44578 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Notices 

Committee will modify the document as 

necessary, select preferred alternatives, 

and approve all actions. 

4. The Committee will receive an 

overview of Vision Blueprint Regulatory 

Amendment 27 addressing commercial 

management actions and alternatives, as 

identified in the 2016–2020 Vision 

Blueprint for the Snapper Grouper 

Fishery. The Committee will modify the 

document as necessary and consider 

approval for formal Secretarial review. 

5. The Committee will review public 

scoping comments for Snapper Grouper 

Amendment 47 addressing federal forhire permit modification options and 

provide guidance to staff. 

6. The Committee will receive an 

overview of Regulatory Amendment 30 

addressing a rebuilding plan for red 

grouper, modify the draft amendment as 

necessary and approve preferred 

alternatives. 

7. The Committee will review public 

scoping comments for Snapper Grouper 

Regulatory Amendment 32 addressing 

yellowtail snapper accountability 

measures, review the draft amendment, 

modify actions, and consider approval 

for public hearings. 

8. The Committee will review 

Abbreviated Framework Amendment 2 

addressing measures for vermilion 

snapper and black sea bass, modify the 

draft amendment as necessary, choose 

preferred alternatives, and consider 

approval for formal Secretarial review. 

Mackerel Cobia Committee, 

Wednesday, September 19, 2018, 3 p.m. 

Until 4 p.m. 

1. The Committee will receive an 

update on commercial catches versus 

ACLs, and an update on the status of 

amendments under formal review by 

NOAA Fisheries. 

2. The Committee will review Coastal 

Migratory Pelagics Framework 

Amendment 6 addressing Atlantic king 

mackerel trip limits, confirm preferred 

alternatives, and consider approval for 

formal Secretarial Review. 

Formal Public Comment, Wednesday, 

September 19, 2018, 4 p.m. 

Public comment will be accepted on 

items on the Council meeting agenda 

scheduled to be approved for Secretarial 

Review: Snapper Grouper Abbreviated 

Framework 2 Amendment (vermilion 

snapper and black sea bass); Snapper 

Grouper Vision Blueprint Regulatory 

Amendment 27 (commercial measures); 

CMP Framework Amendment 6 (King 

mackerel trip limits); and Spiny Lobster 

Amendment 13 (Update management 

procedures and bully net measures). 

Public comment will also be accepted 

on all agenda items. The Council Chair, 

based on the number of individuals 

wishing to comment, will determine the 

amount of time provided to each 

commenter. 

Executive/Finance Committee, 

Thursday, September 20, 2018, 8:30 

a.m. Until 12 p.m. 

1. The Committee will receive an 

overview of the current MagnusonStevens Reauthorization efforts and the 

CCC Working Paper which includes 

positions on reauthorization, discuss, 

and provide guidance to staff. 

2. The Committee will receive an 

overview of the draft Calendar-Year 

2018 budget and approve the budget. 

3. The committee will review the 

Council’s Follow Up document and 

Priorities list, discuss, and provide 

guidance to staff. 

4. The Committee will receive an 

update on regulatory reform efforts, a 

review of NOAA Fisheries issues open 

for comment, and an overview of the 

Law Enforcement Advisory Panel 

meeting schedule. The committee will 

discuss these agenda items and provide 

guidance to staff. 

Council Session: Thursday, September 

20, 2018, 1:30 p.m. Until 5 p.m. and 

Friday, September 21, 2018, 8:30 a.m. 

Until 12 p.m. (Partially Closed Session 

if Needed) 

The Full Council will begin with the 

Call to Order, adoption of the agenda, 

approval of minutes, election of chair 

and vice chair, and awards/recognition. 

The Council will receive a Legal 

Briefing on Litigation from NOAA 

General Counsel (if needed) during 

Closed Session. The Council will 

receive staff reports including the 

Executive Director’s Report, and 

updates from Council staff on the 

MyFishCount pilot project, outreach for 

for-hire electronic reporting 

requirements, the Council’s Citizen 

Science Program, and the transition to 

an electronic newsletter. 

Updates will be provided by NOAA 

Fisheries including a report on the 

status of commercial catches versus 

ACLs for species not covered during an 

earlier committee meeting, data-related 

reports, protected resources updates, 

update on the status of the of the 

Commercial Electronic Logbook 

Program, and the status of the Marine 

Recreational Information Program 

(MRIP) conversions for recreational 

fishing estimates. The Council will 

discuss and take action as necessary. 

The Council will review any 

Exempted Fishing Permits received as 

necessary. The Council will receive an 

overview of MRIP and Revisions from 

NOAA Fisheries as well as Draft 

Amendment 11 to the 2006 

Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory 

Species Fishery Management Plan for 

Management of Shortfin Mako Sharks 

and take action as appropriate. 

The Council will receive committee 

reports from the Snapper Grouper, 

Mackerel Cobia, Spiny Lobster, AP 

Selection, SEDAR, Habitat, SOPPs, and 

Executive Finance Committees, as well 

a report from the Recreational 

Workshop, and take action as 

appropriate. 

The Council will receive agency and 

liaison reports; and discuss other 

business and upcoming meetings. 

Documents regarding these issues are 

available from the Council office (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Although non-emergency issues not 

contained in this agenda may come 

before this group for discussion, those 

issues may not be the subject of formal 

action during this meeting. Action will 

be restricted to those issues specifically 

identified in this notice and any issues 

arising after publication of this notice 

that require emergency action under 

section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act, provided the public has been 

notified of the Council’s intent to take 

final action to address the emergency. 

Special Accommodations 

These meetings are physically 

accessible to people with disabilities. 

Requests for auxiliary aids should be 

directed to the Council office (see 

ADDRESSES) 5 days prior to the meeting. 

Note: The times and sequence specified in 

this agenda are subject to change. 

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

Dated: August 28, 2018. 

Tracey L. Thompson, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–18979 Filed 8–30–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XG144 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to a Marine 

Geophysical Survey in the North 

Pacific Ocean 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Notices 44579 

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 

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of 

Columbia University (L–DEO) to 

incidentally take, by Level A and/or 

Level B harassment, marine mammals 

during a Marine Geophysical Survey in 

the North Pacific Ocean. 

DATES: This Authorization is effective 

from September 1, 2018, through August 

31, 2019. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rob 

Pauline, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, (301) 427–8401. Electronic 

copies of the application and supporting 

documents, as well as a list of the 

references cited in this document, may 

be obtained online at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/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 

The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of 

marine mammals, with certain 

exceptions. 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 

incidental take authorization may be 

provided to the public for review. 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s) and will not have 

an unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

taking for subsistence uses (where 

relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe 

the permissible methods of taking and 

other ‘‘means of effecting the least 

practicable [adverse] impact’’ on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of such species or stocks for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(referred to in shorthand as 

‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth. 

Summary of Request 

On March 16, 2018, NMFS received a 

request from the L–DEO for an IHA to 

take marine mammals incidental to 

conducting a marine geophysical survey 

in the North Pacific Ocean. L–DEO 

submitted a revised application on June 

11, 2018. On June 13, 2018, we deemed 

L–DEO’s application for authorization to 

be adequate and complete. L–DEO’s 

request is for take of small numbers of 

39 species of marine mammals by Level 

A and Level B harassment. Underwater 

sound associated with airgun use may 

result in the behavioral harassment or 

auditory injury of marine mammals in 

the ensonified areas. Mortality is not an 

anticipated outcome of airgun surveys 

such as this, and, therefore, an IHA is 

appropriate. 

NMFS has issued an IHA to L–DEO 

authorizing the take of 39 species by 

Level A and Level B harassment. The 

IHA is effective from September 1, 2018 

through August 31, 2019. 

Description of Planned Activity 

The planned activity consists of two 

high-energy seismic surveys conducted 

at different locations in the North 

Pacific Ocean. Researchers from L–DEO 

and University of Hawaii, with funding 

from the U.S. National Science 

Foundation (NSF), in collaboration with 

researchers from United States 

Geological Survey (USGS), Oxford 

University, and GEOMAR Helmholtz 

Centre for Ocean Research Kiel 

(GEOMAR), plan to conduct the surveys 

from the Research Vessel (R/V) Marcus 

G. Langseth (Langseth) in the North 

Pacific Ocean. The first planned seismic 

survey would occur in the vicinity of 

the Main Hawaiian Islands in 2018 and 

a subsequent survey would take place at 

the Emperor Seamounts in 2019. The 

planned timing for the Hawaii survey is 

late summer/early fall 2018; the timing 

for the Emperor Seamounts survey 

would likely be late spring/early 

summer 2019. Both surveys would use 

a 36-airgun towed array with a total 

discharge volume of ∼6,600 in3. The 

main goal of the surveys planned by 

L–DEO and the University of Hawaii is 

to gain fundamental insight into the 

formation and evaluation of HawaiianEmperor Seamount chain, and inform a 

more comprehensive assessment of 

geohazards for the Hawaiian Islands 

region. 

The Hawaii survey would be expected 

to last for 38 days, including ∼19 days 

of seismic operations, 11 days of 

equipment deployment/retrieval, ∼5 

days of operational contingency time 

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

of transit. The Emperor Seamounts 

survey would be expected to last 40 

days, including ∼13 days of seismic 

operations, ∼11 days of equipment 

deployment/retrieval, ∼3 days of 

operational contingency time, and 13 

days of transit. 

Representative survey tracklines are 

shown in Figures 1 and 2 in the 

application. Water depths in the Hawaii 

survey area range from ∼700 m to more 

than 5,000 m. The water depths in the 

Emperor Seamounts survey area range 

from 1,500–6,000 m. The Hawaii 

seismic survey will be conducted within 

the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ); 

the Emperor Seamounts survey will take 

place in International Waters. 

The procedures to be used for the 

planned surveys would be similar to 

those used during previous seismic 

surveys by L–DEO and would use 

conventional seismic methodology. The 

surveys would involve one source 

vessel, the Langseth, which is owned by 

NSF and operated on its behalf by 

Columbia University’s L–DEO. The 

Langseth would deploy an array of 36 

airguns as an energy source with a total 

volume of ∼6,600 in3. The receiving 

system would consist of ocean bottom 

seismometers (OBSs) and a single 

hydrophone streamer 15 km in length. 

As the airgun arrays are towed along the 

survey lines, the hydrophone streamer 

would transfer the data to the on-board 

processing system, and the OBSs would 

receive and store the returning acoustic 

signals internally for later analysis. 

A detailed description of the planned 

project is provided in the Federal 

Register notice for the proposed IHA (83 

FR 30480; June 28, 2018). Since that 

time, no changes have been made to the 

planned activities. Therefore, a detailed 

description is not provided here. Please 

refer to that Federal Register notice for 

the description of the specific activity. 

Comments and Responses 

NMFS published a notice of proposed 

IHA in the Federal Register on June 28, 

2018 (83 FR 30480). During the 30-day 

public comment period, NMFS received 

comments from the Marine Mammal 

Commission (Commission), the Marine 

Seismic Research Oversight Committee 

(MSROC), the Cascadia Research 

Consortium (CRC), the Natural 

Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and 

from members of the general public. 

NMFS has posted the comments online 

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

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

incidental-take-authorizations-researchVerDate Sep<11>2014 18:42 Aug 30, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\31AUN1.SGM 31AUN1

daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
44580 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Notices 

and-other-activities. The following is a 

summary of the public comments and 

NMFS’ responses. 

Comment: The Commission noted 

that several of the density estimates 

used by NMFS were outdated or 

incorrect. 

Response: NMFS used several density 

sources to estimate take including 

Bradford et al. (2015, 2017) and 

methods described in Department of the 

Navy (2017). As the Commission 

recommended, for the final IHA notice, 

NMFS has revised the densities for 

striped dolphins to 25 from 5.36 

animals/1,000 km2 and for Fraser’s 

dolphins to 21 from 4.17 animals/1,000 

km2 based on Bradford (2017). In the 

proposed notice, NMFS divided by 

three the unidentified Mesoplodon spp. 

density of 1.89 animals/1,000 km2 from 

Bradford et al. (2017) (resulting in 0.63 

animals/1,000 km2) for gingko-toothed, 

Deraniyagala’s, and Hubb’s beaked 

whale densities. NMFS revised the 

density for each species in the notice to 

1.89 animals/1,000 km2, since there was 

no data available identifying separate 

densities for these species. NMFS 

updated the false killer whale densities 

to animals/100 km2 as take had been 

incorrectly estimated using a density of 

animals/1,000 km2 in the notice of 

proposed IHA (Bradford et al. 2015). 

NMFS further indicated it would amend 

all takes accordingly. NMFS utilized an 

average group size from Bradford et al. 

(2017) to increase the number of 

recalculated Level B harassment takes of 

killer whales to five. NMFS also 

increased Level A harassment takes for 

humpback and sei whales to average 

group size. 

Comment: The Commission 

recommended that NMFS re-calculate 

the monk seal density based on an 

abundance of 1,324 from Baker et al. 

(2016) as this is thought to be the best 

available density information. The 

Commission also recommended that 

NMFS re-estimate the number of Level 

B harassment takes of monk seals based 

on this data. 

Response: NMFS has recalculated 

authorized Level B harassment takes 

based on the Commission’s 

recommendation. A complete 

description may be found in the 

Estimated Take section. 

Comment: The Commission and 

NRDC expressed concerns about 

potential impacts to small and resident 

populations of marine mammals located 

in Main Hawaiian Islands. The 

Commission recommended that NMFS 

require L–DEO to implement shut-down 

procedures if a melon-headed whale or 

group of melon-headed whales is 

observed in the habitat of the Kohala 

resident stock and ensure that the 

estimated number of Level B harassment 

takes is sufficient based on group size of 

melon-headed whales for the Hawaiian 

Islands stock. The Commission noted 

that similar issues exist for the various 

MHI insular stocks of spinner and 

common bottlenose dolphins. However, 

the group sizes for those species are 

much less than for melon- headed 

whales. The Commission recommended 

that NMFS (1) authorize only those 

numbers of Level B harassment takes of 

the various MHI insular stocks of 

spinner and bottlenose dolphins for 

which NMFS can make a small numbers 

determination and (2) if the authorized 

takes are met for any of those stocks, 

require L–DEO to implement shut-down 

procedures if a spinner or bottlenose 

dolphin or group of dolphins is 

observed approaching or within the 

Level B harassment zone in the habitat 

of the specific MHI insular stock. 

Response: L–DEO will be required to 

implement shut-down procedures if a 

melon-headed whale or group of melonheaded whales is observed in Kohala 

resident stock habitat. NMFS has also 

revised authorized take numbers to 

ensure that the number of estimated 

takes is sufficient based on group size of 

melon-headed whales for the Hawaiian 

Islands stock (see Take Calculation and 

Estimation section for detail). NMFS 

also has made small numbers 

determinations for the stocks described 

in the comment above and will require 

L–DEO to implement shut-down 

procedures if a spinner or bottlenose 

dolphin or group of dolphins is 

observed approaching or within the 

Level B harassment zone in the habitat 

of the specific MHI insular stock if the 

authorized takes are met for any of these 

stocks. 

Comment: The Commission noted 

that various datasets used for estimating 

densities in the area of the Emperor 

survey were compiled 30 to 35 years ago 

while others originated from other 

geographic regions with presumed 

assumptions. The Commission had 

previously recommended that NMFS 

should adjust the density estimates used 

to estimate the numbers of potential 

takes by incorporating some measure of 

uncertainty when available density data 

originate from other geographical areas, 

temporal scales, and species. Since 

many of the references from which the 

density data originated include 

coefficients of variation (CVs), standard 

errors (SEs), or confidence intervals (CI), 

which provide information on 

uncertainty relative to the underlying 

data, the Commission recommended 

that NMFS adjust the density estimates 

using some measure of uncertainty (i.e., 

CV, SD, SE, upper CI) for the Emperor 

survey area. The Commission also 

recommended that NMFS convene a 

working group of scientists to determine 

how best to incorporate uncertainty in 

density data that are extrapolated. 

Response: The Commission 

recommended that NMFS adjust density 

estimates using some measure of 

uncertainty when available density data 

originate from different geographic 

areas, temporal scales, and species, 

especially for actions which will occur 

outside the U.S. EEZ where site- and 

species-specific density estimates tend 

to be scant, such as L–DEO’s planned 

survey in the Emperor Seamounts area. 

We have attempted to do so in this IHA, 

and feel the 25 percent correction factor 

is an appropriate method in this case to 

account for uncertainties in the density 

data that were available for use in the 

take estimates. NMFS is open to 

consideration of other correction factors 

for use in future IHAs and looks forward 

to further discussion with the 

Commission on how best to incorporate 

uncertainty in density estimates in 

instances where density data is limited. 

Regarding the Commission’s 

recommendation that NMFS convene an 

internal working group to determine 

what data sources are considered best 

available for the various species and in 

the various areas, NMFS may consider 

future action to address these issues, but 

currently intends to address these 

questions through ongoing interactions 

with the U.S. Navy, academic 

institutions, and other research 

organizations. 

Comment: The Commission 

recommended that NMFS require L– 

DEO to specify why it is using radial 

distances for SELcum and SPLrms 

metrics and radii for SPLpeak metrics. 

Response: The radius is commonly 

used to determine Level A harassment 

isopleths, as well as those for Level B. 

In order for L–DEO to be able to account 

for accumulation associated with NMFS 

Revised Technical Guidance’s SELcum 

thresholds, including the use of the 

NMFS optional User Spreadsheet tool, 

they needed to determine far-field 

source level. In order to do, L–DEO 

relied upon the more conservative radial 

distance, since the radial distance is 

larger than the radius. They used the 

radial distance to determine modified 

far-field source levels, which were 

directly incorporated in the NMFS 

optional User Spreadsheet to determine 

Level A isopleths using the SELcum 

metric. L–DEO also used the more 

conservative radial distance to back 

calculate their modified far-field source 

levels for SPLpeak. The radius was then 

determined by plugging the radial 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Notices 44581 

distance into the Pythagorean theorem 

(as the hypotenuse). This radius value 

was then used to calculate the peak 

sound pressure level isopleth. 

In summary, use of the radius is not 

inconsistent with how isopleths have 

been calculated for other sources, 

including seismic activities. Use of the 

radius will also account for animals at 

depth that are at the longest radial 

distance. Note that the use of radial 

distance was used only to establish 

modified far-field source levels. 

Comment: The Commission 

recommended that NMFS provide 

justification for why it believes that L– 

DEO’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 MF and HF cetaceans. 

Response: Experience and amplitude 

spectral density showed in the L–DEO 

application indicate that most of the 

energy output for Langseth-type source 

is below 1 kHz, and so the error done 

by omitting higher frequencies will be 

fairly small. To evaluate the impact of 

the high frequencies (>1 KHz), L–DEO 

calculated amplitude spectral densities 

using information from the Langseth 

Gulf of Mexico calibration experiment 

(Tolstoy et al., 2009) and compared 

them to the results used in the L–DEO 

application (up to 3KHz). Scenario A is 

the one used in the L–DEO application 

(spectrum up to 3 KHz). Scenario B 

considers the same spectrum up to 10 

KHz. The spectrum was obtained by 

upsampling the farfield signature 

obtained from the Nucleus modeling 

package. Scenario C considers the 

spectrum derived from the farfield 

signature obtained using the Nucleus 

modeling package from 1 Hz to ∼200 Hz 

and L–DEO extended the spectrum with 

a realistic decay curve (¥35dB/decade) 

from ∼200 Hz up to 10 kHz. The 

¥35dB/decade decay curve is derived 

from the slope hydrophone data from 

the Gulf of Mexico study (Fig. 14 of 

Tolstoy et al., 2009). Because this decay 

curve boosts/increases the amplitudes 

between 200 Hz and 1 KHz much more 

than the predicted spectrum derived 

from the Nucleus modeling package and 

that is valid in that frequency range, for 

scenario D, L–DEO took a ¥30dB/ 

decade decay curve around ∼600 Hz. 

Results show that the adjustment 

factors slightly decrease for scenarios C 

and D and the corresponding PTS 

SELcum Isopleths to thresholds are a 

little higher for those two scenarios 

(<20m) but are always smaller than the 

PTS SELcum Isopleths to thresholds 

derived from the Peak SPL that was 

used here. 

Comment: The Commission 

recommended that NMFS require L– 

DEO to re-estimate 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 41 at a minimum) 

parameters, (2) a comprehensive source 

model (i.e., Gundalf Optimizer or 

AASM) and (3) an appropriate sound 

propagation model for the proposed 

incidental harassment authorization. 

Specifically, the Commission reiterates 

that L–DEO should be using the raytracing sound propagation model 

BELLHOP—which is a free, standard 

propagation code that readily 

incorporates all environmental inputs 

listed herein, rather than the limited, inhouse MATLAB code currently in use. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

Commission’s concerns about L–DEO’s 

current modeling approach for 

estimating Level A and Level B 

harassment zones and takes. L–DEO’s 

application and the Federal Register 

notice of the proposed IHA (83 FR 

30480; June 28, 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 

environmental and site-specific 

parameters as requested by the 

Commission. 

L–DEO’s application describes their 

approach to modeling Level A and Level 

B harassment zones. 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 in 2007 and 2008 (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 

exclusion isopleths in other areas by 

conducting a retrospective sound power 

analysis of one of the lines acquired 

during L–DEO’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 

issued Authorization 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 insitu, site specific 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 smaller, respectively, 

than the in-situ, 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 mitigation 

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

than 1,000 m; 3280.8 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 offshore Washington 

State. LDEO conducted the shallowwater 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
44582 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Notices 

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 

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 data 

points 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 three data points, 

two of which are peer-reviewed, 

discussed in this response), NMFS finds 

that the Level A and Level B harassment 

zone calculations are 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 adequate for 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: Given the shortcomings 

noted for L–DEO’s source and sound 

propagation modeling and the 

requirements that other action 

proponents are obliged to fulfill, the 

Commission recommended that NMFS 

require L–DEO to archive, analyze, and 

compare the in-situ data collected by 

the hydrophone streamer and OBSs to 

L–DEO’s modeling results for the 

extents of the Level A and B harassment 

zones based on the various water depths 

to be surveyed and provide the data and 

results to NMFS. 

Response: Based on information 

presented by the applicant and 

supported by published analysis such as 

Diebold et al. 2010, Tolstoy et al. 2009, 

Crone et al. 2014, Crone et al. 2017, 

Barton et al. 2006, and Diebold et al. 

2006, L–DEO modeling results and 

predicted distances to harassment zones 

are likely more conservative than actual 

distances measured from data collected 

in situ. The Commission stated one 

reason for recommending that NMFS 

require L–DEO to conduct sound source 

verification efforts was due to the shortcomings of the L–DEO model. However, 

as previously noted, the L–DEO model 

is conservative and is viewed 

appropriate for R/V Langseth 

operations. Use of the L–DEO model is 

further supported by ten years of 

successful operations with no observed 

harm to marine life. For these reasons, 

additional sound source verification 

efforts are not warranted at this time. 

L–DEO has met with the Commission 

and NMFS on several occasions to 

explain the model and why it is, 

although conservative, the most 

appropriate approach to use for R/V 

Langseth operations. The planned 

survey will mainly occur in deep water 

(98.5%) and as demonstrated in Diebold 

et al. 2010 and Tolstoy et al. 2009 for 

deep water, the results show that the 

predicted distances were conservative 

relative to measured values. Even 

allowing for scaling of actual 

measurements between different tow 

depths of Tolstoy (2009) from 6 m to 12 

m in the IHA, this yields a radius of 

4,940 which is much less than model 

predictions of 6,733 m included in the 

IHA application. 

Comment: The Commission 

recommended that NMFS use a 

consistent approach for requiring all 

geophysical and seismic survey 

operators to abide by the same general 

mitigation measures, including 

prohibiting L–DEO from using power 

downs and the mitigation airgun during 

its geophysical surveys. 

Response: NMFS is in the process of 

developing protocols that could be 

applied to geophyscical and seismic 

surveys. The protocols are being 

developed on the basis of detailed 

review of available literature, including 

peer-review science, review articles, 

gray literature, and protocols required 

by other countries around the world. 

NMFS will share the protocols with the 

Commission when they are ready for 

external comment and review. 

Note that powerdowns are only 

allowed/required in lieu of shutdown 

when certain species of dolphins, 

specifically identified in the Mitigation 

section, enter the shutdown zone. In all 

other cases, shutdown would be 

implemented under conditions as 

described in the IHA. 

Comment: The Commission noted 

that monitoring and reporting 

requirements adopted need to be 

sufficient to provide a reasonably 

accurate assessment of the manner of 

taking and the numbers of animals taken 

incidental to the specified activity. 

Those assessments should account for 

all animals in the various survey areas, 

including those animals directly on the 

trackline that are not detected and how 

well animals are detected based on the 

distance from the observer which is 

achieved by incorporating g(0) and f(0) 

values. The Commission recommended 

that NMFS require L–DEO to use the 

Commission’s method as described in 

the Commission’s Addendum to better 

estimate the numbers of marine 

mammals taken by Level A and B 

harassment for the incidental 

harassment authorization. The 

Commission stated that all other NSFaffiliated entities and all seismic 

operators should use this method as 

well. 

Response: NMFS agrees that reporting 

of the manner of taking and the numbers 

of animals incidentally taken should 

account for all animals taken, including 

those animals directly on the trackline 

that are not detected and how well 

animals are detected based on the 

distance from the observer, to the extent 

practicable. NMFS appreciates the 

Commission’s recommendations but we 

believe that the Commission’s described 

method needs further consideration in 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Notices 44583 

relation to the observations conducted 

during marine geophysical surveys. 

Therefore, at this time we do not 

prescribe a particular method for 

accomplishing this task. We look 

forward to engaging further both 

L–DEO, the Commission and other 

applicants to reach a determination on 

the most suitable method to for 

estimating g(0) and f(0) values. 

Comment: The Commission and 

NRDC recommended that NMFS refrain 

from implementing its proposed oneyear renewal process and instead use 

abbreviated Federal Register notices 

and reference existing documents to 

streamline the incidental harassment 

authorization process. The Commission 

further recommends that NMFS provide 

the Commission and the public with a 

legal analysis supporting its conclusion 

that the process is consistent with the 

requirements under section 101(a)(5)(D) 

of the MMPA. Furthermore, if NMFS 

decides to bypass the notice and 

comment process in advance of issuing 

a renewal, it should nevertheless 

publish notice in the Federal Register 

whenever such a renewal has been 

issued. 

Response: NMFS appreciates the 

streamlining achieved by the use of 

abbreviated FR notices and intends to 

continue using them for proposed IHAs 

that include minor changes from 

previously issued IHAs, but which do 

not satisfy the renewal requirements. 

We believe our proposed method for 

issuing renewals meets statutory 

requirements and maximizes efficiency. 

Importantly, such renewals would be 

limited to circumstances where: the 

activities are identical or nearly 

identical to those analyzed in the 

proposed IHA; monitoring does not 

indicate impacts that were not 

previously analyzed and authorized; 

and, the mitigation and monitoring 

requirements remain the same, all of 

which allow the public to comment on 

the appropriateness and effects of a 

renewal at the same time the public 

provides comments on the initial IHA. 

NMFS has, however, modified the 

language for future proposed IHAs to 

clarify that all IHAs, including renewal 

IHAs, are valid for no more than one 

year and that the agency would consider 

only one renewal for a project at this 

time. In addition, notice of issuance or 

denial of a renewal IHA would be 

published in the Federal Register, as 

they are for all IHAs. Last, NMFS will 

publish on our website a description of 

the renewal process before any renewal 

is issued utilizing the new process. 

Comment: The Commission 

recommends that NMFS require earlier 

submission of applications and other 

documentation so that it has adequate 

time to review and provide comments 

on the adequacy and accuracy of the 

application, allow applicants to make 

necessary revisions or additions to the 

application, draft its proposed 

authorization, and consider the 

comments received from the public. 

Response: There are no regulations 

stipulating a required time frame for 

submission of an IHA applications in 

advance of the requested date of 

issuance. However, NMFS has provided 

to the public recommended time frames 

for submission of applications for IHAs 

and rulemakings/letter of authorization 

(LOAs) which are posted at https://

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

NMFS will continue to strongly 

encourage applicants to submit 

applications well in advance of the 

anticipated issuance dates such that 

applications can undergo thorough 

review and revisions can be made as 

appropriate. 

Comment: The planned survey will 

pass through the ranges of a number of 

small island-associated populations 

around the main Hawaiian Islands. 

These include the range of the 

endangered Kohala resident stock of 

melon-headed whales and the newly 

designated critical habitat area for the 

Main Hawaiian Islands insular false 

killer whale Distinct Population 

Segment (83 FR 35062; July 24, 2018). 

Given that visual observation at night 

will be ineffective at detecting animals 

of either species, CRC recommended 

that seismic surveys through ranges of 

these species should only be allowed 

during daylight hours. 

Response: L–DEO has agreed to 

attempt to time their surveys such that 

most of the seismic activity would occur 

within the ranges of the two species of 

concern only during daylight hours. 

However, unforeseen circumstances 

(e.g. weather, equipment breakdown) 

may preclude L–DEO from conducting 

all seismic operations during daylight 

within these species’ ranges. Various 

operational requirements and protocols 

associated with marine seismic surveys 

do not generally allow for the prolonged 

stoppage or delay of seismic activities 

when a trackline is being surveyed. 

Additionally, it will take the Langseth 

approximately 10.6 hours per pass along 

Trackline 1 to traverse the stock 

boundaries of the Kohala resident stock. 

There will be two passes along both 

Tracklines 1 and 2 with each pass 

separated by several days. It will take 

the Langseth about 18.6 hours per pass 

on Trackline 1 and 12.5 hours per pass 

onTrackline 2 to traverse the larger 

insular false killer whale critical habitat 

area. The amount of time spent within 

the identified boundary areas will be 

limited and the majority of monitoring 

will occur during daylight hours. 

Comment: CRC and a single 

individual both recommended that 

NMFS require additional monitoring of 

the melon-headed whale population 

during Trackline 1 of the seismic 

survey. This could be achieved by 

deploying satellite tags on individual 

melon-headed whales immediately (i.e., 

within a few days) prior to the survey 

vessel undertaking Trackline 1. The 

proximity of one or more groups of 

melon-headed whales to survey 

activities could be monitored. CRC 

recommended that NMFS should either 

require L–DEO to implement this type 

of monitoring program themselves or 

notify independent researchers who are 

permitted to work in the area during the 

timing of the survey with enough 

advance notice to allow for satellite tag 

monitoring. 

Response: NMFS generally does not 

require applicants to implement highly 

technical monitoring regimes, especially 

when the applicant would need to 

secure additional research permits. 

Furthermore, NMFS cannot direct an 

applicant to divulge what they deem to 

be highly sensitive information (i.e., 

ship location and/or route). Instead, 

NMFS encouraged CRC to contact L– 

DEO directly. Also, as noted above, the 

time spent in the vicinity of the small 

resident population of melon-headed 

whale will be minimal. 

Comment: MSROC noted the 

scientific and societal importance of the 

planned Langseth seismic surveys, 

endorsed these collaborative research 

programs, and strongly encouraged 

NMFS to approve and issue an IHA. 

They urged NMFS to issue the IHA as 

soon as possible following the close of 

the public comment period. 

Response: NMFS appreciates the 

importance of this research and has 

issued the IHA to L–DEO in a timely 

manner. 

Comment: An individual referred to 

recent research findings (McCauley et 

al. 2017) indicating that use of airgun 

arrays may damage a range of 

invertebrates. The individual also felt 

that NOAA has the capacity & obligation 

to substantiate these claims prior to 

issuing any further permits. 

Response: Relatively little research 

has been focused on assessing the 

impacts of airguns on invertebrates. The 

study by McCauley et al. (2017) found 

that exposure to airgun sound decreased 

zooplankton abundance compared to 

control samples, and caused a two- to 

three-fold increase in adult and larval 

zooplankton mortality. They observed 

impacts on the zooplankton as far as 1.2 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
44584 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Notices 

km from the exposure location—a much 

greater impact range than previously 

thought; however, there was no 

consistent decline in the proportion of 

dead zooplankton as distance increased 

and received levels decreased. The 

authors also stated that in order to have 

significant impacts on r-selected species 

such as plankton, the spatial or 

temporal scale of impact must be large 

in comparison with the ecosystem 

concerned, and it is possible that the 

findings reflect avoidance by 

zooplankton rather than mortality 

(McCauley et al., 2017). In addition, the 

results of this study are inconsistent 

with a large body of research that 

generally finds limited spatial and 

temporal impacts to zooplankton as a 

result of exposure to airgun noise (e.g., 

Dalen and Knutsen, 1987; Payne, 2004; 

Stanley et al., 2011). 

A modeling exercise was conducted 

as a follow-up to the McCauley et al. 

(2017) study (as recommended by 

McCauley et al. (2017)), in order to 

assess the potential for impacts on 

ocean ecosystem dynamics and 

zooplankton population dynamics 

(Richardson et al., 2017). Richardson et 

al. (2017) found that for copepods with 

a short life cycle in a high-energy 

environment, a full-scale airgun survey 

would impact copepod abundance up to 

three days following the end of the 

survey, suggesting that effects such as 

those found by McCauley et al. (2017) 

would not be expected to be detectable 

downstream of the survey areas, either 

spatially or temporally. However, these 

findings are relevant for zooplankton 

with rapid reproductive cycles in areas 

where there is a high natural 

replenishment rate resulting from new 

water masses moving in, and the 

findings may not apply in lower-energy 

environments or for zooplankton with 

longer life-cycles. In fact, the study 

found that by turning off the current, as 

may reflect lower-energy environments, 

the time to recovery for the modelled 

population extended from several days 

to several weeks. 

In the absence of further validation of 

the McCauley et al. (2017) findings, if 

we assume a worst-case likelihood of 

severe impacts to zooplankton within 

approximately 1 km of the acoustic 

source, the large spatial scale and wide 

dispersal of tracklines does not lead us 

to expect any meaningful follow-on 

effects to the prey base for marine 

mammals predators. While the large 

scale of effect observed by McCauley et 

al. (2017) may be of concern, especially 

in a more temperate environment, 

NMFS concludes that these findings 

indicate a need for more study, 

particularly where repeated noise 

exposure is expected—a condition 

unlikely to occur in relation to these 

planned surveys 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of the Specified Activity 

Section 4 of the IHA application 

summarizes available information 

regarding status and trends, distribution 

and habitat preferences, and behavior 

and life history of the potentially 

affected species. More general 

information about these species (e.g., 

physical and behavioral descriptions) 

may be found on NMFS’ website 

(https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/findspecies). Table 1 lists all species with 

expected potential for occurrence in the 

North Pacific Ocean and summarizes 

information related to the population, 

including regulatory status under the 

MMPA and ESA. Some of the 

populations of marine mammals 

considered in this document occur 

within the U.S. EEZ and are therefore 

assigned to stocks and are assessed in 

NMFS’ Stock Assessment Reports 

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

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

marine-mammal-stock-assessments). As 

such, information on potential 

biological removal (PBR; defined by the 

MMPA as the maximum number of 

animals, not including natural 

mortalities, that may be removed from a 

marine mammal stock while allowing 

that stock to reach or maintain its 

optimum sustainable population) and 

on annual levels of serious injury and 

mortality from anthropogenic sources 

are not available for these marine 

mammal populations. 

Twenty-eight cetacean species, 

including 21 odontocetes (dolphins and 

small- and large-toothed whales) and 

seven mysticetes (baleen whales), and 

one pinniped species, could occur in 

the planned Hawaii survey area (Table 

4). In the Emperor Seamounts survey 

area, 27 marine mammal species could 

occur, including 15 odontocetes 

(dolphins and small- and large-toothed 

whales), eight mysticetes (baleen 

whales), and four pinniped species. 

Some species occur in both locations. In 

total, 39 species are expected to occur 

in the vicinity of the specified activity. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals 

estimated within a particular study or 

survey area. All values presented in 

Table 1 are the most recent available at 

the time of publication. 

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

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI3 

Present at time 

of survey 

(Y/N) 

HI Emperor 

seamounts 

Order Cetartiodactyla-Cetacea-Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Eschrichtiidae: 

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

Family Balaenidae: 

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

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

Family Balaenopteridae 

(rorquals): 

Humpback whale ............... Megaptera novaeangliae .......... Central North Pacific ................ -/-; N 10,103 (0.03, 7,890, 

2006) 6.

83 25 Y Y 

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

Minke whale ...................... Balaenoptera acutorostrata ...... Hawaii ....................................... UNK ................................ ................ ................ N Y 

N/A ............................................ 22,000 7 .......................... ................ ................ .................. ..................

Bryde’s whale .................... Balaenoptera edeni/brydei ....... Hawaii ....................................... -/-; N 1,751 (0.29, 1,378, 

2010) 17.

13.8 0 Y Y 

Eastern Tropical Pacific ........... -/-; N UNK ................................ UND UNK .................. ..................

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

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

physalus.

Hawaii ....................................... E/D; Y 154 (1.05, 75, 2010) 17 ... 0.1 0 Y Y 

N/A ............................................ 13,620–18,680 9 ............. ................ ................ .................. ..................

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

musculus.

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


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Notices 44585 

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

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/ 

MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV, Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

PBR Annual 

M/SI3 

Present at time 

of survey 

(Y/N) 

HI Emperor 

seamounts 

Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, porpoises) 

Family Physeteridae: 

Sperm whale ..................... Physeter macrocephalus .......... Hawaii ....................................... E/D; Y 4,559 (0.33, 3,478, 

2010) 17.

13.9 0.7 Y Y 

N/A ............................................ N/A 29,674 10–26,300 11 ........ ................ ................ .................. ..................

Family Kogiidae: 

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

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

Family Ziphiidae (beaked 

whales): 

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

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

Longman’s beaked whale Indopacetus pacificus ............... Hawaii ....................................... -/-; N 7,619 (0.66, 4,592, 

2010) 17.

46 0 y N 

Blainville’s beaked whale .. Mesoplodon densirostris .......... Hawaii ....................................... -/-; N 2,105 (1.13,1, 980, 

2010) 17.

10 0 Y N 

Stejneger’s beaked whale Mesoplodon stejnegeri ............. Alaska ....................................... N UNK ................................ UND 0 N Y 

Ginkgo-toothed beaked 

whale.

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

Deraniyagala’s beaked 

whale.

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

Hubb’s beaked whale ........ Mesoplodon carlhubbsi ............ N/A ............................................ 25,300 12 ......................... ................ ................ Y N 

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

Family Delphinidae: 

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

2010) 17.

46 UNK Common N 

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

2010) 17.

140 0.2 Common N 

Kaua’i and Ni’ihau .................... -/-; N 184 (0.11, 168, 2005) 4 .. 1.7 unk Common N 

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

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

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

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

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

2010) 17.

403 0 Y N 

O’ahu ........................................ -/-; N unk .................................. unk unk .................. ..................

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

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

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

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

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

Striped dolphin .................. Stenella coeruleoalba ............... Hawaii ....................................... -/-; N 61,021 (0.38, 44,922, 

2010) 17.

449 unk Y Y 

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

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

2010) 17.

310 0 Y N 

Pacific white-sided dolphin Lagenorhynchus obliquidens .... Central North Pacific ................ 988,333 16 ....................... ................ ................ N Y 

Northern right whale dolphin.Lissodelphis borealis ................ N/A ............................................ 307,784 16 ....................... ................ ................ N Y 

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

2010) 17.

82 0 Y Y 

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

Melon-headed whale ......... Peponocephala electra ............. Hawaii ....................................... -/-; N 8,666 (1.00, 4,299, 

2010) 17.

43 0 Y N 

Kohala Resident ....................... -/-; N 447 (0.12, 404, 2009) 4 .. 4 0 .................. ..................

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

2010) 17.

56 1.1 Y N 

False killer whale ............... Pseudorca crassidens .............. Hawaii Insular ........................... E/D;Y 167 (0.14, 149, 2015) 17 0.3 0 Y Y 

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

Hawaii Pelagic .......................... -/-; N 1,540 (0.66, 928, 

2010) 17.

9.3 7.6 .................. ..................

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

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

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

Short-finned pilot whale ..... Globicephala macrorhynchus ... Hawaii ....................................... -/-; N 19,503 (0.49, 13,197, 

2010).

106 0.9 Y Y 

N/A ............................................ 53,608 16 ......................... ................ ................ .................. ..................

Family Phoenidae (porpoises): 

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

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals 

and sea lions): 

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

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

2014).

11,405 437 N Y 

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

Family Phocidae (earless 

seals): 

Hawaiian monk seal .......... Neomonachus schauinslandi ... Hawaii ....................................... E/D; Y 1,324 (0.03, 1,261, 

2015) 17.

4.4 ≥1.6 Y N 

Northern elephant seal ...... Mirounga angustirostris ............ ................................................... 210,000–239,000 21 ........ ................ ................ N Y 

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

2013).

9,785 3.8 N Y 

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. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
44586 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Notices 

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’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI 

often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some 

cases. 4 Carretta et al. 2017. 5 Jefferson et al. 2015. 6 Muto et al. 2017. 7 IWC 2018. 

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

9Ohsumi and Wada, 1974. 

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

Note:—Italicized species are not expected to be taken or authorized for take. 

All species that could potentially 

occur in the planned survey area are 

included in Table 1. With the exception 

of Steller sea lions, these species or 

stocks temporally and spatially co-occur 

with the activity to the degree that take 

is reasonably likely to occur. However, 

the temporal and/or spatial occurrence 

of Steller sea lions is such that take is 

not expected to occur, and they are not 

discussed further beyond the 

explanation provided here. The Steller 

sea lion occurs along the North Pacific 

Rim from northern Japan to California 

(Loughlin et al. 1984). They are 

distributed around the coasts to the 

outer shelf from northern Japan through 

the Kuril Islands and Okhotsk Sea, 

through the Aleutian Islands, central 

Bering Sea, southern Alaska, and south 

to California (NMFS 2016c). There is 

little information available on at-sea 

occurrence of Steller sea lions in the 

northwestern Pacific Ocean. The 

Emperor Seamounts survey area is 

roughly 1,200 kilometers away from the 

Aleutian Islands in waters 2,000 to more 

than 5,000 meters deep. Steller sea lions 

are unlikely to occur in the offshore 

survey area based on their known 

distributional range and habitat 

preference. Therefore, it is extremely 

unlikely that Steller sea lions would be 

exposed to the stressors associated with 

seismic activities and will not be 

discussed further. 

A detailed description of the of the 

species likely to be affected by the 

planned project, 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 30480; June 28, 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 

(www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/ 

mammals/) for generalized species 

accounts. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

The effects of underwater noise from 

marine geophysical survey activities 

have the potential to result in behavioral 

harassment and, in a limited number of 

instances, auditory injury (PTS) of 

marine mammals in the vicinity of the 

action area. The Federal Register notice 

of proposed IHA (83 FR 30480; June 28, 

2018) included a discussion of the 

effects of anthropogenic noise on marine 

mammals and their habitat, therefore 

that information is not repeated here; 

please refer to that Federal Register 

notice for that information. No instances 

of serious injury or mortality are 

expected as a result of L–DEO’s survey 

activities. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes 

authorized through this IHA, which will 

inform both NMFS’ consideration of 

whether the number of takes is ‘‘small’’ 

and the negligible impact 

determination. As described in detail 

below, modifications have been made to 

several take estimates based on 

recommendations from the public 

regarding density or occurrence of 

certain marine mammal species or 

stocks. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: any act 

of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which 

(i) has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

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

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering (Level B 

harassment). 

Authorized takes would primarily be 

by Level B harassment, as use of seismic 

airguns has the potential to result in 

disruption of behavioral patterns for 

individual marine mammals. There is 

also some potential for auditory injury 

(Level A harassment) for mysticetes and 

high frequency cetaceans (i.e., kogiidae 

spp.), due to larger predicted auditory 

injury zones for those functional hearing 

groups. The required mitigation and 

monitoring measures are expected to 

minimize the severity of such taking to 

the extent practicable. 

Auditory injury is unlikely to occur 

for mid-frequency species given very 

small modeled zones of injury for those 

species (13.6 m). Moreover, the source 

level of the array is a theoretical 

definition assuming a point source and 

measurement in the far-field of the 

source (MacGillivray, 2006). As 

described by Caldwell and Dragoset 

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

but one that spans a small area. In the 

far-field, individual elements in arrays 

will effectively work as one source 

because individual pressure peaks will 

have coalesced into one relatively broad 

pulse. The array can then be considered 

a ‘‘point source.’’ For distances within 

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

times the array dimensions, pressure 

peaks from individual elements do not 

arrive simultaneously because the 

observation point is not equidistant 

from each element. The effect is 

destructive interference of the outputs 

of each element, so that peak pressures 

in the near-field will be significantly 

lower than the output of the largest 

individual element. Here, the 230 dB 

peak isopleth distances would in all 

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

source level breaks down. Therefore, 

actual locations within this distance of 

the array center where the sound level 

exceeds 230 dB peak SPL would not 

necessarily exist. In general, Caldwell 

and Dragoset (2000) suggest that the 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Notices 44587 

near-field for airgun arrays is considered 

to extend out to approximately 250 m. 

As described previously, no mortality 

is anticipated or authorized for this 

activity. Below we describe how the 

take is estimated. 

Described in the most basic way, we 

estimate take by considering: (1) 

Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS 

believes the best available science 

indicates marine mammals will be 

behaviorally harassed or incur some 

degree of permanent hearing 

impairment; (2) the area or volume of 

water that will be ensonified above 

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

occurrence of marine mammals within 

these ensonified areas; and (4) and the 

number of days of activities. Below, we 

describe these components in more 

detail and present the exposure estimate 

and associated numbers of authorized 

takes. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

Using the best available science, 

NMFS has developed acoustic 

thresholds that identify the received 

level of underwater sound above which 

exposed marine mammals would be 

reasonably expected to be behaviorally 

harassed (equated to Level B 

harassment) or to incur PTS of some 

degree (equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment for non-explosive 

sources—Though significantly driven by 

received level, the onset of behavioral 

disturbance from anthropogenic noise 

exposure is also informed to varying 

degrees by other factors related to the 

source (e.g., frequency, predictability, 

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

bathymetry), and the receiving animals 

(hearing, motivation, experience, 

demography, behavioral context) and 

can be difficult to predict (Southall et 

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

the best available science and the 

practical need to use a threshold based 

on a factor that is both predictable and 

measurable for most activities, NMFS 

uses a generalized acoustic threshold 

based on received level to estimate the 

onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS 

predicts that marine mammals are likely 

to be behaviorally harassed in a manner 

we consider to fall under Level B 

harassment when exposed to 

underwater anthropogenic noise above 

received levels of 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) 

for non-explosive impulsive (e.g., 

seismic airguns) sources. L–DEO’s 

activity includes the use of impulsive 

seismic sources. Therefore, the 160 dB 

re 1 mPa (rms) criteria is applicable for 

analysis of level B harassment. 

Level A harassment for non-explosive 

sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance 

for Assessing the Effects of 

Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing (NMFS, 2016) 

identifies dual criteria to assess auditory 

injury (Level A harassment) to five 

different marine mammal groups (based 

on hearing sensitivity) as a result of 

exposure to noise from two different 

types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive). The Technical Guidance 

identifies the received levels, or 

thresholds, above which individual 

marine mammals are predicted to 

experience changes in their hearing 

sensitivity for all underwater 

anthropogenic sound sources, reflects 

the best available science, and better 

predicts the potential for auditory injury 

than does NMFS’ historical criteria. 

These thresholds were developed by 

compiling and synthesizing the best 

available science and soliciting input 

multiple times from both the public and 

peer reviewers to inform the final 

product, and are provided in Table 2 

below. The references, analysis, and 

methodology used in the development 

of the thresholds are described in NMFS 

2016 Technical Guidance. As described 

above, L–DEO’s activity includes the 

use of intermittent and impulsive 

seismic sources. 

TABLE 2—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT IN MARINE MAMMALS

Hearing group 

PTS onset thresholds 

Impulsive * Non-impulsive 

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

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

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

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

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

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

should also be considered. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

that will feed into estimating the area 

ensonified above the relevant acoustic 

thresholds. 

The surveys will acquire data with the 

36-airgun array with a total discharge of 

6,600 in3 at a maximum tow depth of 12 

m. L–DEO model results are used to 

determine the 160-dBrms radius for the 

36-airgun array and 40-in3 airgun at a 

12-m tow depth in deep water (≤1000 

m) down to a maximum water depth of 

2,000 m. Received sound levels were 

predicted by L–DEO’s model (Diebold et 

al., 2010) which uses ray tracing for the 

direct wave traveling from the array to 

the receiver and its associated source 

ghost (reflection at the air-water 

interface in the vicinity of the array), in 

a constant-velocity half-space (infinite 

homogeneous ocean layer, unbounded 

by a seafloor). In addition, propagation 

measurements of pulses from the 36- 

airgun array at a tow depth of 6 m have 

been reported in deep water 

(approximately 1,600 m), intermediate 

water depth on the slope (approximately 

600–1,100 m), and shallow water 

(approximately 50 m) in the Gulf of 

Mexico in 2007–2008 (Tolstoy et al. 

2009; Diebold et al. 2010). 

For deep and intermediate-water 

cases, the field measurements cannot be 

used readily to derive Level A and Level 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
44588 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Notices 

B isopleths, as at those sites the 

calibration hydrophone was located at a 

roughly constant depth of 350–500 m, 

which may not intersect all the sound 

pressure level (SPL) isopleths at their 

widest point from the sea surface down 

to the maximum relevant water depth 

for marine mammals of ∼2,000 m. At 

short ranges, where the direct arrivals 

dominate and the effects of seafloor 

interactions are minimal, the data 

recorded at the deep and slope sites are 

suitable for comparison with modeled 

levels at the depth of the calibration 

hydrophone. At longer ranges, the 

comparison with the model— 

constructed from the maximum SPL 

through the entire water column at 

varying distances from the airgun 

array—is the most relevant. 

In deep and intermediate-water 

depths, comparisons at short ranges 

between sound levels for direct arrivals 

recorded by the calibration hydrophone 

and model results for the same array 

tow depth are in good agreement (Fig. 

12 and 14 in Appendix H of NSF–USGS, 

2011). Consequently, isopleths falling 

within this domain can be predicted 

reliably by the L–DEO model, although 

they may be imperfectly sampled by 

measurements recorded at a single 

depth. At greater distances, the 

calibration data show that seafloorreflected and sub-seafloor-refracted 

arrivals dominate, whereas the direct 

arrivals become weak and/or 

incoherent. Aside from local topography 

effects, the region around the critical 

distance is where the observed levels 

rise closest to the model curve. 

However, the observed sound levels are 

found to fall almost entirely below the 

model curve. Thus, analysis of the GoM 

calibration measurements demonstrates 

that although simple, the L–DEO model 

is a robust tool for conservatively 

estimating isopleths. 

For deep water (>1,000 m), L–DEO 

used the deep-water radii obtained from 

model results down to a maximum 

water depth of 2000 m. The radii for 

intermediate water depths (100–1,000 

m) were derived from the deep-water 

ones by applying a correction factor 

(multiplication) of 1.5, such that 

observed levels at very near offsets fall 

below the corrected mitigation curve 

(See Fig. 16 in Appendix H of NSF– 

USGS, 2011). 

Measurements have not been reported 

for the single 40-in3 airgun. L–DEO 

model results are used to determine the 

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

airgun at a 12 m tow depth in deep 

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

intermediate-water depths, a correction 

factor of 1.5 was applied to the deepwater model results. 

L–DEO’s modeling methodology is 

described in greater detail in the IHA 

application (LGL 2018). The estimated 

distances to the Level B harassment 

isopleth for the Langseth’s 36-airgun 

array and single 40-in3 airgun are shown 

in Table 3. 

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

LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLD

Source and volume Tow depth 

(m) 

Water depth 

(m) 

Predicted distances 

(in m) to the 

160-dB received 

sound level 

Single Bolt airgun, 40 in 3 .................................................................................................... 12 >1,000 

100–1,000 

1 431 

2 647 

4 strings, 36 airguns, 6,600 in 3 ........................................................................................... 12 >1,000 

100–1,000 

1 6,733 2 10,100 

1 Distance is based on L–DEO model results. 

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

Predicted distances to Level A 

harassment isopleths, which vary based 

on marine mammal hearing groups, 

were calculated based on modeling 

performed by L–DEO using the 

NUCLEUS software program and the 

NMFS User Spreadsheet, described 

below. The updated acoustic thresholds 

for impulsive sounds (e.g., airguns) 

contained in the Technical Guidance 

were presented as dual metric acoustic 

thresholds using both SELcum and peak 

sound pressure metrics (NMFS 2016). 

As dual metrics, NMFS considers onset 

of PTS (Level A harassment) to have 

occurred when either one of the two 

metrics is exceeded (i.e., metric 

resulting in the largest isopleth). The 

SELcum metric considers both level and 

duration of exposure, as well as 

auditory weighting functions by marine 

mammal hearing group. In recognition 

of the fact that the requirement to 

calculate Level A harassment ensonified 

areas could be more technically 

challenging to predict due to the 

duration component and the use of 

weighting functions in the new SELcum

thresholds, NMFS developed an 

optional User Spreadsheet that includes 

tools to help predict a simple isopleth 

that can be used in conjunction with 

marine mammal density or occurrence 

to facilitate the estimation of take 

numbers. 

The values for SELcum and peak SPL 

for the Langseth airgun array were 

derived from calculating the modified 

farfield signature (Table 4). The farfield 

signature is often used as a theoretical 

representation of the source level. To 

compute the farfield signature, the 

source level is estimated at a large 

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

and this level is back projected 

mathematically to a notional distance of 

1 m from the array’s geometrical center. 

However, when the source is an array of 

multiple airguns separated in space, the 

source level from the theoretical farfield 

signature is not necessarily the best 

measurement of the source level that is 

physically achieved at the source 

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

short ranges, distances <1 km), the 

pulses of sound pressure from each 

individual airgun in the source array do 

not stack constructively, as they do for 

the theoretical farfield signature. The 

pulses from the different airguns spread 

out in time such that the source levels 

observed or modeled are the result of 

the summation of pulses from a few 

airguns, not the full array (Tolstoy et al. 

2009). At larger distances, away from 

the source array center, sound pressure 

of all the airguns in the array stack 

coherently, but not within one time 

sample, resulting in smaller source 

levels (a few dB) than the source level 

derived from the farfield signature. 

Because the farfield signature does not 

take into account the large array effect 

near the source and is calculated as a 

point source, the modified farfield 

signature is a more appropriate measure 

of the sound source level for distributed 

sound sources, such as airgun arrays. L– 

DEO used the acoustic modeling 

methodology as used for Level B 

harassment with a small grid step of 1 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Notices 44589 

m in both the inline and depth 

directions. The propagation modeling 

takes into account all airgun 

interactions at short distances from the 

source, including interactions between 

subarrays which are modeled using the 

NUCLEUS software to estimate the 

notional signature and MATLAB 

software to calculate the pressure signal 

at each mesh point of a grid. 

TABLE 4—MODELED SOURCE LEVELS BASED ON MODIFIED FARFIELD SIGNATURE FOR THE R/V LANGSETH 6,600 in3

AIRGUN ARRAY, AND SINGLE 40 in3 AIRGUN

Low frequency 

cetaceans 

(Lpk,flat: 219 dB; 

LE,LF,24h: 183 dB) 

Mid frequency 

cetaceans 

(Lpk,flat: 230 dB; 

LE,MF,24h: 185 dB) 

High 

frequency 

cetaceans 

(Lpk,flat: 202 dB; 

LE,HF,24h: 155 dB) 

Phocid 

pinnipeds 

(underwater) 

(Lpk,flat: 218 dB; 

LE,HF,24h: 185 dB) 

Otariid 

pinnipeds 

(underwater) 

(Lpk,flat: 232 dB; 

LE,HF,24h: 203 dB) 

6,600 in 3 airgun array (Peak 

SPLflat) ...................................... 252.06 252.65 253.24 252.25 252.52 

6,600 in 3 airgun array (SELcum) .. 232.98 232.83 233.08 232.83 232.07 

40 in 3 airgun (Peak SPLflat) ........ 223.93 N.A. 223.92 223.95 N.A. 

40 in 3 airgun (SELcum) ................ 202.99 202.89 204.37 202.89 202.35 

In order to more realistically 

incorporate the Technical Guidance’s 

weighting functions over the seismic 

array’s full acoustic band, unweighted 

spectrum data for the Langseth’s airgun 

array (modeled in 1 hertz (Hz) bands) 

was used to make adjustments (dB) to 

the unweighted spectrum levels, by 

frequency, according to the weighting 

functions for each relevant marine 

mammal hearing group. These adjusted/ 

weighted spectrum levels were then 

converted to pressures (mPa) in order to 

integrate them over the entire 

broadband spectrum, resulting in 

broadband weighted source levels by 

hearing group that could be directly 

incorporated within the User 

Spreadsheet (i.e., to override the 

Spreadsheet’s more simple weighting 

factor adjustment). Using the User 

Spreadsheet’s ‘‘safe distance’’ 

methodology for mobile sources 

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

hearing group-specific weighted source 

levels, and inputs assuming spherical 

spreading propagation and source 

velocities and shot intervals specific to 

each of the three planned surveys (Table 

1), potential radial distances to auditory 

injury zones were then calculated for 

SELcum thresholds. 

Inputs to the User Spreadsheets in the 

form of estimated SLs are shown in 

Table 5. User Spreadsheets used by 

L–DEO to estimate distances to Level A 

harassment isopleths for the 36-airgun 

array and single 40 in3 airgun for the 

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

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

application (LGL 2018). Outputs from 

the User Spreadsheets in the form of 

estimated distances to Level A 

harassment isopleths for the surveys are 

shown in Table 5. As described above, 

NMFS considers onset of PTS (Level A 

harassment) to have occurred when 

either one of the dual metrics (SELcum

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

metric resulting in the largest isopleth). 

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

Low frequency 

cetaceans 

(Lpk,flat: 219 dB; 

LE,LF,24h: 183 dB) 

Mid frequency 

cetaceans 

(Lpk,flat: 230 dB; 

LE,MF,24h: 185 dB) 

High 

frequency 

cetaceans 

(Lpk,flat: 202 dB; 

LE,HF,24h: 155 dB) 

Phocid 

pinnipeds 

(underwater) 

(Lpk,flat: 218 dB; 

LE,HF,24h: 185 dB) 

Otariid 

pinnipeds 

(underwater) 

(Lpk,flat: 232 dB; 

LE,HF,24h: 203 dB) 

6,600 in 3 airgun array (Peak 

SPLflat) ...................................... 45.0 13.6 364.75 51.6 10.6 

6,600 in 3 airgun array (SELcum) .. 320.2 N.A. 1 10.4 N.A. 

40 in 3 airgun (Peak SPLflat) ........ 1.76 N.A. 12.5 1.98 N.A. 

40 in 3 airgun (SELcum) ................ 0.5 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 

Note that because of some of the 

assumptions included in the methods 

used, isopleths produced may be 

overestimates to some degree, which 

will ultimately result in some degree of 

overestimate of Level A harassment. 

However, these tools offer the best way 

to predict appropriate isopleths when 

more sophisticated modeling methods 

are not available, and NMFS continues 

to develop ways to quantitatively refine 

these tools and will qualitatively 

address the output where appropriate. 

For mobile sources, such as the planned 

seismic survey, the User Spreadsheet 

predicts the closest distance at which a 

stationary animal would not incur PTS 

if the sound source traveled by the 

animal in a straight line at a constant 

speed. 

Marine Mammal Occurrence 

In this section we provide the 

information about the presence, density, 

or group dynamics of marine mammals 

that will inform the take calculations. 

The best available scientific information 

was considered in conducting marine 

mammal exposure estimates (the basis 

for estimating take). 

In the planned survey area in the 

Hawaiian EEZ, densities from Bradford 

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

For the pygmy sperm whale, dwarf 

sperm whale, and spinner dolphin, 

densities from Barlow et al. (2009) were 

used because densities were not 

provided by Bradford et al. (2017). 

Densities for striped dolphin and 

Fraser’s dolphins were revised based on 

input from the Commission. As noted 

previously, NMFS had divided the 

unidentified Mesoplodon species’ 

density of 1.89 animals/1,000 km2 from 

Bradford et al. (2017) by three. For this 

notice, NMFS NMFS assumed that each 

species of those species could have a 

density of 1.89 animals/1,000 km2. For 

the humpback, sei, minke, and killer 

whales, the calculated take was 

increased to mean group size. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
44590 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Notices 

For Hawaiian monk seals, NMFS 

followed the methods used by the U.S. 

Navy (Navy 2017a) to determine 

densities. The U.S. Navy calculated 

density of Hawaiian monk seal for three 

areas: The Main Hawaiian Islands in 

waters less than 200 meters, the 

Northwest Hawaiian Islands in waters 

less than 200 meters, and waters 200 

meters deep to the Hawaiian EEZ 

boundary. 

The 200 meter isobath was selected as 

a boundary because of information 

related to Hawaiian monk seal foraging 

behavior that came out of the final rule 

for designated critical habitat. Ninetyeight percent of recorded dives were 

within the 200-meter isobath in the 

Main Hawaiian Islands this depth 

boundary was considered sufficient for 

foraging habitat for adults and juveniles. 

The area around the Main Hawaiian 

Islands to the 200-meter isobath was 

estimated to be 6,630 km2 (6,142 km2 in 

the Northwest Hawaiian Islands). The 

area from the 200-meter isobath to the 

Hawaiian EEZ is estimated to be 

2,461,994 km2. The U.S. Navy also 

assumed that 90 percent of the 

population would occur inside the 200- 

meter isobath. 

The U.S. Navy used the following 

calculation to estimate density: 

[(number of seals * percent of the 

population in or out of the 200-m)/ 

200-m area] * In-water factor 

By applying the U.S. Navy’s 

methodology using updated population 

estimates for the 2017 stock assessment 

report for the U.S. Pacific (Carretta et al. 

2018) and haul-out factors, we can 

estimate Hawaiian monk seal density. 

NMFS had used older abundance data 

in the proposed notice. 

Main Hawaiian Islands inside 200 m 

isobath 

[(145 seals * 0.90)/6,630 km2] * 0.68 = 

0.0134 seals/km2

Northwest Hawaiian Islands inside 200 

m isobath 

[(1,179 seals * 0.90)/6,142 km2] * 0.68 

= 0. 1175 seals/km2

Hawaiian EEZ 

[(1,324 * 0.10)/2,461,994 km2] * 0.68 = 

0.000037 seals/km2

Based on where the action will occur, 

it NMFS utilized the density estimate 

for the Hawaiian EEZ. 

There are very few published data on 

the densities of cetaceans or pinnipeds 

in the Emperor Seamounts area, so 

NMFS relied on a range of sources to 

establish marine mammal densities. As 

part of the Navy’s Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement/ 

Supplemental Overseas Environmental 

Impact Statement for SURTASS LFA 

Sonar Routine Training, Testing, and 

Military Operations, the Navy modelled 

densities for a designated mission area 

northeast of Japan during the summer 

season. These values were used for the 

North Pacific right whale, sei whale, fin 

whale, sperm whale, Cuvier’s beaked 

whale, Stejneger’s beaked whale, and 

Baird’s beaked whale. 

For northern right whale dolphin, 

Dall’s porpoise, and northern fur seal, 

L–DEO used densities from Buckland et 

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

reported a density of 0.3/100 km2 for 

killer whales at latitudes 43–48 °N 

where the planned survey would be 

conducted. Although Miyashita (1993) 

published data on the abundance of 

striped, Pantropical spotted, bottlenose, 

and Risso’s dolphins, and false killer 

and short-finned pilot whales in the 

Northwest Pacific Ocean as far north as 

41°N, the distributional range of the 

Pantropical spotted and bottlenose 

dolphins does not extend as far north as 

the planned survey area. For the other 

species, we used data from 40–41°N, 

160–180°E to calculate densities and 

estimate the numbers of individuals that 

could be exposed to seismic sounds 

during the survey. Risso’s dolphin, false 

killer whale, and short-finned pilot 

whale are expected to be rare in the 

survey area, and the calculated densities 

were zero. Thus, we used the mean 

group size from Bradford et al. (2017) 

for Risso’s dolphin and short-finned 

pilot whale, and the mean group size of 

false killer whales from Barlow (2006). 

The short-beaked common dolphin is 

expected to be rare in the Emperor 

Seamounts survey area; thus, there are 

no density estimates available. L–DEO 

used the mean group size (rounded up) 

for the California Current from Barlow 

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

the planned survey area was assumed to 

be zero, based on information from 

Hakamada et al. (2009, 2017) and 

Forney et al. (2015); its known 

distribution range does not appear to 

extend that far north. For this species, 

L–DEO rounded up the mean group size 

from Bradford et al. (2017). For pygmy 

and dwarf sperm whales, NMFS 

assumed densities in the Emperor 

Seamounts would be equivalent to those 

in the Hawaii survey are and used 

densities from Bradford et al. 2017. 

The densities for the remaining 

species were obtained from calculations 

using data from the papers presented to 

the IWC. For blue and humpback 

whales, L–DEO used a weighted mean 

density from Matsuoka et al. (2009) for 

the years 1994–2007 and Hakamada and 

Matsuoka (2015) for the years 2008– 

2014. L–DEO used Matsuoka et al. 

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

as the later document did not contain all 

of the necessary information to calculate 

densities. L–DEO used densities for 

their Block 9N which coincides with the 

planned Emperor Seamounts survey 

area. The density for each survey period 

was weighted by the number of years in 

the survey period; that is, 14 years for 

Matsuoka et al. (2009) and 7 years for 

Hakamada and Matsuoka (2015), to 

obtain a final density for the 21-year 

period. For minke whales L–DEO used 

the estimates of numbers of whales in 

survey blocks overlapping the Emperor 

Seamounts survey area from Hakamada 

et al. (2009); densities were estimated 

by dividing the number of whales in 

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

gray whales, NMFS used a paper by 

Rugh et al. (2005) that looked at 

abundance of eastern DPS gray whales. 

The paper provides mean group sizes 

for their surveys, which ranged from 1 

to 2 individuals. For purposes of 

estimating exposures we will assume 

that the western DPS group sizes would 

not vary greatly from the eastern DPS. 

As such, NMFS assumes that there will 

be two western DPS gray whales Level 

B takes, based on mean group size. 

Finally, no northern elephant seals 

have been reported during any of the 

above surveys although Buckland et al. 

(1993) estimated fur seal abundance 

during their surveys. Telemetry studies, 

however, indicate that elephant seals do 

forage as far west as the Emperor 

Seamounts survey area. Here, L–DEO 

assumed a density of 0.00831/1000 km2, 

which is 10% of that used by LGL 

Limited (2017) for an area off the west 

coast of the U.S. However, densities of 

northern elephant seals in the region are 

expected to be much less than densities 

of northern fur seals. For species that 

are unlikely to occur in the survey area, 

such as ribbon seals, exposures are set 

at 5 individuals. Densities for animals in 

Emperor Seamounts are shown in Table 

8. 

Take Calculation and Estimation 

Here we describe how the information 

provided above is brought together to 

produce a quantitative take estimate. In 

order to estimate the number of marine 

mammals predicted to be exposed to 

sound levels that would result in Level 

A harassment or Level B harassment, 

radial distances from the airgun array to 

predicted isopleths corresponding to the 

Level A harassment and Level B 

harassment thresholds are calculated, as 

described above. Those radial distances 

are then used to calculate the area(s) 

around the airgun array predicted to be 

ensonified to sound levels that exceed 

the Level A harassment and Level B 

harassment thresholds. The area 

estimated to be ensonified in a single 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Notices 44591 

day of active seismic operations is then 

calculated (Table 6) based on the areas 

predicted to be ensonified around the 

array and the estimated trackline 

distance traveled per day. For purposes 

of Level B take calculations, areas 

estimated to be ensonified to Level A 

harassment thresholds are subtracted 

from areas estimated to be ensonified to 

Level B harassment thresholds in order 

to avoid double counting the animals 

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

A harassment, it is not also counted as 

taken by Level B harassment). The daily 

ensonified areas are multiplied by 

density estimates for each species to 

arrive at a daily exposure rate. The daily 

exposure rate is subsequently 

multiplied by the number of planned 

survey days plus a 25 percent 

contingency factor. Active seismic 

operations are planned for 13 days at 

Emperor Seamounts and 19 days at 

Hawaii. Therefore, the number of survey 

days is increased to 16 in the Emperor 

Seamounts and 24 in Hawaii area. 

Estimated exposures for the Hawaii 

survey and the Emperor Seamounts 

survey are shown respectively in Table 

7 and Table 8. 

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

FOR HAWAII AND EMPEROR SEAMOUNTS SURVEYS

Survey Criteria 

Daily 

ensonified 

area 

(km2) 

Planned 

survey days 

Total survey 

days 

(25% 

increase) 

Relevant 

isopleth 

(m) 

Hawaii Level B 

Multi-depth line (intermediate water) .............. 160 dB ................................ 538.5 12 15 10,100 

Multi-depth line (deep water) .......................... 160 dB ................................ 2349.8 12 15 6,733 

Multi-depth line (total) ..................................... 160 dB ................................ 2888.2 12 15 6,733 

Deep-water line ............................................... 160 dB ................................ 2566.3 7 9 6,733 

Hawaii Level A 1

Hawaii ............................................................. LF Cetacean ....................... 115.6 19 24 320.2 

MF Cetacean ...................... 4.9 19 24 13.6 

HF Cetacean ...................... 96.8 19 24 268.3 

Phocid ................................ 15.7 19 24 43.7 

Emperor Seamounts Level B 

Emperor Seamounts ....................................... 160 dB ................................ 2566.3 13 16 6,733 

Emperor Seamounts Level A 1

Emperor Seamounts ....................................... LF Cetacean ....................... 115.6 13 16 320.2 

MF Cetacean ...................... 4.9 13 16 13.6 

HF Cetacean ...................... 96.8 13 16 268.3 

Phocid ................................ 15.7 13 16 43.7 

Otariid ................................. 3.8 13 16 10.6 

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

peakSPL). 

TABLE 7—DENSITIES, EXPOSURES, PERCENTAGE OF STOCK OR POPULATION EXPOSED, AND NUMBER OF AUTHORIZED

TAKES DURING HAWAII SURVEY

Species Stock Density 

(#/1,000 km2) 

Total 

exposures 

Percentage 

of stock/ 

population 

Authorized takes 

Level A Level B 

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

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

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

Bryde’s whale ...................................... Hawaii ................................................. 1 0.72 47 2.8 2 45 

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

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

Blue whale ........................................... Central North Pacific ........................... 1 0.05 5 3.9 0 5 

Odontocetes 

Sperm whale ....................................... Hawaii ................................................. 1 1.86 123 2.7 0 123 

Pygmy sperm whale ............................ Hawaii ................................................. 2 2.91 191 2.8 7 184 

Dwarf sperm whale .............................. Hawaii ................................................. 2 7.14 470 2.8 16 454 

Cuvier’s beaked whale ........................ Hawaii pelagic ..................................... 1 0.30 20 2.8 0 20 

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

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

Ginkgo-toothed beaked whale ............. N/A ...................................................... 6 1.89 124 0.5 0 124 

Deraniygala’s beaked whale ............... N/A ...................................................... 6 1.89 124 0.5 0 124 

Hubb’s beaked whale .......................... N/A ...................................................... 6 1.89 124 0.5 0 124 

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

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

Oahu ................................................... ........................ ........................ 1.2 ........................ ........................

HI Islands ............................................ ........................ ........................ 7.0 ........................ ........................

Pantropical spotted dolphin ................. HI Pelagic ............................................ 1 23.32 1,534 8 2.6 0 1,534 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
44592 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Notices 

TABLE 7—DENSITIES, EXPOSURES, PERCENTAGE OF STOCK OR POPULATION EXPOSED, AND NUMBER OF AUTHORIZED

TAKES DURING HAWAII SURVEY—Continued 

Species Stock Density 

(#/1,000 km2) 

Total 

exposures 

Percentage 

of stock/ 

population 

Authorized takes 

Level A Level B 

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

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

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

HI Island .............................................. ........................ ........................ 9 3.8 ........................ ........................

Oahu/4 island ...................................... ........................ ........................ 6.7 ........................ ........................

Striped dolphin .................................... HI Pelagic ............................................ 1 25 1,644 0.6 0 1,644 

Fraser’s dolphin ................................... Hawaii ................................................. 1 21.0 1,381 2.7 0 1,381 

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

Melon-headed whale ........................... HI Islands ............................................ 1 3.54 810 8.6 0 10 810 

Kohala resident ................................... ........................ ........................ 13.4 ........................ ........................

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

False killer whale ................................. MHI Insular .......................................... 5 0.09 5 11.9 0 11 20 

HI Pelagic ............................................ 5 0.06 40 2.6 0 40 

Killer whale .......................................... Hawaiian Islands ................................. 1 0.06 4 5 2.42 0 5 

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

Pinnipeds 

Hawaiian monk seal ............................ Hawaii ................................................. 3 0.000037 3 0.22 0 3 

1— Bradford et al. 2017. 2—Barlow et al. 2009. 3—Baker et al. 2016. 4—Requested take authorization (Level B only) increased to mean group size from Mobley et al. 2001. 5—Bradford et al. 2015. 6—From Bradford et al. (2017) for ‘Unidentified Mesoplodon’. 7—Assumes 98.5 percent of takes are from Hawaii pelagic stock (588) with remaining 1 percent from Oahu stock (6) and 0.5 percent from Hawaiian Islands (3) 

stock. Assumed average group size of 9 for Oahu and Hawaii Island stocks. 8—Assumes 94.16 percent of takes are from Hawaii pelagic stock (1,461), 5.25 percent are from Hawaiia Island stock (82), and 0.59 are from Oahu stock. Populations of insular stocks are unknown. 9—Assumes 0.36 percent for Oahu/4-Islands stock (1), 0.95 percent for Hawaii Island stock (4) and remaining from Pelagic stock (459) stocks. NMFS will assume 

average group size of 24 for the Oahu/4-Island and Hawaii Island stock exposures (NMFS 2016). 10—Assumes Level B harassment of 3 groups of 20 Kohala resident stock whales and 3 groups of 250 Hawaiian Island stock animals. 11—Increased to average group size of 20 (Oleson et al. 2010). 

Changes to Main Hawaiian Islands 

insular false killer whale take 

estiamtes—NMFS has recalculated 

exposures of Main Hawaiian Islands 

insular false killer whale DPS due to 

recently designated critical habitat for 

this species (83 FR 35062; July 24, 

2018). A total of 3,455-kilometers of 

tracklines will be surveyed around the 

Main Hawaiian Islands where insular 

false killer whales show a preference for 

deeper waters just offshore (45-meters) 

to the 3,200-meter depth boundary. The 

majority of the planned tracklines are 

outside this area in waters deeper than 

3,200-meters. NMFS used critical 

habitat to serve as the range boundary 

for this DPS. In order to calculate the 

amount of exposure for Main Hawaiian 

Islands Insular false killer whales 

during the planned action, NMFS 

determined the amount of tracklines 

within the DPS’s range. There are 236.6 

km of planned tracklines in Main 

Hawaiian Islands insular false killer 

whale range (or about 6.8 percent of the 

tracklines for the entire Hawaii seismic 

survey). Only portions of Tracklines 1 

and 2 are within the DPS’s range. 

Because the size of the ensonified areas 

changes with water depth, NMFS 

determined the amount of tracklines in 

each depth range. All of Trackline 1 

takes place in deep water (>1,000 

meters/141.6 km), and most of Trackline 

2 takes place in deep water (76.6 km) 

with 18.4 km in intermediate depth 

water (100 to 1,000 m). Tracklines 1 and 

2 would be surveyed twice, once for 

reflection data, and once for refraction 

data. At a speed of 7.6 km/hr, it would 

take the Langseth about 37.3 hours to 

survey Trackline 1, and 25 hours to 

survey Trackline 2 (both passes), for 

about 2.6 days in total. 

NMFS calculated ensonified area 

along the tracklines to arrive at a total 

of 3,940-km2 within the species’ range. 

As noted previously, a contingency of 

25 percent was added to the number of 

survey days, which is the equivalent of 

adding 25 percent to the planned line 

tracklines. The total amount of 

ensonified area with the 25 percent 

contingency is 4,92 5km2. Bradford et 

al. (2015) calculated the density of Main 

Hawaiian Islands Insular false killer 

whales at 0.09 individuals per 100 km2, 

which was multiplied by the total 

ensonified area plus contingency, 

resulting in five Main Hawaiian Island 

insular false killer whale exposures. 

False killer whales are commonly 

sighted in groups of 10 to 20 (Baird 

2009; Baird et al. 2010; Wade and 

Gerrodette 1993) with 20 individuals 

being regarded as about the average 

group size (Oleson et al. 2010). 

Therefore, authorized Level B 

harassment takes was increased from 5 

individuals to 20. 

Changes to melon-headed whale take 

estimates—NMFS had estimated in the 

proposed notice that there would be 235 

Level B harassment takes of melonheaded whales from the combined 

Kohala resident stock and the Hawaiian 

Islands stock. Kohala resident stock 

members could only be affected during 

Trackline 1 operations off of the Kohala 

Peninsula and the west coast of Hawaii 

Island in waters of less than 2,500 m of 

water. This segment of the survey 

represents a small portion of the total 

Hawaiian Island tracklines. The 

Hawaiian Islands stock of melon-headed 

whales may be found along any of the 

planned tracklines, including within the 

range of the Kohala resident stock. 

Kohala resident whales can be found in 

large groups of up to several hundred 

with a median group size of 210 (Forney 

et al. 2017). However, they have also 

been observed in smaller groups of 4 

and 17 individuals (Aschettino et al. 

2011). Additionally, these smaller 

groups were often followed by much 

larger groups, which suggests that the 

small groups may have branched off 

from larger groups. 

L–DEO is required to shutdown 

whenever a melon-headed whale is 

detected while passing through the 

Kohala resident stock’s range. L–DEO 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Notices 44593 

also intends to pass through this range 

during daylight hours to maximize the 

potential for detection. PSOs should be 

able to observe the larger groups 

containing hundreds of animals at a 

significant distance and implement 

shutdown accordingly. When a small 

group of whales is observed, shutdown 

will also be implemented and PSOs will 

shift to state of heightened alert since a 

larger main group may be in close 

proximity. Given this information, 

NMFS will assume that up to 3 groups 

of 20 Kohala resident whales may be 

taken by Level B harassment if they 

enter the zone undetected by PSOs. This 

would result in up to 60 Level B 

harassment takes. Given the species’ 

large group sizes, NMFS will also 

assume that up to 3 groups of 250 

Hawaiian Island animals may be taken 

during the remainder of the cruise 

outside of the range of Kohala resident 

stock. Therefore, NMFS authorizes the 

take of up to 810 melon headed whales. 

Changes to common bottlenose 

dolphin take estimates—There are four 

individual common bottlenose dolphin 

stocks within the Hawaiian Islands 

complex. None of the planned survey 

tracklines will traverse the ranges of the 

Kauai/Niihau or 4-Islands stocks so 

animals from these stocks will not be 

impacted by seismic activities. In the 

proposed notice NMFS had estimated 

that a small number of takes would be 

accrued to the 4 Islands stock. 

Therefore, takes of this stock are not 

authorized in the final IHA and NMFS 

revised the number of authorized takes 

estimated to accrue to the remaining 

Hawaii pelagic, Oahu, and Hawaiian 

Islands stocks as described below. 

During the survey along Trackline 1 a 

short time will be spent traversing the 

northern boundary of the Hawaiian 

Island stock while along Trackline 2 the 

survey will run through the northwest 

boundary of the Oahu stock. The vast 

majority of planned survey tracklines 

occur in waters that are greater than 

1,000 m which marks the boundary 

between the Hawaiian pelagic and 

Hawaiian insular stocks. According to a 

GIS analysis, an estimated 0.47 percent 

of all Hawaii tracklines will take place 

in waters less than 1,000 m deep 

northwest of Oahu along Trackline 2 

and 1.00 percent will occur in depths 

less than 1,000 m north of Hawaii along 

Trackline 1. Therefore, NMFS will 

assume that the remaining 98.5% 

percent (588) of total takes will be 

accrued by the pelagic stock, 0.5 percent 

(3) will accrue to the Oahu stock and 1 

percent (6) will accrue to the Hawaiian 

Island stock. Insular stocks have an 

average group size of group size of 8.5 

rounded up to 9, so 9 takes will accrue 

to the Oahu stock and 9 takes to the 

Hawaiian Island stock (Baird et al. 

2002). Note that the ranges of these two 

insular stocks completely encompass 

the islands for which they are named 

out to the 1,000 m bathymetric contour 

line. Given such expansive ranges, it is 

unlikely that large numbers of either 

stock would be concentrated near a 

trackline during the short time the 

vessel is within the delineated stock 

boundaries. 

Changes to spinner dolphin take 

estimates—For the final IHA, NMFS 

conducted a comprehensive GIS 

analysis to determine how spinner 

dolphin takes should be accrued among 

the various stocks in the region. This 

had not been done for the proposed 

IHA. There are four stocks of spinner 

dolphins within the U.S. EEZ of the 

Hawaiian Islands. Planned seismic 

survey tracklines would traverse the 

ranges of the Hawaii Island, Oahu/4- 

Islands, and Hawaii Pelagic stocks. 

Stock boundaries for the Hawaii Island 

and Oahu/4-Islands stocks extend out 

10 nautical miles (nmi) from the coasts 

of these islands. An estimated 0.36 

percent of all tracklines will take place 

in the range of the Oahu/4-Island stock 

northwest of Oahu along Trackline 2, 

and 0.95 percent will occur in the range 

of the Hawaii Island stock north of 

Hawaii along Trackline 1, with 

remaining takes being accrued by the 

Hawaii Pelagic stock. This results in 1 

estimated Oahu/4-Island stock 

exposure, 4 Hawaii Island stock 

exposures, and 459 Pelagic stock 

exposures. NMFS will assume average 

group size of 24 individuals for the 

Oahu/4-Island and Hawaii Island stock 

exposures (NMFS 2016). 

Changes to pantropical spotted 

dolphin take estimates—A 

comprehensive GIS analysis was also 

conducted for the pantropical spotted 

dolphin stock takes estimates, which 

had not been included in the proposed 

IHA. There are four management stocks 

of pantropical spotted dolphins within 

the Hawaiian Islands EEZ (Oleson et al. 

2013) including: (1) The Oahu stock, 

which includes spotted dolphins within 

20 km of Oahu, (2) the 4-Island stock, 

which includes spotted dolphins within 

20 km of Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and 

Kahoolawe collectively, (3) the Hawaii 

Island stock, which includes spotted 

dolphins found within 65 km of Hawaii 

Island, and (4) the Hawaii pelagic stock, 

which includes spotted dolphins 

inhabiting the waters throughout the 

Hawaiian Islands EEZ, outside of the 

insular stock areas, but including 

adjacent high seas. Planned seismic 

survey lines would traverse the Hawaii 

Island, Oahu, and Hawaii Pelagic stocks. 

An estimated 0.59 percent of all 

tracklines will take place in the range of 

the Oahu stock northwest of Oahu along 

Trackline 2, and 5.25 percent will occur 

in the range of the Hawaii Island stock 

north and west of Hawaii along 

Trackline 1 with the remaining accrued 

by the Hawaii Pelagic stock. This results 

in an estimated 9 Oahu stock exposures, 

82 Hawaii Island stock exposures, and 

1,461 Pelagic stock exposures. 

For Hawaiian monk seals, NMFS used 

an updated abundance estimate (Baker 

et al. 2016) recommended by the 

Commission to estimate density. NMFS 

multiplied the updated estimated 

density by the daily ensonified area (160 

dB zone) on one day, times the 1.25 

percent operational contingency. Since 

the planned action will take place in 

different water depths, there are two 

different daily ensonified areas. For 

deep water (≤1,000 meters), the daily 

ensonified area is 2,349.8 km2. For 

intermediate depths (100–1,000 meters), 

the daily ensonified area is 538.5 km2. 

The vast majority of the survey (3,403 

kilometers) will take place in deep 

water. Only 52 km will take place in 

intermediate depths. However, use of 

the updated abundance and density 

estimates resulted in the same number 

of authorized Level B harassment takes 

(3) that was included in the proposed 

IHA. 

TABLE 8—DENSITIES, EXPSOURES, PERCENTAGE OF STOCK OR POPULATION EXPOSED, AND NUMBER OF AUTHORIZED

TAKES DURING EMPEROR SEAMOUNTS SURVEY

Species Stock 

Estimated 

density 

(#/1000 km2) 

Total 

exposures 

Percentage of 

population 

(total takes) 

Authorized takes 

Level A Level B 

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

North Pacific right whale ................................ N/A ............................................ 1 0.01 10 2 0.45 0 2 

Humpback whale ........................................... Central North Pacific ................. 1 0.41 18 11 0.17 13 2 11 16 

Western North Pacific DPS ...... ........................ ........................ 11 0.18 ........................ ........................

Minke whale ................................................... N/A ............................................ 2.48 103 0.47 5 98


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
44594 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Notices 

TABLE 8—DENSITIES, EXPSOURES, PERCENTAGE OF STOCK OR POPULATION EXPOSED, AND NUMBER OF AUTHORIZED

TAKES DURING EMPEROR SEAMOUNTS SURVEY—Continued 

Species Stock 

Estimated 

density 

(#/1000 km2) 

Total 

exposures 

Percentage of 

population 

(total takes) 

Authorized takes 

Level A Level B 

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

Sei whale ....................................................... N/A ............................................ 1 0.29 14 0.05 3 3 11 

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

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

Odontocetes 

Sperm whale .................................................. N/A ............................................ 1 2.20 90 0.30 0 90 

Pygmy sperm whale ...................................... N/A ............................................ 4 2.91 121 1.7 0 121 

Dwarf sperm whale ........................................ N/A ............................................ 4 7.14 298 1.7 0 298 

Cuvier’s beaked whale .................................. N/A ............................................ 1 5.40 225 1.11 0 225 

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

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

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

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

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

Northern right whale dolphin ......................... N/A ............................................ 7 3.37 141 0.04 0 141 

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

False killer whale ........................................... N/A ............................................ 5 10 417 2.5 0 417 

Killer whale .................................................... N/A ............................................ 8 12 3.00 1,253 14.7 0 1,253 

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

Dall’s porpoise ............................................... N/A ............................................ 35.46 1,479 0.13 56 1,423 

Pinnipeds 

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

Northern elephant seal .................................. N/A ............................................ 8.31 343 0.15 0 343 

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

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

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

6—Miyashita (1993). 

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

9—Estimated exposures increased to 5 for pinnipeds. 

10—Mean group size from Matsuoka et al. (2009). 11—Based on population size, take is split proportionally between central north Pacific (91.2 percent of total take) and western north Pacific DPS stocks (9.8 percent of total take). Assumes 2 Level B harassment takes of western north Pacific DPS. 12—Density is based on number of animals/100 km2. 13—Mean group size from Mobley et al. (2001). 

The only stocks that occur in both the 

Emperor Seamounts and the Hawaiian 

Islands are the Central North Pacific 

(CNP) humpback whale, Western North 

Pacific (WNP) humpback whale, and 

Central North Pacific (CNP) blue whale 

stocks. NMFS combined take estimates 

from both surveys and calculated the 

percentage of each stock taken. The 

results were 0.18 percent for the CNP 

humpback stock, 0.36 percent for the 

WNP humpback stock, and 7.5 percent 

for the CNP blue whale stock. 

It should be noted that authorized 

take numbers shown in Tables 7 and 8 

are expected to be conservative for 

several reasons. First, in the calculations 

of estimated take, 25 percent has been 

added in the form of operational survey 

days to account for the possibility of 

additional seismic operations associated 

with airgun testing and repeat coverage 

of any areas where initial data quality is 

sub-standard, and in recognition of the 

uncertainties in the density estimates 

used to estimate take as described 

above. Additionally, marine mammals 

would be expected to move away from 

a loud sound source that represents an 

aversive stimulus, such as an airgun 

array, potentially reducing the number 

of Level A takes. However, the extent to 

which marine mammals would move 

away from the sound source is difficult 

to quantify and is, therefore, not 

accounted for in the take estimates. 

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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Notices 44595 

(2) the practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, 

impact on operations. 

L–DEO has reviewed mitigation 

measures employed during seismic 

research surveys authorized by NMFS 

under previous incidental harassment 

authorizations, as well as recommended 

best practices in Richardson et al. 

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

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

Wright (2014), and Wright and 

Cosentino (2015), and has incorporated 

a suite of planned mitigation measures 

into their project description based on 

the above sources. 

To reduce the potential for 

disturbance from acoustic stimuli 

associated with the activities, L–DEO 

will implement mitigation measures for 

marine mammals. Mitigation measures 

that will be adopted during the planned 

surveys include (1) Vessel-based visual 

mitigation monitoring; (2) Vessel-based 

passive acoustic monitoring; (3) 

Establishment of an exclusion zone; (4) 

Power down procedures; (5) Shutdown 

procedures; (6) Ramp-up procedures; 

and (7) Vessel strike avoidance 

measures. Note that additional measures 

have been included in the final IHA that 

were not contained in the proposed 

IHA. These measures are described in 

the following sections. 

Vessel-Based Visual Mitigation 

Monitoring 

Visual monitoring requires the use of 

trained observers (herein referred to as 

visual PSOs) to scan the ocean surface 

visually for the presence of marine 

mammals. The area to be scanned 

visually includes primarily the 

exclusion zone, but also the buffer zone. 

The buffer zone means an area beyond 

the exclusion zone to be monitored for 

the presence of marine mammals that 

may enter the exclusion zone. During 

pre-clearance monitoring (i.e., before 

ramp-up begins), the buffer zone also 

acts as an extension of the exclusion 

zone in that observations of marine 

mammals within the buffer zone would 

also prevent airgun operations from 

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

zone encompasses the area at and below 

the sea surface from the edge of the 0– 

500 meter exclusion zone, out to a 

radius of 1,000 meters from the edges of 

the airgun array (500–1,000 meters). 

Visual monitoring of the exclusion 

zones and adjacent waters is intended to 

establish and, when visual conditions 

allow, maintain zones around the sound 

source that are clear of marine 

mammals, thereby reducing or 

eliminating the potential for injury and 

minimizing the potential for more 

severe behavioral reactions for animals 

occurring close to the vessel. Visual 

monitoring of the buffer zone is 

intended to (1) provide additional 

protection to naı ̈ve marine mammals 

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

in establishing and maintaining the 

exclusion zone by alerting the visual 

observer and crew of marine mammals 

that are outside of, but may approach 

and enter, the exclusion zone. Note that 

L–DEO must monitor the Level B 

harassment zone beyond 1,000 meters 

and enumerate any takes beyond this 

buffer zone. 

L–DEO must use at least five 

dedicated, trained, NMFS-approved 

Protected Species Observers (PSOs). The 

PSOs must have no tasks other than to 

conduct observational effort, record 

observational data, and communicate 

with and instruct relevant vessel crew 

with regard to the presence of marine 

mammals and mitigation requirements. 

PSO resumes shall be provided to 

NMFS for approval. 

At least one of the visual and two of 

the acoustic PSOs aboard the vessel 

must have a minimum of 90 days at-sea 

experience working in those roles, 

respectively, during a deep penetration 

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

with no more than 18 months elapsed 

since the conclusion of the at-sea 

experience. One visual PSO with such 

experience shall be designated as the 

lead for the entire protected species 

observation team. The lead PSO shall 

serve as primary point of contact for the 

vessel operator and ensure all PSO 

requirements per the IHA are met. To 

the maximum extent practicable, the 

experienced PSOs should be scheduled 

to be on duty with those PSOs with 

appropriate training but who have not 

yet gained relevant experience. 

During survey operations (e.g., any 

day on which use of the acoustic source 

is planned to occur, and whenever the 

acoustic source is in the water, whether 

activated or not), a minimum of two 

visual PSOs must be on duty and 

conducting visual observations at all 

times during daylight hours (i.e., from 

30 minutes prior to sunrise through 30 

minutes following sunset) and 30 

minutes prior to and during nighttime 

ramp-ups of the airgun array. Visual 

monitoring of the exclusion and buffer 

zones must begin no less than 30 

minutes prior to ramp-up and must 

continue until one hour after use of the 

acoustic source ceases or until 30 

minutes past sunset. Visual PSOs shall 

coordinate to ensure 360° visual 

coverage around the vessel from the 

most appropriate observation posts, and 

shall conduct visual observations using 

binoculars and the naked eye while free 

from distractions and in a consistent, 

systematic, and diligent manner. PSOs 

shall establish and monitor the 

exclusion and buffer zones. These zones 

shall be based upon the radial distance 

from the edges of the acoustic source 

(rather than being based on the center of 

the array or around the vessel itself). 

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

anytime airguns are active, including 

ramp-up), occurrences of marine 

mammals within the buffer zone (but 

outside the exclusion zone) shall be 

communicated to the operator to 

prepare for the potential shutdown or 

powerdown of the acoustic source. 

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

the acoustic source is active, including 

ramp-up), occurrences of marine 

mammals within the buffer zone (but 

outside the exclusion zone) should be 

communicated to the operator to 

prepare for the potential shutdown or 

powerdown of the acoustic source. 

Visual PSOs will immediately 

communicate all observations to the on 

duty acoustic PSO(s), including any 

determination by the PSO regarding 

species identification, distance, and 

bearing and the degree of confidence in 

the determination. Any observations of 

marine mammals by crew members 

shall be relayed to the PSO team. During 

good conditions (e.g., daylight hours; 

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

PSOs shall conduct observations when 

the acoustic source is not operating for 

comparison of sighting rates and 

behavior with and without use of the 

acoustic source and between acquisition 

periods, to the maximum extent 

practicable. Visual PSOs may be on 

watch for a maximum of two 

consecutive hours followed by a break 

of at least one hour between watches 

and may conduct a maximum of 12 

hours of observation per 24-hour period. 

Combined observational duties (visual 

and acoustic but not at same time) may 

not exceed 12 hours per 24-hour period 

for any individual PSO. 

For the final IHA, NMFS had added 

the requirement L–DEO must make a 

good faith effort to schedule their 

surveys to maximize the amount of 

seismic activity that takes place during 

daylight hours within the defined 

ranges of the Kohala resident stock of 

melon-headed whale and the Main 

Hawaiian Islands insular stock of fales 

killer whales. This will greatly assist 

PSOs in their efforts to effectively 

monitor these species. Furthermore, 

L–DEO must implement shutdown 

procedures if a melon-headed whale or 

group of melon-headed whales is 

observed in the Kohala resident stock’s 

range. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
44596 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Notices 

Passive Acoustic Monitoring 

Acoustic monitoring means the use of 

trained personnel (sometimes referred to 

as passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) 

operators, herein referred to as acoustic 

PSOs) to operate PAM equipment to 

acoustically detect the presence of 

marine mammals. Acoustic monitoring 

involves acoustically detecting marine 

mammals regardless of distance from 

the source, as localization of animals 

may not always be possible. Acoustic 

monitoring is intended to further 

support visual monitoring (during 

daylight hours) in maintaining an 

exclusion zone around the sound source 

that is clear of marine mammals. In 

cases where visual monitoring is not 

effective (e.g., due to weather, 

nighttime), acoustic monitoring may be 

used to allow certain activities to occur, 

as further detailed below. 

PAM would take place in addition to 

the visual monitoring program. Visual 

monitoring typically is not effective 

during periods of poor visibility or at 

night, and even with good visibility, if 

PSOs are unable to detect marine 

mammals when they are below the 

surface or beyond visual range. 

Acoustical monitoring can be used in 

addition to visual observations to 

improve detection, identification, and 

localization of cetaceans. The acoustic 

monitoring would serve to alert visual 

PSOs when vocalizing cetaceans are 

detected. It is only useful when marine 

mammals call, but it can be effective 

either by day or by night, and does not 

depend on good visibility. It would be 

monitored in real time so that the visual 

observers can be advised when 

cetaceans are detected. 

The R/V Langseth will use a towed 

PAM system, which must be monitored 

by at a minimum one on duty acoustic 

PSO beginning at least 30 minutes prior 

to ramp-up and at all times during use 

of the acoustic source. Acoustic PSOs 

may be on watch for a maximum of four 

consecutive hours followed by a break 

of at least one hour between watches 

and may conduct a maximum of 12 

hours of observation per 24-hour period. 

Combined observational duties (acoustic 

and visual but not at same time) may 

not exceed 12 hours per 24-hour period 

for any individual PSO. 

Survey activity may continue for 30 

minutes when the PAM system 

malfunctions or is damaged, while the 

PAM operator diagnoses the issue. If the 

diagnosis indicates that the PAM system 

must be repaired to solve the problem, 

operations may continue for an 

additional five hours without acoustic 

monitoring during daylight hours. In the 

proposed IHA, NMFS stated that only 

two hours of operations would be 

allowed without acoustic monitoring. 

However, L–DEO reported that 

approximately five hours are required to 

redeploy the spare PAM system if the 

primary PAM system fails. Note that 

operations may continue only under the 

following conditions: 

• Sea state is less than or equal to 

BSS 4; 

• No marine mammals (excluding 

delphinids) detected solely by PAM in 

the applicable exclusion zone in the 

previous two hours; 

• NMFS is notified via email as soon 

as practicable with the time and 

location in which operations began 

occurring without an active PAM 

system; and 

• Operations with an active acoustic 

source, but without an operating PAM 

system, do not exceed a cumulative total 

of five hours in any 24-hour period. 

Establishment of an Exclusion Zone and 

Buffer Zone 

An exclusion zone (EZ) is a defined 

area within which occurrence of a 

marine mammal triggers mitigation 

action intended to reduce the potential 

for certain outcomes, e.g., auditory 

injury, disruption of critical behaviors. 

The PSOs would establish a minimum 

EZ with a 500 m radius for the 36 airgun 

array. The 500 m EZ would be based on 

radial distance from any element of the 

airgun array (rather than being based on 

the center of the array or around the 

vessel itself). With certain exceptions 

(described below), if a marine mammal 

appears within or enters this zone, the 

acoustic source would be shut down. 

The 500 m EZ is intended to be 

precautionary in the sense that it would 

be expected to contain sound exceeding 

the injury criteria for all cetacean 

hearing groups, (based on the dual 

criteria of SELcum and peak SPL), while 

also providing a consistent, reasonably 

observable zone within which PSOs 

would typically be able to conduct 

effective observational effort. 

Additionally, a 500 m EZ is expected to 

minimize the likelihood that marine 

mammals will be exposed to levels 

likely to result in more severe 

behavioral responses. Although 

significantly greater distances may be 

observed from an elevated platform 

under good conditions, we believe that 

500 m is likely regularly attainable for 

PSOs using the naked eye during typical 

conditions. 

Pre-Clearance and Ramp-Up 

Ramp-up (sometimes referred to as 

‘‘soft start’’) means the gradual and 

systematic increase of emitted sound 

levels from an airgun array. Ramp-up 

begins by first activating a single airgun 

of the smallest volume, followed by 

doubling the number of active elements 

in stages until the full complement of an 

array’s airguns are active. Each stage 

should be approximately the same 

duration, and the total duration should 

not be less than approximately 20 

minutes. The intent of pre-clearance 

observation (30 minutes) is to ensure no 

protected species are observed within 

the buffer zone prior to the beginning of 

ramp-up. During pre-clearance is the 

only time observations of protected 

species in the buffer zone would 

prevent operations (i.e., the beginning of 

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

warn protected species of pending 

seismic operations and to allow 

sufficient time for those animals to leave 

the immediate vicinity. A ramp-up 

procedure, involving a step-wise 

increase in the number of airguns firing 

and total array volume until all 

operational airguns are activated and 

the full volume is achieved, is required 

at all times as part of the activation of 

the acoustic source. All operators must 

adhere to the following pre-clearance 

and ramp-up requirements: 

• The operator must notify a 

designated PSO of the planned start of 

ramp-up as agreed upon with the lead 

PSO; the notification time should not be 

less than 60 minutes prior to the 

planned ramp-up in order to allow the 

PSOs time to monitor the exclusion and 

buffer zones for 30 minutes prior to the 

initiation of ramp-up (pre-clearance). 

• Ramp-ups shall be scheduled so as 

to minimize the time spent with the 

source activated prior to reaching the 

designated run-in. 

• One of the PSOs conducting preclearance observations must be notified 

again immediately prior to initiating 

ramp-up procedures and the operator 

must receive confirmation from the PSO 

to proceed. 

• Ramp-up may not be initiated if any 

marine mammal is within the applicable 

exclusion or buffer zone. If a marine 

mammal is observed within the 

applicable exclusion zone or the buffer 

zone during the 30 minute pre-clearance 

period, ramp-up may not begin until the 

animal(s) has been observed exiting the 

zones or until an additional time period 

has elapsed with no further sightings 

(15 minutes for small odontocetes and 

30 minutes for all other species). 

• Ramp-up shall begin by activating a 

single airgun of the smallest volume in 

the array and shall continue in stages by 

doubling the number of active elements 

at the commencement of each stage, 

with each stage of approximately the 

same duration. Duration shall not be 

less than 20 minutes. The operator must 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Notices 44597 

provide information to the PSO 

documenting that appropriate 

procedures were followed. 

• PSOs must monitor the exclusion 

and buffer zones during ramp-up, and 

ramp-up must cease and the source 

must be shut down upon observation of 

a marine mammal within the applicable 

exclusion zone. Once ramp-up has 

begun, observations of marine mammals 

within the buffer zone do not require 

shutdown or powerdown, but such 

observation shall be communicated to 

the operator to prepare for the potential 

shutdown or powerdown. 

• Ramp-up may occur at times of 

poor visibility, including nighttime, if 

appropriate acoustic monitoring has 

occurred with no detections in the 30 

minutes prior to beginning ramp-up. 

Acoustic source activation may only 

occur at times of poor visibility where 

operational planning cannot reasonably 

avoid such circumstances. 

• If the acoustic source is shut down 

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

minutes) for reasons other than that 

described for shutdown and powerdown 

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

activated again without ramp-up if PSOs 

have maintained constant visual and/or 

acoustic observation and no visual or 

acoustic detections of marine mammals 

have occurred within the applicable 

exclusion zone. For any longer 

shutdown, pre-clearance observation 

and ramp-up are required. For any 

shutdown at night or in periods of poor 

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

period was brief and constant 

observation was maintained, preclearance watch of 30 min is not 

required. 

• Testing of the acoustic source 

involving all elements requires rampup. Testing limited to individual source 

elements or strings does not require 

ramp-up but does require pre-clearance 

of 30 min. 

Shutdown and Powerdown 

The shutdown of an airgun array 

requires the immediate de-activation of 

all individual airgun elements of the 

array while a powerdown requires 

immediate de-activation of all 

individual airgun elements of the array 

except the single 40-in3 airgun. Any 

PSO on duty will have the authority to 

delay the start of survey operations or to 

call for shutdown or powerdown of the 

acoustic source if a marine mammal is 

detected within the applicable 

exclusion zone. The operator must also 

establish and maintain clear lines of 

communication directly between PSOs 

on duty and crew controlling the 

acoustic source to ensure that shutdown 

and powerdown commands are 

conveyed swiftly while allowing PSOs 

to maintain watch. When both visual 

and acoustic PSOs are on duty, all 

detections will be immediately 

communicated to the remainder of the 

on-duty PSO team for potential 

verification of visual observations by the 

acoustic PSO or of acoustic detections 

by visual PSOs. When the airgun array 

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

airguns is active, including during 

ramp-up and powerdown) shutdown 

must occur under the following 

conditions: 

• A marine mammal appears within 

or enters the applicable exclusion zone; 

and 

• A marine mammal (other than 

delphinids, see below) is detected 

acoustically and localized within the 

applicable exclusion zone. 

The shutdown requirements 

described below have been added to the 

final IHA as they were not included in 

the proposed IHA. Under the following 

conditions L–DEO must implement 

shutdown: 

• A marine mammal species, for 

which authorization was granted but the 

takes have been met, approaches the 

Level A or B harassment zones; 

• A large whale with a calf or an 

aggregation of large whales is observed 

regardless of the distance from the 

Langseth; 

• A melon-headed whale or group of 

melon-headed whales is observed in the 

range of the Kohala resident stock. This 

stock is found off the the Kohala 

Peninsula and west coast of Hawaii 

Island and at a depth of less than 2,500 

m (Carretta et al. 2018). L–DEO will 

attempt to time their seismic operations 

along Trackline 1 so they will traverse 

the Kohala resident stock’s range during 

daytime. 

• A spinner or bottlenose dolphin or 

group of dolphins is observed 

approaching or is within the Level B 

harassment zone in the habitat of the 

specific MHI insular stock if the 

authorized takes have been met for any 

of these stocks. 

When shutdown is called for by a 

PSO, the acoustic source will be 

immediately deactivated and any 

dispute resolved only following 

deactivation. Additionally, shutdown 

will occur whenever PAM alone 

(without visual sighting), confirms 

presence of marine mammal(s) in the 

EZ. If the acoustic PSO cannot confirm 

presence within the EZ, visual PSOs 

will be notified but shutdown is not 

required. 

Following a shutdown, airgun activity 

would not resume until the marine 

mammal has cleared the 500 m EZ. The 

animal would be considered to have 

cleared the 500 m EZ if it is visually 

observed to have departed the 500 m 

EZ, or it has not been seen within the 

500 m EZ for 15 min in the case of small 

odontocetes and pinnipeds, or 30 min in 

the case of mysticetes and large 

odontocetes, including sperm, pygmy 

sperm, dwarf sperm, and beaked 

whales. 

The shutdown requirement can be 

waived for small dolphins in which case 

the acoustic source shall be powered 

down to the single 40-in3 airgun if an 

individual is visually detected within 

the exclusion zone. As defined here, the 

small delphinoid group is intended to 

encompass those members of the Family 

Delphinidae most likely to voluntarily 

approach the source vessel for purposes 

of interacting with the vessel and/or 

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

exception to the shutdown requirement 

would apply solely to specific genera of 

small dolphins including Tursiops, 

Delphinus, Lagenodelphis, 

Lagenorhynchus, Lissodelphis, Stenella 

and Steno. The acoustic source shall be 

powered down to 40-in3 airgun if an 

individual belonging to these genera is 

visually detected within the 500 m 

exclusion zone. Note that when the 

acoustic source is powered down to the 

40-in3 airgun due to the presence of 

specified dolphins, a shutdown zone of 

100 m and Level B harassment zone of 

430 m will be in effect for species other 

than specified dolphin genera that may 

approach the survey vessel. This 

mitigation measure had not been 

included in the notice of proposed IHA. 

Powerdown conditions shall be 

maintained until delphinids for which 

shutdown is waived are no longer 

observed within the 500 m exclusion 

zone, following which full-power 

operations may be resumed without 

ramp-up. Visual PSOs may elect to 

waive the powerdown requirement if 

delphinids for which shutdown is 

waived 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 power-down/ 

shutdown requirements for small 

delphinoids under all circumstances 

represent practicability concerns 

without likely commensurate benefits 

for the animals in question. Small 

delphinoids are generally the most 

commonly observed marine mammals 

in the specific geographic region and 

would typically be the only marine 

mammals likely to intentionally 

approach the vessel. As described 

above, auditory injury is extremely 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
44598 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Notices 

unlikely to occur for mid-frequency 

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

group is relatively insensitive to sound 

produced at the predominant 

frequencies in an airgun pulse while 

also having a relatively high threshold 

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

permanent threshold shift). 

A large body of anecdotal evidence 

indicates that small delphinoids 

commonly approach vessels and/or 

towed arrays during active sound 

production for purposes of bow riding, 

with no apparent effect observed in 

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

2012). The potential for increased 

shutdowns resulting from such a 

measure would require the Langseth to 

revisit the missed track line to reacquire 

data, resulting in an overall increase in 

the total sound energy input to the 

marine environment and an increase in 

the total duration over which the survey 

is active in a given area. Although other 

mid-frequency hearing specialists (e.g., 

large delphinoids) are no more likely to 

incur auditory injury than are small 

delphinoids, they are much less likely 

to approach vessels. Therefore, retaining 

a power-down/shutdown requirement 

for large delphinoids would not have 

similar impacts in terms of either 

practicability for the applicant or 

corollary increase in sound energy 

output and time on the water. We do 

anticipate some benefit for a powerdown/shutdown requirement for large 

delphinoids in that it simplifies 

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

potential for physiological effects other 

than to the auditory system as well as 

some more severe behavioral reactions 

for any such animals in close proximity 

to the source vessel. 

Visual PSOs shall use best 

professional judgment in making the 

decision to call for a shutdown if there 

is uncertainty regarding identification 

(i.e., whether the observed marine 

mammal(s) belongs to one of the 

delphinid genera for which shutdown is 

waived or one of the species with a 

larger exclusion zone). If PSOs observe 

any behaviors in a small delphinid for 

which shutdown is waived that indicate 

an adverse reaction, then powerdown 

will be initiated immediately. 

Upon implementation of shutdown, 

the source may be reactivated after the 

marine mammal(s) has been observed 

exiting the applicable exclusion zone 

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

the buffer zone where applicable) or 

following 15 minutes for small 

odontocetes and 30 minutes for all other 

species with no further observation of 

the marine mammal(s). 

In the event of a live stranding (or 

near-shore atypical milling) event, 

L–DEO must adhere to recently 

established protocols, which were not 

contained in the proposed IHA. If the 

stranding event occurs 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: 

• 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 around the animals’ location 

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. 

Vessel Strike Avoidance 

These measures apply to all vessels 

associated with the planned survey 

activity; however, we note that these 

requirements do not apply in any case 

where compliance would create an 

imminent and serious threat to a person 

or vessel or to the extent that a vessel 

is restricted in its ability to maneuver 

and, because of the restriction, cannot 

comply. These measures include the 

following: 

1. Vessel operators and crews must 

maintain a vigilant watch for all marine 

mammals and slow down, stop their 

vessel, or alter course, as appropriate 

and regardless of vessel size, to avoid 

striking any marine mammal. A single 

marine mammal at the surface may 

indicate the presence of submerged 

animals in the vicinity of the vessel; 

therefore, precautionary measures 

should be exercised when an animal is 

observed. A visual observer aboard the 

vessel must monitor a vessel strike 

avoidance zone around the vessel 

(specific distances detailed below), to 

ensure the potential for strike is 

minimized. Visual observers monitoring 

the vessel strike avoidance zone can be 

either third-party observers or crew 

members, but crew members 

responsible for these duties must be 

provided sufficient training to 

distinguish marine mammals from other 

phenomena and broadly to identify a 

marine mammal to broad taxonomic 

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

marine mammal). 

2. Vessel speeds must be reduced to 

10 kn or less when mother/calf pairs, 

pods, or large assemblages of any 

marine mammal are observed near a 

vessel. 

3. All vessels must maintain a 

minimum separation distance of 100 m 

from large whales (i.e., sperm whales 

and all baleen whales. 

4. All vessels must attempt to 

maintain a minimum separation 

distance of 50 m from all other marine 

mammals, with an exception made for 

those animals that approach the vessel. 

5. When marine mammals are sighted 

while a vessel is underway, the vessel 

should take action as necessary to avoid 

violating the relevant separation 

distance (e.g., attempt to remain parallel 

to the animal’s course, avoid excessive 

speed or abrupt changes in direction 

until the animal has left the area). If 

marine mammals are sighted within the 

relevant separation distance, the vessel 

should reduce speed and shift the 

engine to neutral, not engaging the 

engines until animals are clear of the 

area. This recommendation does not 

apply to any vessel towing gear. 

We have carefully evaluated the suite 

of mitigation measures described here 

and considered a range of other 

measures in the context of ensuring that 

we prescribe the means of effecting the 

least practicable adverse impact on the 

affected marine mammal species and 

stocks and their habitat. Based on our 

evaluation of the planned measures, 

NMFS has determined that the 

mitigation measures provide the means 

effecting the least practicable impact on 

the affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Notices 44599 

Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present in the action area. Effective 

reporting is critical both to compliance 

as well as ensuring that the most value 

is obtained from the required 

monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density). 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

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

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

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

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

feeding areas). 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors. 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) Long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks. 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat). 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Vessel-Based Visual Monitoring 

As described above, PSO observations 

would take place during daytime airgun 

operations and nighttime start ups (if 

applicable) of the airguns. During 

seismic operations, at least five visual 

PSOs would be based aboard the 

Langseth. Monitoring shall be 

conducted in accordance with the 

following requirements: 

• The operator shall provide PSOs 

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

2.7 view angle; individual ocular focus; 

height control) of appropriate quality 

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

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

appropriate vantage point that provides 

for optimal sea surface observation, PSO 

safety, and safe operation of the vessel. 

• The operator will work with the 

selected third-party observer provider to 

ensure PSOs have all equipment 

(including backup equipment) needed 

to adequately perform necessary tasks, 

including accurate determination of 

distance and bearing to observed marine 

mammals. (c) PSOs must have the 

following requirements and 

qualifications: 

• PSOs shall be independent, 

dedicated, trained visual and acoustic 

PSOs and must be employed by a thirdparty observer provider. 

• PSOs shall have no tasks other than 

to conduct observational effort (visual or 

acoustic), collect data, and 

communicate with and instruct relevant 

vessel crew with regard to the presence 

of protected species and mitigation 

requirements (including brief alerts 

regarding maritime hazards), 

• PSOs shall have successfully 

completed an approved PSO training 

course appropriate for their designated 

task (visual or acoustic). Acoustic PSOs 

are required to complete specialized 

training for operating PAM systems and 

are encouraged to have familiarity with 

the vessel with which they will be 

working. 

• PSOs can act as acoustic or visual 

observers (but not at the same time) as 

long as they demonstrate that their 

training and experience are sufficient to 

perform the task at hand. 

• NMFS must review and approve 

PSO resumes accompanied by a relevant 

training course information packet that 

includes the name and qualifications 

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

educational background) of the 

instructor(s), the course outline or 

syllabus, and course reference material 

as well as a document stating successful 

completion of the course. 

• NMFS shall have one week to 

approve PSOs from the time that the 

necessary information is submitted, 

after which PSOs meeting the minimum 

requirements shall automatically be 

considered approved. 

• PSOs must successfully complete 

relevant training, including completion 

of all required coursework and passing 

(80 percent or greater) a written and/or 

oral examination developed for the 

training program. 

• PSOs must have successfully 

attained a bachelor’s degree from an 

accredited college or university with a 

major in one of the natural sciences, a 

minimum of 30 semester hours or 

equivalent in the biological sciences, 

and at least one undergraduate course in 

math or statistics. 

• The educational requirements may 

be waived if the PSO has acquired the 

relevant skills through alternate 

experience. Requests for such a waiver 

shall be submitted to NMFS and must 

include written justification. Requests 

shall be granted or denied (with 

justification) by NMFS within one week 

of receipt of submitted information. 

Alternate experience that may be 

considered includes, but is not limited 

to (1) secondary education and/or 

experience comparable to PSO duties; 

(2) previous work experience 

conducting academic, commercial, or 

government-sponsored protected 

species surveys; or (3) previous work 

experience as a PSO; the PSO should 

demonstrate good standing and 

consistently good performance of PSO 

duties. 

For data collection purposes, PSOs 

shall use standardized data collection 

forms, whether hard copy or electronic. 

PSOs shall record detailed information 

about any implementation of mitigation 

requirements, including the distance of 

animals to the acoustic source and 

description of specific actions that 

ensued, the behavior of the animal(s), 

any observed changes in behavior before 

and after implementation of mitigation, 

and if shutdown was implemented, the 

length of time before any subsequent 

ramp-up of the acoustic source. If 

required mitigation was not 

implemented, PSOs should record a 

description of the circumstances. At a 

minimum, the following information 

must be recorded: 

• Vessel names (source vessel and 

other vessels associated with survey) 

and call signs; 

• PSO names and affiliations; 

• Dates of departures and returns to 

port with port name; 

• Dates and times (Greenwich Mean 

Time) of survey effort and times 

corresponding with PSO effort; 

• Vessel location (latitude/longitude) 

when survey effort began and ended and 

vessel location at beginning and end of 

visual PSO duty shifts; 

• Vessel heading and speed at 

beginning and end of visual PSO duty 

shifts and upon any line change; 

• Environmental conditions while on 

visual survey (at beginning and end of 

PSO shift and whenever conditions 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
44600 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Notices 

changed significantly), including BSS 

and any other relevant weather 

conditions including cloud cover, fog, 

sun glare, and overall visibility to the 

horizon; 

• Factors that may have contributed 

to impaired observations during each 

PSO shift change or as needed as 

environmental conditions changed (e.g., 

vessel traffic, equipment malfunctions); 

and 

• Survey activity information, such as 

acoustic source power output while in 

operation, number and volume of 

airguns operating in the array, tow 

depth of the array, and any other notes 

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

streamers, etc.). 

The following information should be 

recorded upon visual observation of any 

protected species: 

• Watch status (sighting made by PSO 

on/off effort, opportunistic, crew, 

alternate vessel/platform); 

• PSO who sighted the animal; 

• Time of sighting; 

• Vessel location at time of sighting; 

• Water depth; 

• Direction of vessel’s travel (compass 

direction); 

• Direction of animal’s travel relative 

to the vessel; 

• Pace of the animal; 

• Estimated distance to the animal 

and its heading relative to vessel at 

initial sighting; 

• Identification of the animal (e.g., 

genus/species, lowest possible 

taxonomic level, or unidentified) and 

the composition of the group if there is 

a mix of species; 

• Estimated number of animals (high/ 

low/best); 

• Estimated number of animals by 

cohort (adults, yearlings, juveniles, 

calves, group composition, etc.); 

• Description (as many distinguishing 

features as possible of each individual 

seen, including length, shape, color, 

pattern, scars or markings, shape and 

size of dorsal fin, shape of head, and 

blow characteristics); 

• Detailed behavior observations (e.g., 

number of blows/breaths, number of 

surfaces, breaching, spyhopping, diving, 

feeding, traveling; as explicit and 

detailed as possible; note any observed 

changes in behavior); 

• Animal’s closest point of approach 

(CPA) and/or closest distance from any 

element of the acoustic source; 

• Platform activity at time of sighting 

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

shooting, data acquisition, other); and 

• Description of any actions 

implemented in response to the sighting 

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

time and location of the action. 

If a marine mammal is detected while 

using the PAM system, the following 

information should be recorded: 

• An acoustic encounter 

identification number, and whether the 

detection was linked with a visual 

sighting; 

• Date and time when first and last 

heard; 

• Types and nature of sounds heard 

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

pulses, continuous, sporadic, strength of 

signal); 

• Any additional information 

recorded such as water depth of the 

hydrophone array, bearing of the animal 

to the vessel (if determinable), species 

or taxonomic group (if determinable), 

spectrogram screenshot, and any other 

notable information. 

L–DEO will be required to shall 

submit a draft comprehensive report to 

NMFS on all activities and monitoring 

results within 90 days of the completion 

of the survey or expiration of the IHA, 

whichever comes sooner. The report 

must describe all activities conducted 

and sightings of protected species near 

the activities, must provide full 

documentation of methods, results, and 

interpretation pertaining to all 

monitoring, and must summarize the 

dates and locations of survey operations 

and all protected species sightings 

(dates, times, locations, activities, 

associated survey activities). The report 

must 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. The report must also 

include geo-referenced time-stamped 

vessel tracklines for all time periods 

during which airguns were operating. 

Tracklines should include points 

recording any change in airgun status 

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

when they were turned off, or when 

they changed from full array to single 

gun or vice versa). GIS files must be 

provided in ESRI shapefile format and 

include the UTC date and time, latitude 

in decimal degrees, and longitude in 

decimal degrees. All coordinates shall 

be referenced to the WGS84 geographic 

coordinate system. In addition to the 

report, all raw observational data must 

be made available to NMFS. The report 

must summarize the information 

submitted in interim monthly reports as 

well as additional data collected as 

described above and the IHA. The draft 

report must be accompanied by a 

certification from the lead PSO as to the 

accuracy of the report, and the lead PSO 

may submit directly NMFS a statement 

concerning implementation and 

effectiveness of the required mitigation 

and monitoring. A final report must be 

submitted within 30 days following 

resolution of any comments on the draft 

report. 

Reporting Injured or Dead Marine 

Mammals 

NMFS has revised the standard 

protcols that apply when an injured or 

dead marine mammal is discovered and 

has included them here. These updated 

protocols were not described in the 

proposed IHA. In the event that 

personnel involved in survey activities 

covered by the authorization discover 

an injured or dead marine mammal, the 

IHA-holder shall report the incident to 

the Office of Protected Resources (OPR), 

NMFS and to the NMFS Pacific Islands 

Regional Stranding Coordinator 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. 

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; 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Notices 44601 

• 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. 

Vessel Strike—In the event of a ship 

strike of a marine mammal by any vessel 

involved in the activities covered by the 

authorization, L–DEO must 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). 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as ‘‘an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival’’ 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

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

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any responses (e.g., intensity, 

duration), the context of any responses 

(e.g., critical reproductive time or 

location, migration), as well as effects 

on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 

of the mitigation. We also assess the 

number, intensity, and context of 

estimated takes by evaluating this 

information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’ implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the environmental baseline 

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

of the species, population size and 

growth rate where known, ongoing 

sources of human-caused mortality, or 

ambient noise levels). 

To avoid repetition, our analysis 

applies to all species listed in Table 7 

and 8, given that NMFS expects the 

anticipated effects of the planned 

seismic survey to be similar in nature. 

Where there are meaningful differences 

between species or stocks, or groups of 

species, in anticipated individual 

responses to activities, impact of 

expected take on the population due to 

differences in population status, or 

impacts on habitat, NMFS has identified 

species-specific factors to inform the 

analysis. 

NMFS does not anticipate that serious 

injury or mortality would occur as a 

result of L–DEO’s planned surveys, even 

in the absence of planned mitigation. As 

discussed in the Potential Effects 

section, non-auditory physical effects, 

stranding, and vessel strike are not 

expected to occur. 

NMFS has authorized a limited 

number of instances of Level A 

harassment of 6 species and Level B 

harassment of 39 marine mammal 

species. However, we believe that any 

PTS incurred in marine mammals as a 

result of the activity would be in the 

form of only a small degree of PTS, not 

total deafness, and would be unlikely to 

affect the fitness of any individuals, 

because of the constant movement of 

both the Langseth and of the marine 

mammals in the project areas, as well as 

the fact that the vessel is not expected 

to remain in any one area in which 

individual marine mammals would be 

expected to concentrate for an extended 

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

exposure to loud sounds will be 

relatively short). We expect that the 

majority of takes would be in the form 

of short-term Level B behavioral 

harassment in the form of temporary 

avoidance of the area or decreased 

foraging (if such activity were 

occurring), reactions that are considered 

to be of low severity and with no lasting 

biological consequences (e.g., Southall 

et al., 2007). 

Potential impacts to marine mammal 

habitat were discussed previously in 

this document (see Potential Effects of 

the Specified Activity on Marine 

Mammals and their Habitat). Marine 

mammal habitat may be impacted by 

elevated sound levels, but these impacts 

would be temporary. Feeding behavior 

is not likely to be significantly 

impacted, as marine mammals appear to 

be less likely to exhibit behavioral 

reactions or avoidance responses while 

engaged in feeding activities 

(Richardson et al., 1995). Prey species 

are mobile and are broadly distributed 

throughout the project areas; therefore, 

marine mammals that may be 

temporarily displaced during survey 

activities are expected to be able to 

resume foraging once they have moved 

away from areas with disturbing levels 

of underwater noise. Because of the 

relatively short duration (up to 24 days 

for Hawaii survey) and temporary 

nature of the disturbance as well as the 

availability of similar habitat and 

resources in the surrounding area, the 

impacts to marine mammals and the 

food sources that they utilize are not 

expected to cause significant or longterm consequences for individual 

marine mammals or their populations. 

The activity is expected to impact a 

small percentage of all marine mammal 

stocks that would be affected by L– 

DEO’s planned survey (less than 15 

percent percent of all species, including 

those taken by both surveys). 

Additionally, the acoustic ‘‘footprint’’ of 

the planned surveys would be small 

relative to the ranges of the marine 

mammals that would potentially be 

affected. Sound levels would increase in 

the marine environment in a relatively 

small area surrounding the vessel 

compared to the range of the marine 

mammals within the planned survey 

area. 

The required mitigation measures are 

expected to reduce the severity of takes 

by allowing for detection of marine 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
44602 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Notices 

mammals in the vicinity of the vessel by 

visual and acoustic observers, and by 

minimizing the severity of any potential 

exposures via power downs and/or 

shutdowns of the airgun array. Based on 

previous monitoring reports for 

substantially similar activities that have 

been previously authorized by NMFS, 

we expect that the required mitigation 

will be effective in preventing at least 

some extent of potential PTS in marine 

mammals that may otherwise occur in 

the absence of the mitigation. 

The ESA-listed marine mammal 

species under our jurisdiction that are 

likely to be taken by the planned 

surveys include the endangered sei, fin, 

blue, sperm, gray, North Pacific Right, 

Western North Pacific DPS humpback, 

and Main Hawaiian Islands Insular DPS 

false killer whale as well as the 

Hawaiian monk seal. We have 

authorized very small numbers of takes 

for these species relative to their 

population sizes. Therefore, we do not 

expect population-level impacts to any 

of these species. The other marine 

mammal species that may be taken by 

harassment during the survey are not 

listed as threatened or endangered 

under the ESA. With the exception of 

the northern fur seal, none of the nonlisted marine mammals for which we 

have authorized take are considered 

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

under the MMPA. 

The tracklines of the Hawaii survey 

either traverse or are proximal to BIAs 

for 11 species that NMFS has authorized 

for take. Ten of the BIAs pertain to small 

and resident cetacean populations while 

a breeding BIA has been delineated for 

humpback whales. However, this 

designation is only applicable to 

humpback whales in the December 

through March timeframe (Baird et al., 

2015). Since the Hawaii survey is in 

September, there will be no effects on 

humpback whales. For cetacean species 

with small and resident BIAs in the 

Hawaii survey area, that designation is 

applicable year-round. There are up to 

24 days of seismic operations planned 

for the Hawaii survey. Only a portion of 

those days would involve seismic 

operations within BIA boundaries along 

Tracklines 1 and 2. Time spent in any 

single BIA during a trackline pass 

would be less than a day. No physical 

impacts to BIA habitat are anticipated 

from seismic activities. While SPLs of 

sufficient strength have been known to 

cause injury to fish and fish mortality, 

the most likely impact to prey species 

from survey activities would be 

temporary avoidance of the affected 

area. The duration of fish avoidance of 

a given area after survey effort stops is 

unknown, but a rapid return to normal 

recruitment, distribution and behavior 

is expected. Given the short operational 

seismic time near or traversing BIAs, as 

well as the ability of cetaceans and prey 

species to move away from acoustic 

sources, NMFS expects that there would 

be, at worst, minimal impacts to animals 

and habitat within the designated BIAs. 

NMFS has included a number of 

mitigation and monitoring measures to 

reduce potential impacts to small and 

resident populations in the Main 

Hawaiian Islands. Given the small 

population and large recorded group 

sizes of Kohala resident melon-headed 

whales, L–DEO must shut down when 

a melon-headed whale or group of 

melon-headed whales is observed in the 

range of the Kohala resident stock. 

Furthermore, L–DEO will plan to time 

their seismic operations along Trackline 

1 so they will traverse the Kohala 

resident stock’s range during daytime. 

L–DEO will similarly plan to conduct 

daylight crossings of designated critical 

habitat for the Main Hawaiian Island 

insular false killer whale. Spinner and 

bottlenose dolphin stocks also have 

small and resident populations. 

Therefore, when a group of dolphins is 

observed approaching or is within the 

Level B harassment zone in the habitat 

of the specific MHI insular stock L–DEO 

must shut down if the authorized takes 

have been met for any of these stocks. 

Additional protective measures include 

mandatory shutdown when a large 

whale with a calf or an aggregation of 

large whales is observed regardless of 

the distance from the Langseth; 

NMFS concludes that exposures to 

marine mammal species and stocks due 

to L–DEO’s planned survey would result 

in only short-term (temporary and short 

in duration) effects to individuals 

exposed. Animals may temporarily 

avoid the immediate area, but are not 

expected to permanently abandon the 

area. Major shifts in habitat use, 

distribution, or foraging success are not 

expected. NMFS does not anticipate that 

authorized take numbers will impact 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our determination that the impacts 

resulting from this activity are not 

expected to adversely affect the marine 

mammal species or stocks through 

effects on annual rates of recruitment or 

survival: 

• No mortality is anticipated or 

authorized; 

• The planned activity is temporary 

and of relatively short duration; 

• The anticipated impacts of the 

activity on marine mammals would 

primarily be temporary behavioral 

changes due to avoidance of the area 

around the survey vessel; 

• The number of instances of PTS 

that may occur are expected to be 

limited. Instances of PTS that are 

incurred in marine mammals would be 

of a low level, due to constant 

movement of the vessel and of the 

marine mammals in the area, and the 

nature of the survey design (not 

concentrated in areas of high marine 

mammal concentration); 

• The availability of alternate areas of 

similar habitat value for marine 

mammals to temporarily vacate the 

survey area during the survey to avoid 

exposure to sounds from the activity; 

• The 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; 

• The required mitigation measures, 

including visual and acoustic 

monitoring, power-downs, and 

shutdowns, are expected to minimize 

potential impacts to marine mammals. 

Specific mitigation measures added to 

this final IHA include shutting down 

when a large whale with a calf or an 

aggregation of large whales is observed; 

shutting down when a melon-headed 

whale or group of melon-headed whales 

is observed in the range of the Kohala 

resident stock; shutting down when a 

spinner or bottlenose dolphin or group 

of dolphins approach the Level B 

harassment zone in the habitat of the 

specific MHI insular stock if the 

authorized takes have been met for any 

of these stocks; and timing surveys to 

traverse ranges of the Kohala resident 

stock of melon-headed whale and the 

Main Hawaiian Islands insular stock of 

false killer whales during daylight 

hours. 

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 

required monitoring and mitigation 

measures, NMFS finds that the total 

marine mammal take from the planned 

activity will have a negligible impact on 

all affected marine mammal species or 

stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of incidental take may be authorized 

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

for specified activities other than 

military readiness activities. The MMPA 

does not define small numbers; so, in 

practice, where estimated numbers are 

available, NMFS compares the number 

of individuals taken to the most 

appropriate estimation of abundance of 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 170 / Friday, August 31, 2018 / Notices 44603 

the relevant species or stock in our 

determination of whether an 

authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. Tables 7 and 8 provide 

numbers of authorized take by Level A 

harassment and Level B harassment. 

These are the numbers we use for 

purposes of the small numbers analysis. 

The numbers of marine mammals for 

which we have authorized take across 

the two surveys would be considered 

small relative to the relevant 

populations (a maximum of 14.7 

percent) for the species for which 

abundance estimates are available. 

Several small resident or insular 

populations that could experience Level 

B harassment during the Hawaii survey 

were discussed in the Estimated Take 

section. For the Kohala resident stock of 

melo-headed whales (pop. 447), NMFS 

assumed that up to 3 groups of 20 

Kohala residents could be taken by 

Level B harassment, representing 13.4 

percent of the Kohala stock, if they enter 

the zone undetected by PSOs. 

Additionally, the range of the Hawaiian 

Island stock overlaps the range of the 

Kohala resident stock. Therefore, any 

melon-headed whale takes within the 

Kohala resident stock’s range could also 

be from either stock. Sesimic operations 

will occur in the ranges of the Hawaiian 

Island stock (pop. 128) and Oahu stock 

(pop. 743) of common bottlenose 

dolphins. Based on GIS analysis of the 

tracklines and the ranges of the stocks, 

NMFS determined that 7 percent of the 

Hawaii Island stock and 1.2 percent of 

the Oahu stock could be exposed to 

Level B harassment. Similar GIS 

analysis of the Hawaii Island (pop. 631) 

and Oahu/4-Island (pop. 355) stocks of 

spinner dolphins resulted in estimated 

Level B harassment of 3.8 percent of the 

Hawaii Islands stock population and 6.7 

percent of the Oahu/4-Island stock 

population. Analysis of pantropical 

spotted dolphins determined that there 

would be 9 Oahu stock exposures and 

82 Hawaii Island stock exposures. The 

populations of these stocks are 

unknown, so the percentage of stocks 

affected cannot be determined. 

However, the large ranges of these 

species (up to 20 km from Oahu and 65 

km from Hawaii) make it likely that the 

survey would only impact limited 

numbers of these stocks. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the planned activity (including 

the required 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. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of the affected marine mammal stocks or 

species implicated by this action. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

the total taking of affected species or 

stocks would not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

such species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

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

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally, in this 

case with the ESA Interagency 

Cooperation Division, whenever we 

propose to authorize take for 

endangered or threatened species. 

The NMFS Permits and Conservation 

Division issued a Biological Opinion on 

August 24, 2018 to NMFS’s Office of 

Protected Resources which concluded 

that the specified activities are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of the North Pacific right 

whale, sei whale, fin whale, blue whale, 

sperm whale, Western North Pacific 

DPS humpback whale, gray whale, 

Hawaiian Islands Insular DPS false 

killer whale, and the Hawaiian monk 

seal or adversely modify critical habitat 

because none exists within the action 

area. 

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 the 

proposed action (i.e., the issuance of 

regulations and an LOA) with respect to 

potential impacts on the human 

environment. 

Accordingly, NMFS has adopted the 

L–DEO Final Environmental 

Assessment (EA), Environmental 

Assessment/Analysis of Marine 

Geophysical Surveys by the R/V Marcus 

G. Langseth in the North Pacific Ocean, 

2018/2019 and after an independent 

evaluation of the document found that 

it included adequate information 

analyzing the effects on the human 

environment of issuing incidental take 

authorizations. In August 2018, NMFS 

issued a Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI). 

Authorization 

As a result of these determinations, 

we have issued an IHA to L–DEO for 

conducting seismic surveys in the 

Pacific Ocean near the main Hawaiian 

Islands and the Emperor Seamounts 

area from September 1, 2018 through 

August 31, 2019, provided the 

previously mentioned mitigation, 

monitoring, and reporting requirements 

are incorporated. 

Dated: August 27, 2018. 

Cathy E. Tortorici, 

Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–19008 Filed 8–30–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XG442 

New England Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery 

Management Council (Council) is 

scheduling a public meeting of its 

Groundfish Advisory Panel to consider 

actions affecting New England fisheries 

in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). 

Recommendations from this group will 

be brought to the full Council for formal 

consideration and action, if appropriate. 

DATES: This meeting will be held on 

Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 8:30 

a.m. 

ADDRESSES: 

Meeting address: The meeting will be 

held at the Four Points by Sheraton, 

One Audubon Road, Wakefield, MA 

01880; phone: (781) 245–9300. 

Council address: New England 

Fishery Management Council, 50 Water 

Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, 

New England Fishery Management 

Council; telephone: (978) 465–0492. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Agenda 

The Advisory Panel will discuss 

Framework Adjustment 58: 

Specifications/Management Measures 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES