (e.g., 

wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea 

state, cloud cover, and visibility); 

• Description of all marine mammal 

observations in the 24 hours preceding 

the incident; 

• Species identification or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Fate of the animal(s); and 

• Photographs or video footage of the 

animal(s) (if equipment is available). 

Activities must not resume until 

NMFS is able to review the 

circumstances of the event. NMFS shall 

work with Dominion to minimize 

reoccurrence of such an event in the 

future. Dominion must not resume 

activities until notified by NMFS. 

In the event that Dominion discovers 

an injured or dead marine mammal and 

determines that the cause of the injury 

or death is unknown and the death is 

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

moderate state of decomposition), 

Dominion must immediately report the 

incident to the Chief of the Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources and the NMFS 

Greater Atlantic Stranding Coordinator. 

The report must include the same 

information identified in the paragraph 

above. Activities must be able to 

continue while NMFS reviews the 

circumstances of the incident. NMFS 

must work with Dominion to determine 

if modifications in the activities are 

appropriate. 

In the event that Dominion discovers 

an injured or dead marine mammal and 

determines that the injury or death is 

not associated with or related to the 

activities authorized in the IHA (e.g., 

previously wounded animal, carcass 

with moderate to advanced 

decomposition, or scavenger damage), 

Dominion must report the incident to 

the Chief of the Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, and the NMFS 

Greater Atlantic Regional Stranding 

Coordinator, within 24 hours of the 

discovery. Dominion must provide 

photographs or video footage (if 

available) or other documentation of the 

stranded animal sighting to NMFS. 

Dominion may continue its operations 

under such a case. 

Within 90 days after completion of 

survey activities, a final technical report 

must be provided to NMFS that fully 

documents the methods and monitoring 

protocols, summarizes the data recorded 

during monitoring, estimates the 

number of marine mammals estimated 

to have been taken during survey 

activities, and provides an 

interpretation of the results and 

effectiveness of all mitigation and 

monitoring. Any recommendations 

made by NMFS must be addressed in 

the final report prior to acceptance by 

NMFS. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

A negligible impact finding is based on 

the lack of likely adverse effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival 

(i.e., population-level effects). An 

estimate of the number of takes alone is 

not enough information on which to 

base an impact determination. In 

addition to considering estimates of the 

number of marine mammals that might 

be ‘‘taken’’ through harassment, NMFS 

considers other factors, such as the 

likely nature of any responses (e.g., 

intensity, duration), the context of any 

responses (e.g., critical reproductive 

time or location, migration), as well as 

effects on habitat, and the likely 

effectiveness of the mitigation. We also 

assess the number, intensity, and 

context of estimated takes by evaluating 

this information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’s implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the environmental baseline 

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

of the species, population size and 

growth rate where known, ongoing 

sources of human-caused mortality, or 

ambient noise levels). 

To avoid repetition, our analysis 

applies to all the species listed in Tables 

8 and 9, given that NMFS expects the 

anticipated effects of the proposed 

survey to be similar in nature. 

NMFS does not anticipate that injury, 

serious injury, or mortality would occur 

as a result of Dominion’s proposed 

survey, even in the absence of 

mitigation. Thus the authorization does 

not authorize any serious injury or 

mortality. Non-auditory physical effects 

and vessel strike are not expected to 

occur. 

We expect that most potential takes 

would be in the form of short-term Level 

B behavioral harassment in the form of 

temporary avoidance of the area or 

decreased foraging (if such activity were 

occurring), reactions that are considered 

to be of low severity and with no lasting 

biological consequences (e.g., Southall 

et al., 2007). 

Potential impacts to marine mammal 

habitat were discussed in the notice of 

proposed IHA (83 FR 26968; June 11, 

2018, see Potential Effects of the 

Specified Activity on Marine Mammals 

and their Habitat). Marine mammal 

habitat may be impacted by elevated 

sound levels, but these impacts would 

be temporary. In addition to being 

temporary and short in overall duration, 

the acoustic footprint of the proposed 

survey is small relative to the overall 

distribution of the animals in the area 

and their use of the area. Feeding 

behavior is not likely to be significantly 

impacted, as no areas of biological 

significance for marine mammal feeding 

are known to exist in the survey area. 

Prey species are mobile and are broadly 

distributed throughout the project area; 

therefore, marine mammals that may be 

temporarily displaced during survey 

activities are expected to be able to 

resume foraging once they have moved 

away from areas with disturbing levels 

of underwater noise. Because of the 

temporary nature of the disturbance, the 

availability of similar habitat and 

resources in the surrounding area, and 

the lack of important or unique marine 

mammal feeding habitat, the impacts to 

marine mammals and the food sources 

that they utilize are not expected to 

cause significant or long-term 

consequences for individual marine 

mammals or their populations. In 

addition, there are no rookeries or 

mating or calving areas known to be 

biologically important to marine 

mammals within the proposed project 

area. 

The proposed survey area is within a 

biologically important migratory area for 

North Atlantic right whales (effective 

March–April and November–December) 

that extends from Massachusetts to 

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

coast of Virginia, this biologically 

important migratory area extends from 

the coast to the just beyond the shelf 

break. Due to the fact that that the 

proposed survey is temporary and short 

in overall duration, and the fact that the 

spatial acoustic footprint of the 

proposed survey is very small relative to 

the spatial extent of the available 

migratory habitat in the area, North 

Atlantic right whale migration is not 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 153 / Wednesday, August 8, 2018 / Notices 39075 

expected to be impacted by the 

proposed survey. 

Mitigation measures are expected to 

reduce the number and/or severity of 

takes by (1) giving animals the 

opportunity to move away from the 

sound source before HRG survey 

equipment reaches full energy; (2) 

preventing animals from being exposed 

to sound levels that may otherwise 

result in injury. Additional vessel strike 

avoidance requirements will further 

mitigate potential impacts to marine 

mammals during vessel transit to and 

within the survey area. 

NMFS concludes that exposures to 

marine mammal species and stocks due 

to Dominion’s proposed survey would 

result in only short-term (temporary and 

short in duration) effects to individuals 

exposed. Marine mammals may 

temporarily avoid the immediate area, 

but are not expected to permanently 

abandon the area. Major shifts in habitat 

use, distribution, or foraging success are 

not expected. NMFS does not anticipate 

the authorized take estimates to impact 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our determination that the impacts 

resulting from this activity are not 

expected to adversely affect the species 

or stock through effects on annual rates 

of recruitment or survival: 

• No mortality or serious injury is 

anticipated or authorized; 

• No injury is anticipated or 

authorized; 

• The anticipated impacts of the 

proposed activity on marine mammals 

would be limited to temporary 

behavioral changes due to avoidance of 

the area around the survey vessel; 

• Alternate areas of similar habitat 

value for marine mammals to 

temporarily vacate the survey area 

during the proposed survey and avoid 

exposure to sounds from the activity are 

available; 

• The proposed project area does not 

contain areas of significance for feeding, 

mating or calving; 

• Effects on species that serve as prey 

species for marine mammals from the 

proposed survey are expected to be 

minimal; 

• Mitigation measures, including 

visual and acoustic monitoring and 

shutdowns, are expected to minimize 

potential impacts to marine mammals. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

monitoring and mitigation measures, 

NMFS finds that the total marine 

mammal take from the proposed activity 

will have a negligible impact on all 

affected marine mammal species or 

stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of incidental take may be authorized 

under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA 

for specified activities other than 

military readiness activities. The MMPA 

does not define small numbers and so, 

in practice, where estimated numbers 

are available, NMFS compares the 

number of individuals taken to the most 

appropriate estimation of abundance of 

the relevant species or stock in our 

determination of whether an 

authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

The numbers of marine mammals that 

we authorized to be taken would be 

considered small relative to the relevant 

stocks or populations for all species and 

stocks (less than 10 percent of 

bottlenose dolphin stocks, and less than 

1 percent of each of the other species 

and stocks). See Tables 6 and 7. Based 

on the analysis contained herein of the 

proposed activity (including the 

mitigation and monitoring measures) 

and the anticipated take of marine 

mammals, NMFS finds that small 

numbers of marine mammals will be 

taken relative to the population size of 

the affected species or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of the affected marine mammal stocks or 

species implicated by this action. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

the total taking of affected species or 

stocks would not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

such species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

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

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

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

incidental harassment authorization) 

with respect to potential impacts on the 

human environment. 

This action is consistent with 

categories of activities identified in 

Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental 

harassment authorizations with no 

anticipated serious injury or mortality) 

of the Companion Manual for NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6A, which do 

not individually or cumulatively have 

the potential for significant impacts on 

the quality of the human environment 

and for which we have not identified 

any extraordinary circumstances that 

would preclude this categorical 

exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has 

determined that the issuance of the IHA 

qualifies to be categorically excluded 

from further NEPA review. We have 

reviewed all comments submitted in 

response to the proposed IHA notice 

prior to concluding our NEPA process 

and making this final decision on the 

IHA request. 

Endangered Species Act 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.) requires that each Federal agency 

insure that any action it authorizes, 

funds, or carries out is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

any endangered or threatened species or 

result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of designated critical 

habitat. 

The NMFS Office of Protected 

Resources is proposing mitigation to 

avoid the incidental take of the species 

of marine mammals which are likely to 

be present and are listed under the ESA: 

The North Atlantic right and fin whales. 

Therefore, consultation under section 7 

of the ESA is not required. 

Authorization 

NMFS has issued an IHA to Dominion 

for conducting UXO surveys offshore 

Virginia for a period of one year, 

provided the previously mentioned 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

requirements are incorporated. 

Dated: July 31, 2018. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–16885 Filed 8–7–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Proposed Information Collection; 

Comment Request; Northeast 

Multispecies Amendment 16 

AGENCY: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Commerce, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork and 

respondent burden, invites the general 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES