39692 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Notices 

Guadalquivir S.L. (AG). Specifically, 

Commerce listed AG’s estimated 

weighted-average dumping margin as 

17.45 percent and AG’s cash deposit 

rate as 17.46 percent. 

Correction 

Commerce has corrected AG’s 

weighted-average antidumping duty 

margin percentage to 17.46 percent and 

AG’s cash deposit rate to 17.45 percent. 

The weighted-average antidumping duty 

margin percentages and cash deposit 

rates remain unchanged from the 

Antidumping Duty Order for all other 

companies. The weighted-average 

antidumping duty margin percentages 

and cash deposit rates are as follows: 

Exporter/producer 

Estimated 

weightedaverage 

dumping 

margin 

(percent) 

Cash deposit 

rate 

(percent) 2

Aceitunas Guadalquivir S.L ..................................................................................................................................... 17.46 17.45 

Agro Sevilla Aceitunas S.COOP Andalusia ............................................................................................................ 25.50 25.39 

Angel Camacho Alimentacion S.L ........................................................................................................................... 16.88 16.83 

All-Others ................................................................................................................................................................. 20.04 19.98 

2The cash deposit rate is equal to the calculated estimated weighted-average dumping margin adjusted for the appropriate subsidy offset(s). 

This correction to the Antidumping 

Duty Order is published in accordance 

with section 736(a) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended. 

Dated: August 7, 2018. 

James Maeder, 

Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations performing the duties of Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17202 Filed 8–9–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XG170 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to a Marine 

Geophysical Survey in the Northwest 

Atlantic Ocean 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental 

harassment authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

regulations implementing the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as 

amended, notification is hereby given 

that NMFS has issued an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) to USGS 

to incidentally harass, by Level B 

harassment only, marine mammals 

during geophysical survey activities 

associated with a the USGS’s MidAtlantic Resource Imaging Experiment 

(MATRIX) survey project in the 

Northwest Atlantic Ocean. 

DATES: This Authorization is effective 

from August 1, 2018 to July 31, 2019. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jonathan Molineaux, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

Electronic copies of the application and 

supporting documents, as well as a list 

of the references cited in this document, 

may be obtained online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-research-and-otheractivities. In case of problems accessing 

these documents, please call the contact 

listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

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

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

the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated 

to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the 

incidental, but not intentional, taking of 

small numbers of marine mammals by 

U.S. citizens who engage in a specified 

activity (other than commercial fishing) 

within a specified geographical region if 

certain findings are made and either 

regulations are issued or, if the taking is 

limited to harassment, a notice of a 

proposed authorization is provided to 

the public for review. 

An authorization for incidental 

takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 

that the taking will have a negligible 

impact on the species or stock(s), will 

not have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of the species or 

stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 

relevant), and if the permissible 

methods of taking and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth. 

NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact 

resulting from the specified activity that 

cannot be reasonably expected to, and is 

not reasonably likely to, adversely affect 

the species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’ 

The MMPA states that the term ‘‘take’’ 

means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or 

attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill 

any marine mammal. 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) 

has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

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

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering (Level B 

harassment). 

Summary of Request 

On March 20, 2018, NMFS received a 

request from USGS for an IHA to take 

marine mammals incidental to a marine 

geophysical survey in the northwest 

Atlantic Ocean. On April 11, 2018, we 

deemed USGS’s application for 

authorization to be adequate and 

complete. USGS requests to take small 

numbers of 29 species of marine 

mammals by Level B harassment only 

during the survey. Neither USGS nor 

NMFS expects serious injury or 

mortality to result from this activity; 

and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. 

Description of Activity 

The USGS will conduct a seismic 

survey aboard the R/V Hugh R. Sharp, 

a University National Oceanographic 

Laboratory (UNOLS) Federal fleet vessel 

that is owned and operated by the 

University of Delaware, during a cruise 

up to 22 days long on the northern U.S. 

Atlantic margin in August 2018. The 

seismic survey will take place in water 

depths ranging from ∼100 meters (m) to 

3,500 m, entirely within the U.S. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Notices 39693 

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), and 

acquire ∼6 dip lines (roughly 

perpendicular to the orientation of the 

shelf-break) and ∼3 strike lines (roughly 

parallel to the shelf-break) between 

about 35 nautical miles (nmi) south of 

Hudson Canyon on the north and Cape 

Hatteras on the south. In addition, 

multichannel seismic (MCS) data will 

be acquired along some linking/transit/ 

interseismic lines between the main 

survey lines. Total data acquisition 

could be up to ∼2,400 kilometers (km) 

of trackline. 

The purpose of the MATRIX survey is 

to collect data to constrain the lateral 

and vertical distribution of gas hydrates 

and shallow natural gas in marine 

sediments relative to seafloor gas seeps, 

slope failures, and geological and 

erosional features. 

The seismic survey’s airgun 

operations are scheduled to occur for up 

to 19 days during a cruise that may be 

as long as 22 days, departing port on 

August 8, 2018. Some minor deviation 

from these dates is possible, depending 

on logistics and weather. 

The survey will involve only one 

source vessel, the R/V Hugh R. Sharp. 

The source vessel will deploy two to 

four low-energy Generator-Injector (GI) 

airguns (each with a discharge volume 

of 105 cubic inches (in3)) as an energy 

source. The GI guns could sometimes be 

fired in a mode that gives them a 

discharge volume of 210 in3 each, but 

only at water depths greater than 1000 

m (See description of Optimal Survey 

below for more details). 

The Optimal Survey (GG mode) (See 

Table 1) for the Proposed Action would 

acquire the portion of the solid lines in 

Figure 1 of the IHA application at water 

depths greater than 1000 m using the GIguns in ‘‘GG’’ mode. In this mode, the 

four GI guns would produce a total of 

840 in3 of air and sonobuoys would be 

deployed to passively record data at 

long distances. When shooting to 

sonobuoys while in GG mode, the GI 

guns will be operated with both 

chambers releasing air simultaneously 

(i.e., ‘‘generator-generator’’ or ‘‘GG’’ 

mode). The rest of the survey, including 

the portion shallower than 1000 m 

water depth on the uppermost slope and 

the interseismic linking lines (dashed 

lines in Figure 1), would be acquired 

with four GI guns operated in normal 

mode (also called GI mode), producing 

a total of 420 in3 of air. 

The Base Survey (GI mode) (See Table 

1) assumes that all of the solid lines in 

Figure 1, as well as all of the 

interseismic connecting lines, would be 

acquired using four GI guns operating in 

normal mode (GI mode), producing a 

total air volume of 420 in3. Only a 

maximum of half of the interseismic 

linking lines (dashed lines in Figure 1) 

would be acquired. These lines are 

longer and geometrically more complex 

at the deepwater side than near the 

shelf-break. 

TABLE 1—GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF EXEMPLARY SURVEY SCENARIOS FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

GI mode 

(4 × 105 in3) 

GG mode 

(4 × 210 in3) 

Depth and line type 

Track line 

distance 

(km) 

Depth and line type Track line 

distance 

Optimal Survey .. 100–1,000 m water depth on exemplary 

lines and 50% of interseismic, linking 

lines.

∼750 Greater than 1,000 m on exemplary lines ... ∼1,600 

Base Survey ...... Exemplary lines plus 50% of interseismic, 

linking lines.

2,350 ....................................................................... ........................

During the cruise, the USGS would 

continuously use an echosounder 

(EK60/EK80) with 38 kHz transducer at 

water depths less than ∼1,800 m to 

locate water column anomalies 

associated with seafloor seeps emitting 

gas bubbles. The 38 kHz transducer 

would be mounted in the R/V Sharp’s 

retractable keel and would typically 

ping 0.5 to 2 Hz with pings of 0.256 to 

1.024 millisecond (m/s) duration. The 

returned signals would be detected on 

an EK60 or EK80 (broadband) 

transceiver. Based on past USGS 

experience with this instrument, it is 

unlikely to acquire useful data at water 

depths greater than 1,800 m, although it 

could be used in passive mode at these 

depths to record broadband ambient 

signals in the water column. 

A more detailed description of 

USGS’s MATRIX survey is provided in 

the Federal Register notice for the 

proposed IHA (83 FR 25268; May 31, 

2018). Since that time, no changes have 

been made to the planned survey 

activities. Therefore, a detailed 

description is not provided here. Please 

refer to that Federal Register notice for 

the description of the specific activity. 

Comments and Responses 

NMFS published a notice of proposed 

IHA in the Federal Register on May 31, 

2018 (83 FR 25268). During the 30-day 

public comment period, NMFS received 

a comment letter from the Marine 

Mammal Commission (Commission). 

NMFS has posted the comments online 

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

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-researchand-other-activities. The following is a 

summary of the public comments and 

NMFS’ responses. 

Comment 1: After review of the 

Federal Register notice of the proposed 

IHA (83 FR 25268; May 31, 2018) and 

IHA application for the USGS MATRIX 

survey, the Commission inferred that 

the modeling used by USGS (LamontDoherty Earth Observatory (LDEO)’s 

Nucleus Model) to predict Level A and 

Level B harassment zones applied radial 

distances (i.e., slant ranges) and radii 

indiscriminately. The Commission 

states that radial distances were used for 

metrics based on SELcum and SPL rootmean-square (SPLrms), and radii were 

used for metrics based on SPLpeak, 

which would yield smaller zones. As a 

result, the Commission recommends 

that NMFS require USGS to specify why 

LDEO’s Nucleus Model is using radial 

distances for sound exposure level 

(SELcum) and sound pressure level 

(SPLrms) metrics and radii for peak 

sound pressure (SPLpeak) metrics. 

Response: NMFS appreciates the 

Commission’s request for USGS to 

explain the specific methodology 

LDEO’s Nucleus Model uses to 

determine harassment zones. After 

consulting with LDEO, USGS has 

clarified that two different methods for 

estimating distance are not being used. 

In order to calculate harassment zones, 

LDEO uses the maximum radial 

distance at depth which it vertically 

projects from that radial distance back 

to the surface. This provides a 

horizontal radius from the source. 

Comment 2: The Commission 

recommends NMFS provide 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
39694 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Notices 

justification for why it believes that 

LDEO’s use of the Nucleus source 

model, which does not provide data 

above 2.5 kHz, is appropriate for 

determining the extents of the Level A 

harassment zones for mid-frequency and 

high-frequency cetaceans. 

Response: Few broadband calibration 

studies are available to support the 

modeling of airgun spectra above 3 kHz 

(e.g., Tolstoy et al. 2004; Breitzke et al. 

2008; Tolstoy et al. 2009). 

Measurements available indicate that 

most of the sound produced by airguns 

is below 1 kHz (i.e., spectral levels drop 

off continuously above 1 kHz). 

Despite JASCO’s AASM model 

predicting acoustic signatures of seismic 

airgun arrays up to 25 kHz, often their 

transmission loss calculations do not 

directly use these data to account for 

frequencies above 5 kHz because it is 

computationally intensive (Zeddies et 

al. 2015). While NMFS agrees that the 

spectral levels above 3 kHz should not 

necessarily be assumed zero, better data 

are needed to evaluate if and how 

airguns at these frequencies are 

significantly contributing to noiseinduced hearing loss for these two 

marine mammal hearing groups. 

For both MF and HF cetaceans, the 

TTS onset impulsive thresholds NMFS 

currently relies upon are derived 

directly from individual exposed to 

seismic sources (Finneran et al. 2002; 

Lucke et al. 2009). A more recent TTS 

study on harbor porpoises exposed to 

multiple airgun shots further supports 

the current TTS onset thresholds used 

to evaluate impulsive sources (Kastelein 

et al. 2017). 

The available TTS onset data do not 

indicate that airguns are contributing 

significantly to noise-induced hearing 

loss at higher frequencies in these two 

hearing groups. Specifically, Lucke et al. 

(2009) measured harbor porpoise 

hearing at 4, 32, and 100 kHz after 

exposure to a single airgun shot, with 

TTS onset only occurring at 4 kHz. 

Similarly, Kastelein et al. (2017) 

measured a ∼4.4 dB threshold shift only 

at 4 kHz, with hearing tested up to 8 

kHz, for a harbor porpoise exposed to 

multiple airgun shots. Finally, Finneran 

et al. (2015) exposed bottlenose 

dolphins to multiple airgun shots and 

measured hearing thresholds up to 64 

kHz, without measurable TTS onset 

observed. All these studies had 

measurements demonstrating spectral 

levels above 3 kHz for their airgun 

sources. For these reasons, NMFS 

believes that LDEO’s use of the Nucleus 

source model is appropriate. NMFS 

appreciates the Commission’s interest in 

this matter and will continue to evaluate 

the available information regarding 

spectral levels of airgun signals above 3 

kHz. 

Comment 3. The Commission 

recommends that NMFS require USGS, 

in collaboration with LDEO, to reestimate the proposed Level A and B 

harassment zones and associated takes 

of marine mammals using (1) both 

operational (including number/type/ 

spacing of airguns, tow depth, source 

level/operating pressure, operational 

volume) and site-specific environmental 

(including sound speed profiles, 

bathymetry, and sediment 

characteristics at a minimum) 

parameters, (2) a comprehensive source 

model (e.g., Gundalf Optimizer or 

AASM) and (3) an appropriate sound 

propagation model. Specifically, the 

Commission reiterates its belief that 

LDEO should be using the ray-tracing 

sound propagation model BELLHOP 

rather than the MATLAB code currently 

in use. 

Response: USGS’s application (USGS, 

2018) and the Federal Register notice of 

the proposed IHA (83 FR 25268; May 

31, 2018) describe the applicant’s 

approach to modeling Level A and Level 

B harassment zones. The model LDEO 

currently uses does not allow for the 

consideration of site-specific 

environmental parameters as 

recommended by the Commission. 

In summary, LDEO acquired field 

measurements for several array 

configurations at shallow, intermediate, 

and deep-water depths during acoustic 

verification studies conducted in the 

northern Gulf of Mexico (Tolstoy et al., 

2009). Based on the empirical data from 

those studies, LDEO developed a sound 

propagation modeling approach that 

predicts received sound levels as a 

function of distance from a particular 

airgun array configuration in deep 

water. For this survey, LDEO modeled 

Level A and Level B harassment zones 

based on the empirically-derived 

measurements from the Gulf of Mexico 

calibration survey (Appendix H of NSF– 

USGS 2011). LDEO used the deep-water 

radii obtained from model results down 

to a maximum water depth of 2,000 m 

(Figure 2 and 3 in Appendix H of NSF– 

USGS 2011). 

In 2015, LDEO explored the question 

of whether the Gulf of Mexico 

calibration data described above 

adequately informs the model to predict 

harassment isopleths in other areas by 

conducting a retrospective sound power 

analysis of one of the lines acquired 

during LDEO’s seismic survey offshore 

New Jersey in 2014 (Crone, 2015). 

NMFS presented a comparison of the 

predicted radii (i.e., modeled exclusion 

zones) with radii based on in situ 

measurements (i.e., the upper bound 

[95th percentile] of the cross-line 

prediction) in a previous notice of an 

IHA issued for LDEO (see 80 FR 27635, 

May 14, 2015, Table 1). Briefly, the 

analysis presented in Crone (2015), 

specific to the survey site offshore New 

Jersey, confirmed that in-situ, sitespecific measurements and estimates of 

160 decibel (dB) and 180 dB isopleths 

collected by the hydrophone streamer of 

the R/V Marcus Langseth in shallow 

water were smaller than the modeled 

(i.e., predicted) zones for two seismic 

surveys conducted offshore New Jersey 

in shallow water in 2014 and 2015. In 

that particular case, Crone’s (2015) 

results showed that LDEO’s modeled 

180 dB and 160 dB zones were 

approximately 28 percent and 33 

percent larger respectively, than the insitu, site-specific measurements, thus 

confirming that LDEO’s model was 

conservative in that case. 

The following is a summary of two 

additional analyses of in-situ data that 

support LDEO’s use of the modeled 

Level A and Level B harassment zones 

in this particular case. In 2010, LDEO 

assessed the accuracy of their modeling 

approach by comparing the sound levels 

of the field measurements acquired in 

the Gulf of Mexico study to their model 

predictions (Diebold et al., 2010). They 

reported that the observed sound levels 

from the field measurements fell almost 

entirely below the predicted harassment 

radii curve for deep water (i.e., greater 

than 1,000 m; 3,280.8 ft) (Diebold et al., 

2010). In 2012, LDEO used a similar 

process to model distances to isopleths 

corresponding to Level A and Level B 

harassment thresholds for a shallowwater seismic survey in the northeast 

Pacific Ocean off Washington State. 

LDEO conducted the shallow-water 

survey using a 6,600 in3 airgun 

configuration aboard the R/V Marcus 

Langseth and recorded the received 

sound levels on both the shelf and slope 

using the Langseth’s 8 km hydrophone 

streamer. Crone et al. (2014) analyzed 

those received sound levels from the 

2012 survey and confirmed that in-situ, 

site specific measurements and 

estimates of the 160 dB and 180 dB 

isopleths collected by the Langseth’s 

hydrophone streamer in shallow water 

were two to three times smaller than 

LDEO’s modeling approach had 

predicted. While the results confirmed 

the role of bathymetry in sound 

propagation, Crone et al. (2014) were 

also able to confirm that the empirical 

measurements from the Gulf of Mexico 

calibration survey (the same 

measurements used to inform LDEO’s 

modeling approach for the planned 

surveys in the northwest Atlantic 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Notices 39695 

Ocean) overestimated the size of the 

exclusion and buffer zones for the 

shallow-water 2012 survey off 

Washington State and were thus 

precautionary, in that particular case. 

NMFS continues to work with LDEO 

to address the issue of incorporating 

site-specific information for future 

authorizations for seismic surveys. 

However, LDEO’s current modeling 

approach (supported by the three 

studies discussed previously) represents 

the best available information for NMFS 

to reach determinations for this IHA. As 

described earlier, the comparisons of 

LDEO’s model results and the field data 

collected at multiple locations (i.e., the 

Gulf of Mexico, offshore Washington 

State, and offshore New Jersey) illustrate 

a degree of conservativeness built into 

LDEO’s model for deep water, which 

NMFS expects to offset some of the 

limitations of the model to capture the 

variability resulting from site-specific 

factors. Based upon the best available 

information (i.e., the referenced studies, 

two of which are peer-reviewed, 

discussed in this response), NMFS finds 

that the Level A and Level B harassment 

zone calculations are reasonable and 

appropriate for use in this particular 

IHA. 

LDEO has conveyed to NMFS that 

additional modeling efforts to refine the 

process and conduct comparative 

analysis may be possible with the 

availability of research funds and other 

resources. Obtaining research funds is 

typically accomplished through a 

competitive process, including those 

submitted to U.S. Federal agencies. The 

use of models for calculating Level A 

and Level B harassment zones and for 

developing take estimates is not a 

requirement of the MMPA incidental 

take authorization process. Further, 

NMFS does not provide specific 

guidance on model parameters nor 

prescribe a specific model for applicants 

as part of the MMPA incidental take 

authorization process at this time, 

although we do review methods to 

ensure that they are adequate for 

reasonable prediction of take. There is a 

level of variability not only with 

parameters in the models, but also the 

uncertainty associated with data used in 

models, and therefore, the quality of the 

model results submitted by applicants. 

NMFS considers this variability when 

evaluating applications and the take 

estimates and mitigation measures that 

the model informs. NMFS takes into 

consideration the model used, and its 

results, in determining the potential 

impacts to marine mammals; however, 

it is just one component of the analysis 

during the MMPA authorization process 

as NMFS also takes into consideration 

other factors associated with the activity 

(e.g., geographic location, duration of 

activities, context, sound source 

intensity, etc.). 

Comment 4: The Commission 

recommends that NMFS require USGS 

to archive, analyze, and compare the insitu data collected by the sonobuoys and 

hydrophone streamer to LDEO’s 

modeling results for the extents of the 

Level A and B harassment zones based 

on the various airgun configurations and 

water depths to be surveyed and 

provide the data and results to NMFS. 

Response: NMFS will suggest that the 

USGS use its collected data to both 

analyze and compare with LDEO’s 

modeling results and share with NMFS. 

However, NMFS does not deem it 

necessary to require USGS to use the insitu data it collects from the sonobuoys 

and hydrophone streamer it deploys 

during its cruise. As stated in the 

response to Comment 2, NMFS 

continues to work with LDEO to address 

the issue of incorporating site-specific 

information for future authorizations for 

seismic surveys. Nevertheless, LDEO’s 

Nucleus model has shown to be 

conservative when compared to in-situ, 

site specific measurements and 

estimates (Crone 2015). Therefore, 

NMFS asserts that the use of the 

Nucleus source model in its current 

state is appropriate. 

Comment 5: The Commission 

recommends that NMFS ensure that 

USGS calculated the numbers of takes 

appropriately based on the linekilometers to be surveyed in each of the 

11 tracklines and the number of days it 

would take to survey each location, the 

associated ensonified areas, and sitespecific densities—species-specific 

takes from each of the 11 locations 

should be summed to yield the total 

numbers of takes for each species. 

Response: The number of days are 

factored into the take estimates. To 

calculate take, USGS used 10 km x 10 

km density grid blocks taken from 

Roberts et al. (2016) which were 

intersected with two different buffer 

zones. One buffer is equivalent to the 

largest Level A harassment zone and the 

other is equal to both the largest Level 

A harassment zone and Level B 

harassment zone (for the Optimal 

Survey) combined. As a result, the 

modeling method derived a take total 

for each 10 km x 10 km block the R/V 

Sharp will survey. Take totals for each 

block were each added (rounded at the 

end) to come up with the take estimates 

for each species. Due to the short 

duration (a few hours at most) that the 

R/V Sharp will conduct seismic 

operations in each 10 km x 10 km 

survey block, the number of days (1 day 

per block) is factored into the take 

estimates. 

Comment 6: The Commission 

recommends that NMFS require USGS 

to provide in all future applications all 

relevant information regarding linekilometers to be surveyed and days 

necessary to survey each location based 

on a presumed survey speed, associated 

ensonified areas, site-specific densities, 

and any other assumptions (including 

the assumed 25-percent contingency). 

Response: NMFS will continue to 

request as much information from 

applicants as necessary to determine if 

their take methodology is scientifically 

accurate. After NMFS’s request, USGS 

provided NMFS and the Commission 

with more data to analyze the method 

used to estimate take during the survey. 

In reviewing these data with the density 

estimates provided in Roberts et al. 

(2016), NMFS determined that the 

methodology used for take calculation 

in the IHA application is appropriate. In 

all, USGS provided NMFS with enough 

information to effectively assess the 

generated take estimates. For future 

surveys, USGS will work to provide a 

technical guidance document that will 

better detail its take methodology using 

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) 

software. 

Comment 7: The Commission 

recommends that NMFS share its 

rounding criteria. 

Response: On June 27, 2018, NMFS 

provided the Commission with internal 

guidance on rounding and the 

consideration of additional factors in 

take estimation. 

Comment 8: The Commission 

recommends that NMFS condition the 

authorization to limit USGS’s use of the 

echosounder during transits to and from 

the survey area except during 

calibration. In addition, the Commission 

recommends NMFS advise USGS that it 

needs to obtain additional authorization 

to take marine mammals while using an 

echosounder to collect gas hydrate data 

during transits to and from the survey 

area. 

Response: As stated in the IHA 

application, marine mammals would 

have to be either very close and remain 

near the sound source for many 

repeated pings to receive overall 

exposures sufficient to cause TTS onset 

(Lucke et al. 2009; Finneran and 

Schlundt 2010) from the fisheries 

echosounder. The echosounder used by 

USGS during the MATRIX survey will 

only transmit conically downward in a 

maximum 10 degree cone. Based on 

modeling by the U.S. Geological Survey, 

the area ensonified at greater than 160 

dB re: 1 mPa (rms) is 0.0407 square 

kilometers (0.0119 square nautical 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
39696 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Notices 

miles), corresponding to a maximum of 

approximately 72 meters (236.2 feet) 

athwartship and approximately 650 

meters (2,132.6 feet) below the research 

vessel (See Figure 18 of USGS 2018). 

This, combined with the vessel strike 

avoidance measures stipulated in 

section 4(f) of the IHA for the USGS 

MATRIX survey allows NMFS to concur 

that the minimal use of a scientific 

echosounder during transits is not 

reasonably likely to result in the 

incidental taking of marine mammals 

pursuant to the MMPA. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

A detailed description of the species 

likely to be affected by USGS’s 

geophysical survey, including brief 

introductions to the species and 

relevant stocks as well as available 

information regarding population trends 

and threats, and information regarding 

local occurrence, were provided in the 

Federal Register notice for the proposed 

IHA (83 FR 25268; May 31, 2018); since 

that time, we are not aware of any 

changes in the status of these species 

and stocks; therefore, detailed 

descriptions are not provided here. 

Please refer to that Federal Register 

notice for these descriptions. Please also 

refer to NMFS’ website (https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/ 

population-assessments/marinemammals) for generalized species 

accounts. All species that could 

potentially occur in the planned survey 

area are included in Table 2. However, 

density estimates in Roberts et al. (2016) 

present very low density estimates 

within the proposed action area during 

the month of August for north Atlantic 

right whale, harbor porpoise, minke 

whale, Bryde’s whale, blue whale, and 

white-beaked dolphin (See Table 6 of 

IHA Application). This, in combination 

with the short length of the cruise and 

low level airguns provide reasonable 

evidence that take authorization is not 

necessary, nor should they be 

authorized for these species. Species 

with expected take are discussed below. 

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMALS THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE PROJECT AREA

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

NMFS stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

Predicted 

abundance 

(CV) 5

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Balaenidae 

North Atlantic right whale ... Eubalaena glacialis .......... Western North Atlantic 

(WNA).

E/D; Y 458 (n/a; 455; n/a) ........... 334 (0.25) .......... 1.4 36 

Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals) 

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

novaeangliae.

Gulf of Maine ................... -; N 335 (.42; 239; 2012) ........ 1,637 (0.07) ....... 3.7 8.5 

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

acutorostrata 

acutorostrata.

Canadian East Coast ....... -; N 2,591 (0.81; 1,425; 2011) 2,112 (0.05) ....... 14 9 

Bryde’s whale ..................... B. edeni brydei ................. None defined 4 ................. -; n/a n/a .................................... 7 (0.58) .............. n/a n/a 

Sei whale ........................... B. borealis borealis .......... Nova Scotia ...................... E/D; Y 357 (0.52; 236; 2011) ...... 98 (0.25) ............ 0.5 0.8 

Fin whale ............................ B. physalus physalus ....... WNA ................................. E/D; Y 1,618 (0.33; 1,234; 2011) 4,633 (0.08) ....... 2.5 2.65 

Blue whale ......................... B. musculus musculus ..... WNA ................................. E/D; Y Unknown (n/a; 440; n/a) .. 11 (0.41) ............ 0.9 Unk 

Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Physeteridae 

Sperm whale ...................... Physeter macrocephalus North Atlantic ................... E/D; Y 2,288 (0.28; 1,815; 2011) 5,353 (0.12) ....... 3.6 0.8 

Family Kogiidae 

Pygmy sperm whale .......... Kogia breviceps ............... WNA ................................. -; N 3,785 (0.47; 2,598; 2011) 678 (0.23) .......... 21 3.5 

Dwarf sperm whale ............ K. sima ............................. WNA ................................. -; N 

Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales) 

Cuvier’s beaked whale ....... Ziphius cavirostris ............ WNA ................................. -; N 6,532 (0.32; 5,021; 2011) 14,491(0.17) ...... 50 0.4 

Gervais beaked whale ....... Mesoplodon europaeus ... WNA ................................. -; N 7,092 (0.54; 4,632; 2011) ........................... 46 0.2 

Blainville’s beaked whale ... M. densirostris .................. WNA ................................. -; N 

Sowerby’s beaked whale ... M. bidens ......................... WNA ................................. -; N 

True’s beaked whale .......... M. mirus ........................... WNA ................................. -; N 

Northern bottlenose whale Hyperoodon ampullatus ... WNA ................................. -; N Unknown .......................... 90 (0.63) ............ Undet. 0 

Family Delphinidae 

Rough-toothed dolphin ....... Steno bredanensis ........... WNA ................................. -; N 271 (1.0; 134; 2011) ........ 532 (0.36) .......... 1.3 0 

Common bottlenose dolphin.Tursiops truncatus 

truncatus.

WNA Offshore .................. -; N 77,532 (0.40; 56,053; 

2011).

97,476 (0.06) ..... 561 39.4 

Clymene dolphin ................ Stenella clymene .............. WNA ................................. -; N Unknown .......................... 12,515 (0.56) ..... Undet. 0 

Atlantic spotted dolphin ...... S. frontalis ........................ WNA ................................. -; N 44,715 (0.43; 31,610; 

2011).

55,436 (0.32) ..... 316 0 

Pantropical spotted dolphin S. attenuata attenuata ..... WNA ................................. -; N 3,333 (0.91; 1,733; 2011) 4,436 (0.33) ....... 17 0 

Spinner dolphin .................. S. longirostris longirostris WNA ................................. -; N Unknown .......................... 262 (0.93) .......... Undet. 0 

Striped dolphin ................... S. coeruleoalba ................ WNA ................................. -; N 54,807 (0.3; 42,804; 

2011).

75,657 (0.21) ..... 428 0 

Short-beaked common dolphin.Delphinus delphis delphis WNA ................................. -; N 70,184 (0.28; 55,690; 

2011).

86,098 (0.12) ..... 557 437 

Fraser’s dolphin ................. Lagenodelphis hosei ........ WNA ................................. -; N Unknown .......................... 492 (0.76) .......... Undet. 0 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin Lagenorhynchus acutus ... WNA ................................. -; N 48,819 (0.61; 30,403; 

2011).

37,180 (0.07) ..... 304 57 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Notices 39697 

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMALS THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE PROJECT AREA—Continued 

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

NMFS stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

Predicted 

abundance 

(CV) 5

PBR Annual 

M/SI 3

Risso’s dolphin ................... Grampus griseus .............. WNA ................................. -; N 18,250 (0.46; 12,619; 

2011).

7,732 (0.09) ....... 126 43.2 

Melon-headed whale .......... Peponocephala electra .... WNA ................................. -; N Unknown .......................... 1,175 (0.50) ....... Undet. 0 

Pygmy killer whale ............. Feresa attenuata .............. WNA ................................. -; N Unknown .......................... N/A .................... Undet. 0 

False killer whale ............... Pseudorca crassidens ...... WNA ................................. -; Y 442 (1.06; 212; 2011) ...... 95 (0.84) ............ 2.1 Unk. 

Killer whale ......................... Orcinus orca ..................... WNA ................................. -; N Unknown .......................... 11 ...................... Undet. 0

Short-finned pilot whale ..... Globicephala 

macrorhynchus.

WNA ................................. -; Y 21,515 (0.37; 15,913; 

2011).

18,977 (0.11) ..... 159 192 

Long-finned pilot whale ...... G. melas melas ................ WNA ................................. -; Y 5,636 (0.63; 3,464; 2011) ........................... 35 38 

White-beaked dolphin ........ Lagenorhynchus 

albirostris.

WNA ................................. -; N 2,003 (0.94; 1,023; 2007) 39 (0.42) ............ 10 0 

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises) 

Harbor porpoise ................. Phocoena phocoena 

phocoena.

Gulf of Maine/Bay of 

Fundy.

-; N 79,833 (0.32; 61,415; 

2011).

45,089 (0.12) ..... 706 307 

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

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

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

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

abundance. 3These values, found in NMFS’ SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, 

ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases. 4Bryde’s whales are occasionally reported off the southeastern U.S. and southern West Indies. NMFS defines and manages a stock of Bryde’s whales believed to 

be resident in the northern Gulf of Mexico, but does not define a separate stock in the Atlantic Ocean. 5Predicted mean abundance derived from Roberts et al. (2016). 

Note—Italicized species in the ‘‘Common Name ‘‘column are not authorized for take. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

The effect of stressors associated with 

the specified activities (e.g., seismic 

airguns) has the potential to result in 

behavioral harassment of marine 

mammals in the vicinity of the action 

areas. The Federal Register notice for 

the proposed IHA (83 FR 25268; May 

31, 2018) included a discussion of the 

effects of such disturbance on marine 

mammals, therefore that information is 

not repeated here. 

NMFS described potential impacts to 

marine mammal habitat in detail in our 

Federal Register notice of proposed 

authorization (83 FR 25268; May 31, 

2018). In summary, due to the short 

duration of the activities and the 

relatively small area of the habitat that 

the survey covers, the impacts to marine 

mammal habitat are not expected to 

cause significant or long-term negative 

consequences for individual marine 

mammals or their populations. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes for 

authorization through this IHA, which 

will inform both NMFS’s 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, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act 

of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which 

(i) has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

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

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering (Level B 

harassment). 

Authorized takes will be by Level B 

harassment only, in the form of 

disruption of behavioral patterns for 

individual marine mammals resulting 

from exposure to airguns. Based on the 

nature of the activity, the cryptic 

behavior and low density for Kogia spp. 

(the only high-frequency cetacean 

authorized for take) within the action 

areas, and the anticipated effectiveness 

of the mitigation measures (i.e., 

shutdown and a minimum vessel 

distance of 100 m from large whales— 

discussed in detail below in the 

Mitigation section), Level A harassment 

is neither anticipated nor authorized. As 

described previously, no mortality is 

anticipated or authorized for this 

activity. Below we describe how the 

take is estimated. 

Described in the most basic way, we 

estimate take by considering: (1) 

Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS 

believes the best available science 

indicates marine mammals will be 

behaviorally harassed or incur some 

degree of permanent hearing 

impairment; (2) the area or volume of 

water that will be ensonified above 

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

occurrence of marine mammals within 

these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the 

number of days of activities. Below, we 

describe these components in more 

detail and present the take estimate. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

Using the best available science, 

NMFS has developed acoustic 

thresholds that identify the received 

level of underwater sound above which 

exposed marine mammals will be 

reasonably expected to be behaviorally 

harassed (equated to Level B 

harassment) or to incur PTS of some 

degree (equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment for non-explosive 

sources—Though significantly driven by 

received level, the onset of behavioral 

disturbance from anthropogenic noise 

exposure is also informed to varying 

degrees by other factors related to the 

source (e.g., frequency, predictability, 

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

bathymetry), and the receiving animals 

(hearing, motivation, experience, 

demography, behavioral context) and 

can be difficult to predict (Southall et 

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

what the available science indicates and 

the practical need to use a threshold 

based on a factor that is both predictable 

and measurable for most activities, 

NMFS uses a generalized acoustic 

threshold based on received level to 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
39698 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Notices 

estimate the onset of behavioral 

harassment. NMFS predicts that marine 

mammals are likely to be behaviorally 

harassed in a manner we consider Level 

B harassment when exposed to 

underwater anthropogenic noise above 

received levels of 120 decibels (dB) re 

1 micro pascal (mPa) root mean square 

(rms) for continuous (e.g., vibratory piledriving, drilling) and above 160 dB re 1 

mPa (rms) for non-explosive impulsive 

(e.g., seismic airguns) sources. USGS’s 

activity includes the use of impulsive 

seismic sources. Therefore, the 160 dB 

re 1 mPa (rms) criteria is applicable for 

analysis of Level B harassment. 

Level A harassment for non-explosive 

sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance 

for Assessing the Effects of 

Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing (Technical Guidance, 

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). As described above, USGS’s 

activity includes the use of intermittent 

and impulsive seismic sources. These 

thresholds are provided in the table 

below. The references, analysis, and 

methodology used in the development 

of the thresholds are described in NMFS 

2016 Technical Guidance, which may 

be accessed at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-acoustic-technical-guidance. 

TABLE 3—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT

Hearing group 

PTS onset acoustic thresholds * 

(received level) 

Impulsive Non-impulsive 

Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans ...................................... Cell 1: Lpk,flat: 219 dB; LE,LF,24h: 183 dB ......................... Cell 2: LE,LF,24h: 199 dB. 

Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans ...................................... Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 230 dB; LE,MF,24h: 185 dB ........................ Cell 4: LE,MF,24h: 198 dB. 

High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans ..................................... Cell 5: Lpk,flat: 202 dB; LE,HF,24h: 155 dB ........................ Cell 6: LE,HF,24h: 173 dB. 

Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater) ............................. Cell 7: Lpk,flat: 218 dB; LE,PW,24h: 185 dB ....................... Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB. 

Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) ............................. Cell 9: Lpk,flat: 232 dB; LE,OW,24h: 203 dB ....................... Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB. 

* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds should 

also be considered. 

Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 μPa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of 1μPa2s. 

In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI 2013). However, peak sound pressure 

is defined by ANSI as incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ‘‘flat’’ is being 

included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized hearing range. The subscript associated 

with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF 

cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level 

thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for 

action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be exceeded. 

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

that will feed into identifying the area 

ensonified above the acoustic thresholds 

The survey will entail the use of a 4- 

airgun array with a total maximum 

discharge of 840 cubic inches (in3) for 

operations that occur at water depths 

greater than 1,000 m and 420 in3 for 

operations that occur at water depths of 

1,000 m or less with at a tow depth of 

3 m. The distances to the predicted 

isopleths corresponding to the threshold 

for Level B harassment (160 dB re 1 mPa) 

were calculated for both array 

configurations based on results of 

modeling performed by LDEO using the 

Nucleus Model. Received sound levels 

were predicted by LDEO’s model 

(Diebold et al., 2010) as a function of 

distance from the airgun array. The 

LDEO modeling approach uses ray 

tracing for the direct wave traveling 

from the array to the receiver and its 

associated source ghost (reflection at the 

air-water interface in the vicinity of the 

array), in a constant-velocity half-space 

(infinite homogeneous ocean layer 

unbounded by a seafloor). In addition, 

propagation measurements of pulses 

from a 36-airgun array at a tow depth of 

6 m have been reported in deep water 

(∼1,600 m), intermediate water depth on 

the slope (∼600–1,100 m), and shallow 

water (∼50 m) in the Gulf of Mexico in 

2007–2008 (Tolstoy et al., 2009; Diebold 

et al., 2010). The estimated distances to 

Level B harassment isopleths for the two 

configurations of the R/V Hugh R. Sharp 

airgun array are shown in Table 4. 

TABLE 4—MODELED RADIAL DISTANCES [m (km2)] FROM R/V HUGH R. SHARP’S AIRGUN ARRAY TO ISOPLETHS

CORRESPONDING TO LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS

Source and volume Tow depth 

(m) 

Water depth 

(m) 

Predicted RMS Radii 

(m) 

160 dB 

Base Configuration (Configuration 1): Four 105 in3

GI-guns.

3 >1,000 

100–1,000 

1,091 m (3.7 km2) 1

1,637 m (8.42 km2) 2

GG Configuration(Configuration 2): Four 210 in3 GIguns.3 >1,000 

100–1,000 

1,244 m (4.86 km2) 1

1,866 m (10.94 km2) 2

1 Distance is based on L–DEO model results. 

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

For modeling of radial distances to 

predicted isopleths corresponding to 

harassment thresholds in deep water 

(>1,000 m), LDEO used the deep-water 

radii for various SELs obtained from 

LDEO model results down to a 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Notices 39699 

maximum water depth of 2,000 m (see 

Figures 4 and 5 in the IHA application). 

LDEO’s modeling methodology is 

described in greater detail in the IHA 

application (USGS, 2018) and we refer 

to the reader to that document rather 

than repeating it here. 

Predicted distances to Level A 

harassment isopleths, which vary based 

on marine mammal functional hearing 

groups (Table 3), were calculated based 

on modeling performed by LDEO using 

the Nucleus software program and the 

NMFS User Spreadsheet, described 

below. The updated acoustic thresholds 

for impulsive sounds (such as airguns) 

contained in the Technical Guidance 

(NMFS, 2016) were presented as dual 

metric acoustic thresholds using both 

SELcum and peak sound pressure level 

metrics. As dual metrics, NMFS 

considers onset of PTS (Level A 

harassment) to have occurred when 

either one of the two metrics is 

exceeded (i.e., metric resulting in the 

largest isopleth). The SELcum metric 

considers both level and duration of 

exposure, as well as auditory weighting 

functions by marine mammal hearing 

group. In recognition of the fact that the 

requirement to calculate Level A 

harassment ensonified areas could be 

more technically challenging to predict 

due to the duration component and the 

use of weighting functions in the new 

SELcum thresholds, NMFS developed an 

optional User Spreadsheet that includes 

tools to help predict a simple isopleth 

that can be used in conjunction with 

marine mammal density or occurrence 

to facilitate the estimation of take 

numbers. 

The values for SELcum and peak SPL 

for the R/V Hugh R. Sharp airgun array 

were derived from calculating the 

modified farfield signature (Table 5). 

The farfield signature is often used as a 

theoretical representation of the source 

level. To compute the farfield signature, 

the source level is estimated at a large 

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

and this level is back projected 

mathematically to a notional distance of 

1 m from the array’s geometrical center. 

However, when the source is an array of 

multiple airguns separated in space, the 

source level from the theoretical farfield 

signature is not necessarily the best 

measurement of the source level that is 

physically achieved at the source 

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

short ranges, distances <1 km), the 

pulses of sound pressure from each 

individual airgun in the source array do 

not stack constructively, as they do for 

the theoretical farfield signature. The 

pulses from the different airguns spread 

out in time such that the source levels 

observed or modeled are the result of 

the summation of pulses from a few 

airguns, not the full array (Tolstoy et al., 

2009). At larger distances, away from 

the source array center, sound pressure 

of all the airguns in the array stack 

coherently, but not within one time 

sample, resulting in smaller source 

levels than the source level derived 

from the farfield signature. Because the 

farfield signature does not take into 

account the array effect near the source 

and is calculated as a point source, the 

modified farfield signature is a more 

appropriate measure of the sound 

source level for distributed sound 

sources, such as airgun arrays. Though 

the array effect is not expected to be as 

pronounced in the case of a 4-airgun 

array as it will be with a larger airgun 

array, the modified farfield method is 

considered more appropriate than use of 

the theoretical farfield signature. 

In order to more realistically 

incorporate the Technical Guidance’s 

weighting functions over the seismic 

array’s full acoustic band, unweighted 

spectrum data for the R/V Hugh R. 

Sharp’s airgun array (modeled in 1 Hz 

bands) was used to make adjustments 

(dB) to the unweighted spectrum levels, 

by frequency, according to the 

weighting functions for each relevant 

marine mammal hearing group. These 

adjusted/weighted spectrum levels were 

then converted to pressures (mPa) in 

order to integrate them over the entire 

broadband spectrum, resulting in 

broadband weighted source levels by 

hearing group that could be directly 

incorporated within the User 

Spreadsheet (i.e., to override the 

Spreadsheet’s more simple weighting 

factor adjustment). Using the User 

Spreadsheet’s ‘‘safe distance’’ 

methodology for mobile sources 

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

hearing group-specific weighted source 

levels, and inputs assuming spherical 

spreading propagation, a source velocity 

of 2.06 m/second and a shot interval of 

12.15 seconds, potential radial distances 

to auditory injury zones were calculated 

for Peak SPLflat and SELcum thresholds, 

for both array configurations. Source 

level Inputs to the User Spreadsheet are 

shown in Table 5 (inputs to the user 

spreadsheet also included the source 

velocity and shot interval listed above). 

Outputs from the User Spreadsheet in 

the form of estimated distances to Level 

A harassment isopleths are shown in 

Table 6. The larger distance of the dual 

criteria (SELcum or Peak SPLflat) is used 

for estimating takes by Level A 

harassment. The weighting functions 

used are shown in Appendix C of the 

IHA application. 

TABLE 5—MODELED SOURCE LEVELS ** (dB) FOR THE R/V HUGH R. SHARP’S AIRGUN ARRAY

Functional hearing group 

Configuration 

1 * 

4 × 105 cu3

SELcum

Configuration 

1 * 

4 × 105 cu3

Peak SPLflat

Configuration 

2 * 

4 × 210 cu3

SELcum

Configuration 

2 * 

4 × 210 cu3

Peak SPLflat

Configuration 

3 * 

2 × 105 cu3

SELcum

Configuration 

3 * 

2 × 105 cu3

Peak SPLflat

Low frequency cetaceans (Lpk,flat: 219 dB; LE,LF,24h: 183 dB) 214 239 215 240 208 235 

Mid frequency cetaceans (Lpk,flat: 230 dB; LE,MF,24h: 185 dB) 214 N/A 215 N/A 208 234 

High frequency cetaceans (Lpk,flat: 202 dB; LE,HF,24h: 155 dB) 214 239 215 240 208 235 

* All configurations have the following airgun specifications: 3 m tow depth; 2 m separation in the fore-aft direction; 8.6 m separation in the port (starboard direction). 

**Source Levels were rounded to nearest whole number. See Appendix C of IHA Application for exact value. 

TABLE 6—MODELED RADIAL DISTANCES [m(m2)] FROM R/V HUGH R. SHARP’S AIRGUN ARRAY TO ISOPLETHS

CORRESPONDING TO LEVEL A HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS

Functional hearing group 

Configuration 

1 

4 × 105 cu3

SELcum

Configuration 

1 

4 × 105 cu3

3 m tow depth, 

Peak SPLflat

Configuration 

2 

4 × 210 cu3

SELcum

Configuration 

2 

4 × 210 cu3

Peak SPLflat

Configuration 

3 

2 × 105 cu3

SELcum

Configuration 

3 

2 × 105 cu3

Peak SPLflat

Low frequency cetaceans (Lpk,flat: 219 dB; 

LE,LF,24h: 183 dB).

31 m (3,019 m2) 10.03 m (316 

m2).

39.5 m (4,902 

m2).

11.56 m (420 

m2).

10.6 m (353 m2) 6.52 m (134 m2) 

Mid frequency cetaceans (Lpk,flat: 230 dB; 

LE,MF,24h: 185 dB).

0 ........................ 0 ........................ 0 ........................ 0 ........................ 0 ........................ 1.58 m (8 m2) 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
39700 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Notices 

TABLE 6—MODELED RADIAL DISTANCES [m(m2)] FROM R/V HUGH R. SHARP’S AIRGUN ARRAY TO ISOPLETHS

CORRESPONDING TO LEVEL A HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS—Continued 

Functional hearing group 

Configuration 

1 

4 × 105 cu3

SELcum

Configuration 

1 

4 × 105 cu3

3 m tow depth, 

Peak SPLflat

Configuration 

2 

4 × 210 cu3

SELcum

Configuration 

2 

4 × 210 cu3

Peak SPLflat

Configuration 

3 

2 × 105 cu3

SELcum

Configuration 

3 

2 × 105 cu3

Peak SPLflat

High frequency cetaceans (Lpk,flat: 202 dB; 

LE,HF,24h: 155 dB).

0 ........................ 70.43 m 

(15743.22 m2).

0.1(.03 m2) ........ 80.50 m (20,358 

m2).

0 ........................ 42.32 m (5,627 

m2) 

Note that because of some of the 

assumptions included in the methods 

used, isopleths produced may be 

overestimates to some degree. However, 

these tools offer the best way to predict 

appropriate isopleths when more 

sophisticated 3D modeling methods are 

not available, and NMFS continues to 

develop ways to quantitatively refine 

these tools and will qualitatively 

address the output where appropriate. 

For mobile sources, such as this seismic 

survey, the User Spreadsheet predicts 

the closest distance at which a 

stationary animal would not incur PTS 

if the sound source traveled by the 

animal in a straight line at a constant 

speed. 

Marine Mammal Occurrence 

In this section we provide the 

information about the presence, density, 

or group dynamics of marine mammals 

that will inform the take calculations. 

The best available scientific information 

was considered in conducting marine 

mammal exposure estimates (the basis 

for estimating take). For all cetacean 

species, densities calculated by Roberts 

et al. (2016) were used. These represent 

the most comprehensive and recent 

density data available for cetacean 

species in the survey area. Roberts et al. 

(2016) retained 21,946 cetacean 

sightings for analysis, omitted 4,786 

sightings, and modeled 25 individual 

species and 3 multi-species guilds. In 

order to develop density models for 

species, Roberts et al. (2016) used an 

approach known as density surface 

modeling, as seen in DoN (2007) and 

Roberts et al. (2016). This couples 

traditional distance sampling with 

multivariate regression modeling to 

produce density maps predicted from 

fine-scale environmental covariates 

(e.g., Becker et al., 2014). 

In addition to the density information 

provided by Roberts et al. (2016), best 

available data on average group sizes 

taken from sightings in the western 

North Atlantic were also used. This is 

discussed more in the section below. 

Take Calculation and Estimation 

Here we describe how the information 

provided above is brought together to 

produce a quantitative take estimate. To 

estimate marine mammal exposures, the 

USGS used published, quantitative 

density models by Roberts et al. (2016) 

for the Survey Area, which is entirely 

within the U.S. EEZ. These models are 

provided at 10 km x 10 km resolution 

in ArcGIS compatible IMG grids on the 

Duke University cetacean density 

website (http://seamap.env.duke.edu/ 

models/Duke-EC-GOM-2015). When 

available, the cetacean density models 

for Month 8 (August) were used. 

Otherwise, the generic annual density 

model was employed. Only a single 

density model is provided for the Kogia 

genus (dwarf and sperm pygmy whales), 

beaked whale guild (Blainville’s, 

Cuvier’s, Gervais’, Sowerby’s, and 

True’s beaked whales), and for pilot 

whales (Globicephala spp.). 

To determine takes, the USGS 

combined the Duke density grids with 

the zones corresponding to the Level A 

and Level B harassment thresholds (See 

Tables 4 and 6) arrayed on either side 

of each exemplary seismic line and 

linking/interseismic line. The takes by 

Level B and Level A harassment for 

each species in each 10 km x 10 km 

block of the IMG density grids were 

calculated based on the fractional area 

of each block intersected by the Level A 

and Level B harassment zones for LF, 

MF, and HF cetaceans. Summing takes 

along all of the lines yields the total take 

for each species for the action for the 

Base (Configuration 1) and Optimal 

(Configuration 2) surveys. The method 

also yields take for each survey line 

individually, allowing examination of 

those exemplary lines that will yield the 

largest or smallest take. No Level A 

harassment takes were calculated while 

using this method. 

As indicated earlier, estimated 

numbers of individuals potentially 

exposed to sound above the Level B 

harassment threshold are based on the 

160-dB re 1mPa (rms) criterion for all 

cetaceans. It is assumed that marine 

mammals exposed to airgun sounds that 

strong could change their behavior 

sufficiently to be considered taken by 

harassment. Table 7 shows the estimates 

of the number of cetaceans that 

potentially could be exposed to ≥160 dB 

re 1 mPa (rms) during the action for the 

Base Survey and the Optimal Survey. 

The takes in Table 7 represents 25 

percent more than the number of takes 

calculated using the ArcGIS-based 

quantitative method devised by the 

USGS. This was used to account for 

potential additional seismic operations 

that may occur after repeat coverage of 

any areas where initial data quality is 

sub-standard. 

Also, as shown in Table 7, rough 

toothed dolphin, sei whale, and 

humpback whale calculated takes were 

increased to account for the average size 

of one group for each species. Takes for 

rare species of marine mammals in the 

action area were also increased to the 

average size of one group. Rare species 

that could be encountered and taken 

during the surveys are not presented in 

Table 7, but are presented in Table 8. 

These species were omitted from Table 

7 due to low calculated incidents of 

potential exposures (i.e., less than the 

average group size). As a result, NMFS 

relied on average group size data to 

authorize the take of a single group of 

these species as a precautionary 

measure in case the survey encounters 

them. This is discussed further below 

Table 7. 

The calculated takes in Table 7 and 8 

also assume that the surveys will be 

completed. However, it is unlikely that 

the entire survey pattern (exemplary 

lines plus 50 percent of the interseismic, 

linking lines) will be completed given 

the limitations on ship time, likely 

logistical challenges (compressor and GI 

gun repairs), time spent on transits and 

refueling, and the historical problems 

with weather during August in the 

western North Atlantic. The USGS’s 

calculated timelines indicate that 25 

days, including contingency, could be 

required to complete the full survey 

pattern. However, only 22 days or fewer 

will be scheduled for this USGS survey. 

The lines that are actually acquired will 

be dependent on weather, strength of 

the Gulf Stream (affects ability to tow 

the streamer in the appropriate 

geometry), and other considerations. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Notices 39701 

TABLE 7—CALCULATED INCIDENTS OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURE FOR LEVEL B AND LEVEL A HARASSMENT

Species 

Optimal survey Max Level B 

take for optimal or 

base surveys 

+25% 

Take 

(all Level B) 6

Take as 

% of pop.1

Level A Level B 

Low Frequency Cetaceans 

Humpback whale ................................................................................. 0 0 0 5 3 <0.1 

Sei whale ............................................................................................. 0 1 1 7 3 2.04 

Fin whale ............................................................................................. 0 4 5 5 0.1 

Mid-Frequency Cetaceans 

Sperm whale ....................................................................................... 0 128 161 161 2.9 

Cuvier’s beaked whale ........................................................................ 0 2 103 2 128 2 128 <0.1 

True’s beaked whale ........................................................................... 0 

Gervais beaked whale ........................................................................ 0 

Sowerby’s beaked whale .................................................................... 0 

Blainville’s beaked whale .................................................................... 0 

Rough-toothed dolphin ........................................................................ 0 5 6 3 10 1.9 

Common bottlenose dolphin ............................................................... 0 606 757 757 0.8 

Pantropical spotted dolphin ................................................................. 0 40 50 50 1.1 

Atlantic spotted dolphin ....................................................................... 0 1,278 1,598 1,598 2.9 

Striped dolphin .................................................................................... 0 1,167 1,459 1,459 1.9 

Short-beaked common dolphin ........................................................... 0 1,296 1,620 1,620 1.9 

Risso’s dolphin .................................................................................... 0 189 237 237 3 

Long-finned pilot whale ....................................................................... 0 4 231 0 4 288 1.5 

Short-finned pilot whale ...................................................................... 0 0 0 

Clymene’s dolphin ............................................................................... 0 97 0 122 1 

High-Frequency Cetaceans 

Pygmy/dwarf sperm whale .................................................................. 0 7 0 9 0.2 

1Based on mean abundance estimates from Roberts et al. (2016). 2Values for density, take number, and percentage of population for authorization are for all beaked whales combined. 

3Based on one average group size for rough toothed dolphin (Jefferson 2015). 

4Values for density, take number, and percentage of population for authorization are for short-finned and long-finned pilot whales combined. 

5Based on one average group size for humpback whales (CETAP 1982). Summer seasonal sightings compiled from the OBIS database (See Figure 6 of IHA Application) show that humpback whales have been seen in the northern part of the action area during August. 6Values are the same take numbers shown in Table 8 below. Table 8 includes take of rare species discussed below. 

7Based on one average group size for sei whale in the western Atlantic (CETAP 1982). 

Certain species potentially present in 

the survey areas are expected to be 

encountered only extremely rarely, if at 

all. Although Roberts et al. (2016) 

provide density models for these species 

(with the exception of the pygmy killer 

whale), due to the small numbers of 

sightings that underlie these models’ 

predictions we believe it appropriate to 

account for the small likelihood that 

these species will be encountered by 

assuming that one group of each of these 

species might be encountered once by a 

given survey. With the exception of the 

northern bottlenose whale, none of 

these species should be considered 

cryptic (i.e., difficult to observe when 

present) versus rare (i.e., not likely to be 

present). Average group size was 

determined by considering known 

sightings in the western North Atlantic 

(CETAP, 1982; Hansen et al, 1994; 

NMFS, 2010a, 2011, 2012, 2013a, 2014, 

2015a; Waring et al., 2007, 2015). It is 

important to note that our authorization 

of take equating to harassment of one 

group of each of these species is not 

equivalent to expected exposure. We do 

not expect that these rarely occurring (in 

the survey area) species will be exposed 

at all. Nonetheless, we are providing 

USGS with authorization to take these 

species, consistent with the terms of this 

IHA, in the unlikely event they are 

encountered. We provide a brief 

description for each of these species 

below. 

Northern Bottlenose Whale—Northern 

bottlenose whales are considered 

extremely rare in U.S. Atlantic waters, 

with only five NMFS sightings. The 

southern extent of distribution is 

generally considered to be 

approximately Nova Scotia (though 

Mitchell and Kozicki (1975) reported 

stranding records as far south as Rhode 

Island), and there have been no 

sightings within the survey areas. 

Whitehead and Wimmer (2005) 

estimated the size of the population on 

the Scotian Shelf at 163 whales (95 

percent CI 119–214). Whitehead and 

Hooker (2012) report that northern 

bottlenose whales are found north of 

approximately 37.5° N and prefer deep 

waters along the continental slope. 

Roberts et al. (2016) produced a 

stratified density model on the basis of 

four sightings in the vicinity of Georges 

Bank (Roberts et al., 2015b). The five 

sightings in U.S. waters yield a mean 

group size of 2.2 whales, while 

MacLeod and D’Amico report a mean 

group size of 3.6. Here, we authorize 

take of one group with a maximum 

group size of four whales. 

Killer Whale—Killer whales are also 

considered rare in U.S. Atlantic waters 

(Katona et al., 1988; Forney and Wade, 

2006), constituting 0.1 percent of marine 

mammal sightings in the 1978–81 

Cetacean and Turtle Assessment 

Program surveys (CETAP, 1982). Roberts 

et al. (2016) produced a stratified 

density model on the basis of four killer 

whale sightings (Roberts et al., 2015g), 

though Lawson and Stevens (2014) 

provide a minimum abundance estimate 

of 67 photo-identified individual killer 

whales. Available information suggests 

that survey encounters with killer 

whales will be unlikely but could occur 

anywhere within the survey area and at 

any time of year (e.g., Lawson and 

Stevens, 2014). Silber et al. (1994) 

reported observations of two and 15 

killer whales in the Gulf of California 

(mean group size 8.5), while MayCollado et al. (2005) described mean 

group size of 3.6 whales off the Pacific 

coast of Costa Rica. Based on 12 CETAP 

sightings and one group observed 

during NOAA surveys (CETAP, 1982; 

NMFS, 2014), the average group size in 

the Atlantic is 6.8 whales. Therefore, we 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
39702 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Notices 

authorize take of one group with a 

maximum group size of seven whales. 

False Killer Whale—Although records 

of false killer whales from the U.S. 

Atlantic are uncommon, a combination 

of sighting, stranding, and bycatch 

records indicates that this species does 

occur in the western North Atlantic 

(Waring et al., 2015). Baird (2009) 

suggests that false killer whales may be 

naturally uncommon throughout their 

range. Roberts et al. (2016) produced a 

stratified density model on the basis of 

two false killer whale sightings (Roberts 

et al., 2015m), and NMFS produced the 

first abundance estimate for false killer 

whales on the basis of one sighting 

during 2011 shipboard surveys (Waring 

et al., 2015). Similar to the killer whale, 

we believe survey encounters will be 

unlikely but could occur anywhere 

within the survey area and at any time 

of year. Mullin et al. (2004) reported a 

mean false killer whale group size of 

27.5 from the Gulf of Mexico, and MayCollado et al. (2005) described mean 

group size of 36.2 whales off the Pacific 

coast of Costa Rica. The few sightings 

from CETAP (1982) and from NOAA 

shipboard surveys give an average group 

size of 10.3 whales. As a precaution, we 

authorize take of one group with a 

maximum group size of 28 whales, as 

reported from the Gulf of Mexico. 

Pygmy Killer Whale—The pygmy 

killer whale is distributed worldwide in 

tropical to sub-tropical waters, and is 

assumed to be part of the cetacean fauna 

of the tropical western North Atlantic 

(Jefferson et al., 1994; Waring et al., 

2007). Pygmy killer whales are rarely 

observed by NOAA surveys outside the 

Gulf of Mexico—one group was 

observed off of Cape Hatteras in 1992— 

and the rarity of such sightings may be 

due to a naturally low number of groups 

compared to other cetacean species 

(Waring et al., 2007). NMFS has never 

produced an abundance estimate for 

this species and Roberts et al. (2016) 

were not able to produce a density 

model for the species. The 1992 sighting 

was of six whales; therefore, we 

authorize take of one group with a 

maximum group size of six whales. 

Melon-headed Whale—Similar to the 

pygmy killer whale, the melon-headed 

whale is distributed worldwide in 

tropical to sub-tropical waters, and is 

assumed to be part of the cetacean fauna 

of the tropical western North Atlantic 

(Jefferson et al., 1994; Waring et al., 

2007). Melon-headed whales are rarely 

observed by NOAA surveys outside the 

Gulf of Mexico—groups were observed 

off of Cape Hatteras in 1999 and 2002— 

and the rarity of such sightings may be 

due to a naturally low number of groups 

compared to other cetacean species 

(Waring et al., 2007). NMFS has never 

produced an abundance estimate for 

this species and Roberts et al. (2016) 

produced a stratified density model on 

the basis of four sightings (Roberts et al., 

2015d). The two sightings reported by 

Waring et al. (2007) yield an average 

group size of 50 whales; therefore, we 

authorize take of a single group of a 

maximum of 50 whales. 

Spinner Dolphin—Distribution of 

spinner dolphins in the Atlantic is 

poorly known, but they are thought to 

occur in deep water along most of the 

U.S. coast south to the West Indies and 

Venezuela (Waring et al., 2014). There 

have been a handful of sightings in 

deeper waters off the northeast United 

States and one sighting during a 2011 

NOAA shipboard survey off North 

Carolina, as well as stranding records 

from North Carolina south to Florida 

and Puerto Rico (Waring et al., 2014). 

Roberts et al. (2016) provide a stratified 

density model on the basis of two 

sightings (Roberts et al., 2015i). 

Regarding group size, Mullin et al. 

(2004) report a mean of 91.3 in the Gulf 

of Mexico; May-Collado (2005) describe 

a mean of 100.6 off the Pacific coast of 

Costa Rica; and CETAP (1982) sightings 

in the Atlantic yield a mean group size 

of 42.5 dolphins. As a precaution, we 

authorize taking a single group with a 

maximum size of 91 dolphins (derived 

from mean group size reported in 

Mullin et al. 2004). 

Fraser’s Dolphin—As was stated for 

both the pygmy killer whale and melonheaded whale, the Fraser’s dolphin is 

distributed worldwide in tropical 

waters, and is assumed to be part of the 

cetacean fauna of the tropical western 

North Atlantic (Perrin et al., 1994; 

Waring et al., 2007). The paucity of 

sightings of this species may be due to 

naturally low abundance compared to 

other cetacean species (Waring et al., 

2007). Despite possibly being more 

common in the Gulf of Mexico than in 

other parts of its range (Dolar 2009), 

there were only five reported sightings 

during NOAA surveys from 1992–2009. 

In the Atlantic, NOAA surveys have 

yielded only two sightings (Roberts et 

al., 2015f). May-Collado et al. (2005) 

reported a single observation of 158 

Fraser’s dolphins off the Pacific coast of 

Costa Rica, and Waring et al. (2007) 

describe a single observation of 250 

Fraser’s dolphins in the Atlantic, off 

Cape Hatteras. Therefore, we authorize 

take of a single group with a maximum 

group size of 204 dolphins (derived 

from average of May-Collado et al. 2005 

and Waring et al. 2007 sightings data). 

Atlantic White-sided Dolphin—Whitesided dolphins are found in temperate 

and sub-polar continental shelf waters 

of the North Atlantic, primarily in the 

Gulf of Maine and north into Canadian 

waters (Waring et al., 2016). Palka et al. 

(1997) suggest the existence of stocks in 

the Gulf of Maine, Gulf of St. Lawrence, 

and Labrador Sea. Stranding records 

from Virginia and North Carolina 

suggest a southerly winter range extent 

of approximately 35° N (Waring et al., 

2016); therefore, it is possible that the 

surveys could encounter white-sided 

dolphins. Roberts et al. (2016) elected to 

split their study area at the north wall 

of the Gulf Stream, separating the cold 

northern waters, representing probable 

habitat, from warm southern waters, 

where white-sided dolphins are likely 

not present (Roberts et al., 2015k). Over 

600 observations of Atlantic white-sided 

dolphins during CETAP (1982) and 

during NMFS surveys provide a mean 

group size estimate of 47.7 dolphins, 

while Weinrich et al. (2001) reported a 

mean group size of 52 dolphins. Due to 

this data, we authorize take of a single 

group with a maximum group size of 48 

dolphins. 

TABLE 8—NUMBERS OF INCIDENTAL TAKE AUTHORIZED

Species Level B take ** Level A take 

Humpback whale ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 0 

Sei whale ................................................................................................................................................................. 3 0 

Fin whale ................................................................................................................................................................. 5 0 

Sperm whale ............................................................................................................................................................ 161 0 

Kogia spp ................................................................................................................................................................. 9 0 

Beaked whales ........................................................................................................................................................ 128 0 

Northern bottlenose whale * ..................................................................................................................................... * 4 0 

Rough-toothed dolphin ............................................................................................................................................ 10 0 

Common bottlenose dolphin .................................................................................................................................... 757 0 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Notices 39703 

TABLE 8—NUMBERS OF INCIDENTAL TAKE AUTHORIZED—Continued 

Species Level B take ** Level A take 

Clymene dolphin ...................................................................................................................................................... 122 0 

Atlantic spotted dolphin ........................................................................................................................................... 1,598 0 

Pantropical spotted dolphin ..................................................................................................................................... 50 0 

Spinner dolphin * ...................................................................................................................................................... * 91 0 

Striped dolphin ......................................................................................................................................................... 1,459 0 

Short-beaked common dolphin ................................................................................................................................ 1,620 0 

Fraser’s dolphin * ..................................................................................................................................................... * 204 0 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin * ................................................................................................................................... * 48 0 

Risso’s dolphin ......................................................................................................................................................... 237 0 

Melon-headed whale * ............................................................................................................................................. * 50 0 

Pygmy killer whale * ................................................................................................................................................. * 6 0 

False killer whale * ................................................................................................................................................... *28 0 

Killer whale * ............................................................................................................................................................ * 7 0 

Pilot whales .............................................................................................................................................................. 288 0 

* Level B harassment take for rare species represent take of a single group. 

** Take numbers for non-rare species are the same as those reported in Table 7. 

Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under 

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

NMFS must set forth the permissible 

methods of taking pursuant to such 

activity, and other means of effecting 

the least practicable impact on such 

species or stock and its habitat, paying 

particular attention to rookeries, mating 

grounds, and areas of similar 

significance, and on the availability of 

such species or stock for taking for 

certain subsistence uses (latter not 

applicable for this action). NMFS 

regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting such activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, we carefully consider two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat. This considers 

the nature of the potential adverse 

impact being mitigated (likelihood, 

scope, range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned) the likelihood 

of effective implementation (probability 

implemented as planned); and 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost and 

impact on operations. 

USGS has reviewed mitigation 

measures employed during seismic 

research surveys authorized by NMFS 

under previous incidental harassment 

authorizations, as well as recommended 

best practices in Richardson et al. 

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

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

Wright (2014), and Wright and 

Cosentino (2015), and has incorporated 

a suite of mitigation measures into their 

project description based on the above 

sources. 

To reduce the potential for 

disturbance from acoustic stimuli 

associated with the activities, USGS will 

implement the following mitigation 

measures for marine mammals: 

(1) Vessel-based visual mitigation 

monitoring; 

(2) Establishment of a marine 

mammal exclusion zone (EZ); 

(3) Shutdown procedures; 

(4) Ramp-up procedures; and 

(5) Vessel strike avoidance measures. 

In addition, USGS will establish a 

marine mammal buffer zone. 

Protected Species Observer (PSO) 

observations will take place during all 

daytime airgun operations and 

nighttime start ups (if applicable) of the 

airguns. If airguns are operating 

throughout the night, observations will 

begin 30 minutes prior to sunrise. If 

airguns are operating after sunset, 

observations will continue until 30 

minutes following sunset. Following a 

shutdown for any reason, observations 

will occur for at least 30 minutes prior 

to the planned start of airgun 

operations. Observations will also occur 

for 30 minutes after airgun operations 

cease for any reason. Observations will 

also be made during daytime periods 

when the R/V Hugh R. Sharp is 

underway without seismic operations, 

such as during transits, to allow for 

comparison of sighting rates and 

behavior with and without airgun 

operations and between acquisition 

periods. Airgun operations will be 

suspended when marine mammals are 

observed within, or about to enter, the 

designated Exclusion Zone (EZ) (as 

described below). 

During seismic operations, three 

visual PSOs will be based aboard the R/ 

V Hugh R. Sharp. PSOs will be 

appointed by USGS with NMFS 

approval. During the majority of seismic 

operations (excluding ramp-up), one 

PSOs will monitor for marine mammals 

around the seismic vessel. PSO(s) will 

be on duty in shifts of duration no 

longer than four hours. Other crew will 

also be instructed to assist in detecting 

marine mammals and in implementing 

mitigation requirements (if practical). 

Before the start of the seismic survey, 

the crew will be given additional 

instruction in detecting marine 

mammals and implementing mitigation 

requirements. 

The R/V Hugh R. Sharp is a suitable 

platform from which PSOs will watch 

for marine mammals. Standard 

equipment for marine mammal 

observers will be 7 × 50 reticle 

binoculars, optical range finders, and 

Big Eye binoculars. At night, nightvision equipment will be available. The 

observers will be in communication 

with ship’s officers on the bridge and 

scientists in the vessel’s operations 

laboratory, so they can advise promptly 

of the need for avoidance maneuvers or 

seismic source shutdown. 

The PSOs must have no tasks other 

than to conduct observational effort, 

record observational data, and 

communicate with and instruct relevant 

vessel crew with regard to the presence 

of marine mammals and mitigation 

requirements. PSO resumes will be 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
39704 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Notices 

provided to NMFS for approval. At least 

one PSO must have a minimum of 90 

days at-sea experience working as a PSO 

during a seismic survey. One 

‘‘experienced’’ visual PSO will be 

designated as the lead for the entire 

protected species observation team. The 

lead will serve as primary point of 

contact for the USGS scientist-in-charge 

or his/her designee. The PSOs must 

have successfully completed relevant 

training, including completion of all 

required coursework and passing a 

written and/or oral examination 

developed for the training program, and 

must have successfully attained a 

bachelor’s degree from an accredited 

college or university with a major in one 

of the natural sciences and a minimum 

of 30 semester hours or equivalent in 

the biological sciences and at least one 

undergraduate course in math or 

statistics. The educational requirements 

may be waived if the PSO has acquired 

the relevant skills through alternate 

training, including (1) secondary 

education and/or experience 

comparable to PSO duties; (2) previous 

work experience conducting academic, 

commercial, or government-sponsored 

marine mammal surveys; or (3) previous 

work experience as a PSO; the PSO will 

demonstrate good standing and 

consistently good performance of PSO 

duties. 

Exclusion Zone and Buffer Zone 

An EZ is a defined area within which 

occurrence of a marine mammal triggers 

mitigation action intended to reduce the 

potential for certain outcomes, e.g., 

auditory injury, disruption of critical 

behaviors. The PSOs will establish a 

minimum EZ with a 100 m radius from 

the airgun array. The 100 m EZ will be 

based on radial distance from any 

element of the airgun array (rather than 

being based on the center of the array 

or around the vessel itself). With certain 

exceptions (described below), if a 

marine mammal appears within, enters, 

or appears on a course to enter this 

zone, the acoustic source will be shut 

down (see Shutdown Procedures 

below). 

The 100 m radial distance of the 

standard EZ is precautionary in the 

sense that it will be expected to contain 

sound exceeding injury criteria (Level A 

harassment thresholds) for all marine 

mammal hearing groups (Table 6) while 

also providing a consistent, reasonably 

observable zone within which PSOs will 

typically be able to conduct effective 

observational effort. 

Our intent in prescribing a standard 

EZ distance is to (1) encompass zones 

within which auditory injury could 

occur on the basis of instantaneous 

exposure; (2) provide additional 

protection from the potential for more 

severe behavioral reactions (e.g., panic, 

antipredator response) for marine 

mammals at relatively close range to the 

acoustic source; (3) provide consistency 

for PSOs, who need to monitor and 

implement the EZ; and (4) define a 

distance within which detection 

probabilities are reasonably high for 

most species under typical conditions. 

PSOs will also establish and monitor 

an additional 100 m buffer zone 

beginning from the outside extent of the 

100 m EZ. During use of the acoustic 

source, occurrence of marine mammals 

within the 100 m buffer zone will be 

communicated to the USGS scientist-incharge or his/her designee to prepare for 

potential shutdown of the acoustic 

source. The 100 m buffer zone is 

discussed further under Ramp-Up 

Procedures below. 

Shutdown Procedures 

If a marine mammal is detected 

outside the EZ but is likely to enter the 

EZ, the airguns will be shut down before 

the animal is within the EZ. Likewise, 

if a marine mammal is already within 

the EZ when first detected, the airguns 

will be shut down immediately. 

Following a shutdown, airgun activity 

will not resume until the marine 

mammal has cleared the 100 m EZ. The 

animal will be considered to have 

cleared the 100 m EZ if the following 

conditions have been met: 

• It is visually observed to have 

departed the 100 m EZ; 

• it has not been seen within the 100 

m EZ for 15 min in the case of small 

odontocetes; or 

• it has not been seen within the 100 

m EZ for 30 min in the case of 

mysticetes and large odontocetes, 

including sperm, pygmy and dwarf 

sperm, beaked whales, and large 

delphinids. 

This shutdown requirement will be in 

place for all marine mammals, with the 

exception of small delphinoids under 

certain circumstances. This exception to 

the shutdown requirement will apply 

solely to specific genera of small 

dolphins—Tursiops, Steno, Stenella, 

Lagenorhynchus and Delphinus— 

Instead of shutdown, the acoustic 

source must be powered down to the 

smallest single element of the array if a 

dolphin of the indicated genera appears 

within or enters the 100-m exclusion 

zone. If there is uncertainty regarding 

identification (i.e., whether the observed 

animal(s) belongs to the group described 

above), shutdown must be 

implemented. Power-down conditions 

shall be maintained until the animal(s) 

are no longer observed within the 

exclusion zone, following which fullpower operations may be resumed 

without ramp-up. PSOs may elect to 

waive the power-down requirement if 

the animal(s) appear to be voluntarily 

approaching the vessel for the purpose 

of interacting with the vessel or towed 

gear, and may use best professional 

judgment in making this decision. 

We include this small delphinoid 

exception because shutdown 

requirements for small delphinoids 

under all circumstances represent 

practicability concerns without likely 

commensurate benefits for the animals 

in question. Small delphinoids are 

generally the most commonly observed 

marine mammals in the specific 

geographic region and will typically be 

the only marine mammals likely to 

intentionally approach the vessel. As 

described below, auditory injury is 

extremely unlikely to occur for midfrequency cetaceans (e.g., delphinids), 

as this group is relatively insensitive to 

sound produced at the predominant 

frequencies in an airgun pulse while 

also having a relatively high threshold 

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

permanent threshold shift). Please see 

‘‘Potential Effects of the Specified 

Activity on Marine Mammals’’ in the 

Federal Register notice for the proposed 

IHA (83 FR 25268; May 31, 2018) for 

further discussion of sound metrics and 

thresholds and marine mammal hearing. 

A large body of anecdotal evidence 

indicates that small delphinoids 

commonly approach vessels and/or 

towed arrays during active sound 

production for purposes of bow riding, 

with no apparent effect observed in 

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

2012). The potential for increased 

shutdowns resulting from such a 

measure will require the R/V Hugh R. 

Sharp to revisit the missed track line to 

reacquire data, resulting in an overall 

increase in the total sound energy input 

to the marine environment and an 

increase in the total duration over 

which the survey is active in a given 

area. Although other mid-frequency 

hearing specialists (e.g., large 

delphinoids) are no more likely to incur 

auditory injury than are small 

delphinoids, they are much less likely 

to approach vessels. Therefore, retaining 

a shutdown requirement for large 

delphinoids will not have similar 

impacts in terms of either practicability 

for the applicant or corollary increase in 

sound energy output and time on the 

water. We do anticipate some benefit for 

a shutdown requirement for large 

delphinoids in that it simplifies 

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

potential for physiological effects other 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Notices 39705 

than to the auditory impacts. In 

addition, the required shutdown 

measure may prevent more severe 

behavioral reactions for any large 

delphnoids in close proximity to the 

source vessel. 

Shutdown of the acoustic source will 

also be required upon observation 

beyond the 100 m EZ of any of the 

following: 

• A large whale (i.e., sperm whale or 

any baleen whale) with a calf; 

• An aggregation of large whales of 

any species (i.e., sperm whale or any 

baleen whale) that does not appear to be 

traveling (e.g., feeding, socializing, etc.); 

or 

• A marine mammal species not 

authorized (i.e., a North Atlantic right 

whale) for take that is approaching or 

entering the Level B harassment zone. 

• An authorized marine mammal 

species that has reached its total allotted 

Level B harassment take that is 

approaching or entering the Level B 

harassment zone. 

These will be the only four potential 

situations that will require shutdown of 

the array for marine mammals observed 

beyond the 100 m EZ. 

Ramp-Up Procedures 

Ramp-up of an acoustic source is 

intended to provide a gradual increase 

in sound levels following a shutdown, 

enabling animals to move away from the 

source if the signal is sufficiently 

aversive prior to its reaching full 

intensity. Ramp-up will be required 

after the array is shut down for any 

reason. Ramp up to the full array will 

take 20 minutes, starting with operation 

of a single airgun and with one 

additional airgun added every 5 

minutes. 

At least two PSOs will be required to 

monitor during ramp-up. During ramp 

up, the PSOs will monitor the 100 m EZ, 

and if marine mammals were observed 

within or approaching the 100 m EZ, a 

shutdown will be implemented as 

though the full array were operational. 

If airguns have been shut down due to 

PSO detection of a marine mammal 

within or approaching the 100 m EZ, 

ramp-up will not be initiated until all 

marine mammals have cleared the EZ, 

during the day or night. Criteria for 

clearing the EZ will be as described 

above. 

Thirty minutes of pre-clearance 

observation are required prior to rampup for any shutdown of longer than 30 

minutes (i.e., if the array were shut 

down during transit from one line to 

another). This 30 minute pre-clearance 

period may occur during any vessel 

activity (i.e., transit). If a marine 

mammal were observed within or 

approaching the 100 m EZ or 100 m 

buffer zone (i.e., total 200 m distance) 

during this pre-clearance period, rampup will not be initiated until all marine 

mammals cleared the 100 m EZ or 100 

m buffer zone. Criteria for clearing the 

EZ will be as described above. If the 

airgun array has been shut down for 

reasons other than mitigation (e.g., 

mechanical difficulty) for a period of 

less than 30 minutes, it may be activated 

again without ramp-up if PSOs have 

maintained constant visual observation 

and no detections of any marine 

mammal have occurred within the EZ or 

100 m buffer zone. Ramp-up will be 

planned to occur during periods of good 

visibility when possible. However, 

ramp-up will be allowed at night and 

during poor visibility if the 100 m EZ 

and 100 m buffer zone have been 

monitored by visual PSOs for 30 

minutes prior to ramp-up. 

The USGS scientist-in-charge or his/ 

her designee will be required to notify 

a designated PSO of the planned start of 

ramp-up as agreed-upon with the lead 

PSO; the notification time will not be 

less than 60 minutes prior to the 

planned ramp-up. A designated PSO 

must be notified again immediately 

prior to initiating ramp-up procedures 

and the USGS scientist-in-charge or his/ 

her designee must receive confirmation 

from the PSO to proceed. The USGS 

scientist-in-charge or his/her designee 

must provide information to PSOs 

documenting that appropriate 

procedures were followed. Following 

deactivation of the array for reasons 

other than mitigation, the USGS 

scientist-in-charge or his/her designee 

will be required to communicate the 

near-term operational plan to the lead 

PSO with justification for any planned 

nighttime ramp-up. 

Vessel Strike Avoidance Measures 

Vessel strike avoidance measures are 

intended to minimize the potential for 

collisions with marine mammals. These 

requirements do not apply in any case 

where compliance will create an 

imminent and serious threat to a person 

or vessel or to the extent that a vessel 

is restricted in its ability to maneuver 

and, because of the restriction, cannot 

comply. 

The measures include the following: 

The USGS scientist-in-charge or his/her 

designee, the vessel operator (The 

University of Delaware) and crew will 

maintain a vigilant watch for all marine 

mammals and slow down or stop the 

vessel or alter course to avoid striking 

any marine mammal. A visual observer 

aboard the vessel will monitor a vessel 

strike avoidance zone around the vessel 

according to the parameters stated 

below. Visual observers monitoring the 

vessel strike avoidance zone will be 

either third-party observers or crew 

members, but crew members 

responsible for these duties will be 

provided sufficient training to 

distinguish marine mammals from other 

phenomena. Vessel strike avoidance 

measures will be followed during 

surveys and while in transit. 

The vessel will maintain a minimum 

separation distance of 100 m from large 

whales (i.e., baleen whales and sperm 

whales) except for North Atlantic right 

whales. The vessel will maintain a 

minimum separation distance of 500 m 

from North Atlantic right whales. If a 

large whale is located within 100 m of 

the vessel or a North Atlantic right 

whale is located within 500 m of the 

vessel, the vessel will reduce speed and 

shift the engine to neutral, and will not 

engage the engines until the whale has 

moved outside of the vessel’s path and 

the minimum separation distance has 

been established. If the vessel is 

stationary, the vessel will not engage 

engines until the whale(s) has moved 

out of the vessel’s path and beyond 100 

m or 500 m for North Atlantic right 

whale. The vessel will maintain a 

minimum separation distance of 50 m 

from all other marine mammals (with 

the exception of delphinids of the 

genera Tursiops, Steno, Stenella, 

Lagenorhynchus and Delphinus that 

approach the vessel, as described 

above). If an animal is encountered 

during transit, the vessel will attempt to 

remain parallel to the animal’s course, 

avoiding excessive speed or abrupt 

changes in course. Vessel speeds will be 

reduced to 10 kn or less when mother/ 

calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages of 

cetaceans (what constitues ‘‘large’’ will 

vary depending on species) are observed 

within 500 m of the vessel. Mariners 

may use professional judgment as to 

when such circumstances warranting 

additional caution are present. 

Actions To Minimize Additional Harm 

to Live-Stranded (or Milling) Marine 

Mammals 

In the event of a live stranding (or 

near-shore atypical milling) event 

within 50 km of the survey operations, 

where the NMFS stranding network is 

engaged in herding or other 

interventions to return animals to the 

water, the Director of OPR, NMFS (or 

designee) will advise the IHA-holder of 

the need to implement shutdown 

procedures for all active acoustic 

sources operating within 50 km of the 

stranding. Shutdown procedures for live 

stranding or milling marine mammals 

include the following: 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
39706 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Notices 

• If at any time, the marine 

mammal(s) die or are euthanized, or if 

herding/intervention efforts are stopped, 

the Director of OPR, NMFS (or designee) 

will advise the IHA-holder that the 

shutdown is no longer needed. 

• Otherwise, shutdown procedures 

will remain in effect until the Director 

of OPR, NMFS (or designee) determines 

and advises the IHA-holder that all live 

animals involved have left the area 

(either of their own volition or following 

an intervention). 

• If further observations of the marine 

mammals indicate the potential for restranding, additional coordination with 

the IHA-holder will be required to 

determine what measures are necessary 

to minimize that likelihood (e.g., 

extending the shutdown or moving 

operations farther away) and to 

implement those measures as 

appropriate. 

Shutdown procedures are not related 

to the investigation of the cause of the 

stranding and their implementation is 

not intended to imply that the specified 

activity is the cause of the stranding. 

Rather, shutdown procedures are 

intended to protect marine mammals 

exhibiting indicators of distress by 

minimizing their exposure to possible 

additional stressors, regardless of the 

factors that contributed to the stranding. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s measures, NMFS determined 

that the mitigation measures provide the 

means effecting the least practicable 

impact on the affected species or stocks 

and their habitat, paying particular 

attention to rookeries, mating grounds, 

and areas of similar significance. 

Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present in the action area. Effective 

reporting is critical both to compliance 

as well as ensuring that the most value 

is obtained from the required 

monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS will 

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. 

USGS submitted a marine mammal 

monitoring and reporting plan in their 

IHA application. Monitoring that is 

designed specifically to facilitate 

mitigation measures, such as monitoring 

of the EZ to inform potential shutdowns 

of the airgun array, are described above 

and are not repeated here. 

USGS’s monitoring and reporting plan 

includes the following measures: 

Vessel-Based Visual Monitoring 

As described above, PSO observations 

will take place during daytime airgun 

operations and nighttime start-ups (if 

applicable) of the airguns. During 

seismic operations, three visual PSOs 

will be based aboard the R/V Hugh R. 

Sharp. PSOs will be appointed by USGS 

with NMFS approval. During the 

majority of seismic operations 

(excluding ramp-up), one PSO will 

monitor for marine mammals around 

the seismic vessel. PSOs will be on duty 

in shifts of duration no longer than four 

hours. Other crew will also be 

instructed to assist in detecting marine 

mammals and in implementing 

mitigation requirements (if practical). 

During daytime, PSOs will scan the area 

around the vessel systematically with 

reticle binoculars, Big Eye binoculars, 

and with the naked eye. At night, PSOs 

will be equipped with night-vision 

equipment. 

PSOs will record data to estimate the 

numbers of marine mammals exposed to 

various received sound levels and to 

document apparent disturbance 

reactions or lack thereof. Data will be 

used to estimate numbers of animals 

potentially taken by harassment. They 

will also provide information needed to 

order a shutdown of the airguns when 

a marine mammal is within or near the 

EZ. When a sighting is made, the 

following information about the sighting 

will be recorded: 

(1) Species, group size, age/size/sex 

categories (if determinable), behavior 

when first sighted and after initial 

sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing 

and distance from seismic vessel, 

sighting cue, apparent reaction to the 

airguns or vessel (e.g., none, avoidance, 

approach, paralleling, etc.), and 

behavioral pace; and 

(2) Time, location, heading, speed, 

activity of the vessel, sea state, 

visibility, and sun glare. 

All observations and shutdowns will 

be recorded in a standardized format. 

Data will be entered into an electronic 

database. The accuracy of the data entry 

will be verified by computerized data 

validity checks as the data are entered 

and by subsequent manual checking of 

the database. These procedures will 

allow initial summaries of data to be 

prepared during and shortly after the 

field program and will facilitate transfer 

of the data to statistical, graphical, and 

other programs for further processing 

and archiving. The time, location, 

heading, speed, activity of the vessel, 

sea state, visibility, and sun glare will 

also be recorded at the start and end of 

each observation watch, and during a 

watch whenever there is a change in one 

or more of the variables. 

Results from the vessel-based 

observations will provide: 

(1) The basis for real-time mitigation 

(e.g., airgun shutdown); 

(2) Information needed to estimate the 

number of marine mammals potentially 

taken by harassment, which must be 

reported to NMFS; 

(3) Data on the occurrence, 

distribution, and activities of marine 

mammals in the area where the seismic 

study is conducted; 

(4) Information to compare the 

distance and distribution of marine 

mammals relative to the source vessel at 

times with and without seismic activity; 

and 

(5) Data on the behavior and 

movement patterns of marine mammals 

seen at times with and without seismic 

activity. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Notices 39707 

Reporting Injured or Dead Marine 

Mammals 

Discovery of Injured or Dead Marine 

Mammal—In the event that personnel 

involved in the survey activities covered 

by the authorization discover an injured 

or dead marine mammal, the IHAholder shall report the incident to the 

Office of Protected Resources (OPR), 

NMFS and to regional stranding 

coordinators as soon as feasible. The 

report must include the following 

information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the first discovery (and 

updated location information if known 

and applicable); 

• Species identification (if known) or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Condition of the animal(s) 

(including carcass condition if the 

animal is dead); 

• Observed behaviors of the 

animal(s), if alive; 

• If available, photographs or video 

footage of the animal(s); and 

• General circumstances under which 

the animal was discovered. 

Vessel Strike—In the event of a ship 

strike of a marine mammal by any vessel 

involved in the activities covered by the 

authorization, the IHA-holder shall 

report the incident to OPR, NMFS and 

to regional stranding coordinators as 

soon as feasible. The report must 

include the following information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the incident; 

• Species identification (if known) or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Vessel’s speed during and leading 

up to the incident; 

• Vessel’s course/heading and what 

operations were being conducted (if 

applicable); 

• Status of all sound sources in use; 

• Description of avoidance measures/ 

requirements that were in place at the 

time of the strike and what additional 

measures were taken, if any, to avoid 

strike; 

• Environmental conditions (e.g., 

wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea 

state, cloud cover, visibility) 

immediately preceding the strike; 

• Estimated size and length of animal 

that was struck; 

• Description of the behavior of the 

marine mammal immediately preceding 

and following the strike; 

• If available, description of the 

presence and behavior of any other 

marine mammals immediately 

preceding the strike; 

• Estimated fate of the animal (e.g., 

dead, injured but alive, injured and 

moving, blood or tissue observed in the 

water, status unknown, disappeared); 

and 

• To the extent practicable, 

photographs or video footage of the 

animal(s). 

Additional Information Requests—If 

NMFS determines that the 

circumstances of any marine mammal 

stranding found in the vicinity of the 

activity suggest investigation of the 

association with survey activities is 

warranted (example circumstances 

noted below), and an investigation into 

the stranding is being pursued, NMFS 

will submit a written request to the IHAholder indicating that the following 

initial available information must be 

provided as soon as possible, but no 

later than 7 business days after the 

request for information. 

• Status of all sound source use in the 

48 hours preceding the estimated time 

of stranding and within 50 km of the 

discovery/notification of the stranding 

by NMFS; and 

• If available, description of the 

behavior of any marine mammal(s) 

observed preceding (i.e., within 48 

hours and 50 km) and immediately after 

the discovery of the stranding. 

Examples of circumstances that could 

trigger the additional information 

request include, but are not limited to, 

the following: 

• Atypical nearshore milling events 

of live cetaceans; 

• Mass strandings of cetaceans (two 

or more individuals, not including cow/ 

calf pairs); 

• Beaked whale strandings; 

• Necropsies with findings of 

pathologies that are unusual for the 

species or area; or 

• Stranded animals with findings 

consistent with blast trauma. 

In the event that the investigation is 

still inconclusive, the investigation of 

the association of the survey activities is 

still warranted, and the investigation is 

still being pursued, NMFS may provide 

additional information requests, in 

writing, regarding the nature and 

location of survey operations prior to 

the time period above. 

Reporting 

A report will be submitted to NMFS 

within 90 days after the end of the 

survey. The report will describe the 

operations that were conducted and 

sightings of marine mammals near the 

operations. The report will provide full 

documentation of methods, results, and 

interpretation pertaining to all 

monitoring and will summarize the 

dates and locations of seismic 

operations, and all marine mammal 

sightings (dates, times, locations, 

activities, associated seismic survey 

activities). The report will also include 

estimates of the number and nature of 

exposures that occurred above the 

harassment threshold based on PSO 

observations, including an estimate of 

those on the trackline but not detected. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

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

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any responses (e.g., intensity, 

duration), the context of any responses 

(e.g., critical reproductive time or 

location, migration), as well as effects 

on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 

of the mitigation. We also assess the 

number, intensity, and context of 

estimated takes by evaluating this 

information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’ implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the environmental baseline 

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

of the species, population size and 

growth rate where known, ongoing 

sources of human-caused mortality, or 

ambient noise levels). 

NMFS does not anticipate that serious 

injury or mortality will occur as a result 

of USGS’s seismic survey, even in the 

absence of mitigation. Thus, the 

authorization does not authorize any 

mortality. 

Potential impacts to marine mammal 

habitat were discussed previously in the 

Federal Register notice for the proposed 

IHA (83 FR 25268; May 31, 2018). 

Marine mammal habitat may be 

impacted by elevated sound levels, but 

these impacts will be temporary. 

Feeding behavior is not likely to be 

significantly impacted, as marine 

mammals appear to be less likely to 

exhibit behavioral reactions or 

avoidance responses while engaged in 

feeding activities (Richardson et al., 

1995). Prey species are mobile and are 

broadly distributed throughout the 

project area; therefore, marine mammals 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
39708 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Notices 

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 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 

feeding, mating or calving areas known 

to be biologically important to marine 

mammals within the project area during 

the time of the survey (LaBrecque et al., 

2015). 

The acoustic ‘‘footprint’’ of the survey 

will be very small relative to the ranges 

of all marine mammals that will 

potentially be affected. Sound levels 

will increase in the marine environment 

in a relatively small area surrounding 

the vessel compared to the range of the 

marine mammals within the survey 

area. The seismic array will be active 24 

hours per day throughout the duration 

of the survey. However, the very brief 

overall duration of the survey (22 days 

with 19 days of airgun operations) will 

further limit potential impacts that may 

occur as a result of the activity. 

The mitigation measures are expected 

to reduce the number and/or severity of 

takes by allowing for detection of 

marine mammals in the vicinity of the 

vessel by visual and acoustic observers, 

and by minimizing the severity of any 

potential exposures via shutdowns of 

the airgun array. 

Of the marine mammal species that 

are likely to occur in the project area 

during the survey timeframe, the 

following species are listed as 

endangered under the ESA; fin, sei, and 

sperm whales. There are currently 

insufficient data to determine 

population trends for these species 

(Hayes et al., 2017); however, we are 

authorizing very small numbers of takes 

for these species (Table 6), relative to 

their population sizes (again, when 

compared to mean abundance estimates, 

for purposes of comparison only). 

Therefore, we do not expect populationlevel impacts to any of these species. 

The other marine mammal species that 

may be taken by harassment during 

USGS’s seismic survey are not listed as 

threatened or endangered under the 

ESA. There is no designated critical 

habitat for any ESA-listed marine 

mammals within the project area; of the 

non-listed marine mammals for which 

we authorize take, none are considered 

‘‘depleted’’ or ‘‘strategic’’ by NMFS 

under the MMPA, except for pilot 

whales and false killer whales. 

NMFS concludes that exposures to 

marine mammal species due to USGS’s 

seismic survey will result in only shortterm (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 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 injury (Level A take), serious 

injury or mortality is anticipated or 

authorized; 

• The anticipated impacts of the 

activity on marine mammals will 

primarily be temporary behavioral 

changes due to avoidance of the area 

around the survey vessel. The relatively 

short duration of the survey (22 days 

with 19 days of airgun operations) will 

further limit the potential impacts of 

any temporary behavioral changes that 

will occur; 

• The availability of alternate areas of 

similar habitat value for marine 

mammals to temporarily vacate the 

survey area during the survey to avoid 

exposure to sounds from the activity; 

• The project area does not contain 

areas of significance for feeding, mating 

or calving; 

• The potential adverse effects on fish 

or invertebrate species that serve as prey 

species for marine mammals from the 

survey will be temporary and spatially 

limited; and 

• The 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 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. 

Please see Tables 6 and 7 and the 

related text for information relating to 

the basis for our small numbers 

analyses. Table 7 provides the numbers 

of predicted exposures above specified 

received levels, while Table 7 provides 

the numbers of take authorized. For the 

northern bottlenose whale, Fraser’s 

dolphin, melon-headed whale, false 

killer whale, pygmy killer whale, killer 

whale, spinner dolphin, and whitesided dolphin, we authorize take 

resulting from a single exposure of one 

group of each species or stock, as 

appropriate (using average group size), 

for each applicant. We believe that a 

single incident of take of one group of 

any of these species represents take of 

small numbers for that species. Due to 

the scarcity, broad spatial distributions, 

and habitat preferences of these species 

relative to the areas where the surveys 

will occur, NMFS concludes that the 

authorized take of a single group of 

these species likely represent small 

numbers relative to the affected species’ 

overall population sizes. Therefore, 

based on the analyses contained herein 

of the specified activity, we find that 

small numbers of marine mammals will 

be taken for each of these eight affected 

species or stocks for the specified 

activity. We do not discuss these eight 

species further in this small numbers 

analysis. 

As shown in Table 6, we used mean 

abundance estimates from Roberts 

(2016) to calculate the percentage of 

population that is estimated to be taken 

during the activities for non-rare 

species. The activity is expected to 

impact a very small percentage of all 

marine mammal populations. As 

presented in Table 6, take of all 21 

marine mammal species authorized for 

take is less than three percent of the 

abundance estimate. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the activity (including the 

mitigation and monitoring measures) 

and the anticipated take of marine 

mammals, NMFS finds that small 

numbers of marine mammals will be 

taken relative to the population size of 

the affected species or stocks. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Notices 39709 

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 will not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

such species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

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

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally, in this 

case with NMFS’ ESA Interagency 

Cooperation Division, whenever we 

authorize take for endangered or 

threatened species. 

NMFS’s ESA Interagency Cooperation 

Division issued a Biological Opinion on 

August 6, 2018 to NMFS Office of 

Protected Resources which concluded 

that the USGS’s MATRIX survey is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of the sei whale, fin whale, 

sperm whale, and north Atlantic right 

whale or adversely modify critical 

habitat. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

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

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

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

incidental harassment authorization) 

with respect to potential impacts on the 

human environment. Accordingly, 

NMFS prepared an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) to consider the 

environmental impacts associated with 

the issuance of the IHA to USGS. We 

reviewed all comments submitted in 

response to the Federal Register notice 

for the proposed IHA (83 FR 25268; May 

31, 2018) prior to concluding our NEPA 

process and deciding whether or not to 

issue a Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI). NMFS concluded that issuance 

of an IHA to USGS will not significantly 

affect the quality of the human 

environment and prepared and issued a 

FONSI in accordance with NEPA and 

NAO 216–6A. NMFS’s EA and FONSI 

for this activity are available on our 

website at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-research-and-otheractivities. 

Authorization 

As a result of these determinations, 

we have issued an IHA to USGS for 

conducting the described seismic survey 

activities from August 1, 2018 through 

July 31, 2019 provided the previously 

described mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting requirements are incorporated. 

Dated: August 7, 2018. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17170 Filed 8–9–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XG291 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Pile Driving 

Activities for the Restoration of Pier 

62, Seattle Waterfront, Elliott Bay 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Incidental harassment 

authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

regulations implementing the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as 

amended, notification is hereby given 

that NMFS has issued an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) to the 

Seattle Department of Transportation 

(DOT) to incidentally harass, by Level A 

and B harassment, marine mammals 

during pile driving and removal 

activities associated with the restoration 

of Pier 62, Seattle Waterfront, Elliott Bay 

in Seattle, Washington (Season 2). 

DATES: This Authorization is applicable 

from August 1, 2018 through February 

28, 2019. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephanie Egger, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

Electronic copies of the application and 

supporting documents, as well as a list 

of the references cited in this document, 

may be obtained online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-constructionactivities. 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). 

National Environmental Policy Act 

In compliance with NOAA policy, the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), 

and the Council on Environmental 

Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500– 

1508), NMFS determined the issuance 

of the IHA qualifies to be categorically 

excluded from further NEPA review. 

This action is consistent with categories 

of activities identified in CE B4 of the 

Companion Manual for NOAA 

Administrative Order 216–6A, which do 

not individually or cumulatively have 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES