13962 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XD773 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Marine 

Geophysical Survey in the Northwest 

Atlantic Ocean Offshore New Jersey, 

June to August, 2015 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorization; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received an 

application from the Lamont-Doherty 

Earth Observatory (Lamont-Doherty) in 

collaboration with the National Science 

Foundation (Foundation), for an 

Incidental Harassment Authorization 

(Authorization) to take marine 

mammals, by harassment incidental to 

conducting a marine geophysical 

(seismic) survey in the northwest 

Atlantic Ocean off the New Jersey coast 

June through August, 2015. The 

proposed dates for this action would be 

June 1, 2015 through August 31, 2015 to 

account for minor deviations due to 

logistics and weather. Per the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act, we are 

requesting comments on our proposal to 

issue an Authorization to LamontDoherty to incidentally take, by Level B 

harassment only, 32 species of marine 

mammals during the specified activity. 

DATES: NMFS must receive comments 

and information on or before April 16, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: Address comments on the 

application to Jolie Harrison, 

Supervisor, Incidental Take Program, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910. The mailbox address for 

providing email comments is ITP.Cody@

noaa.gov. Please include 0648–XD773 

in the subject line. Comments sent via 

email to ITP.Cody@noaa.gov, including 

all attachments, must not exceed a 25- 

megabyte file size. NMFS is not 

responsible for email comments sent to 

addresses other than the one provided 

here. 

Instructions: All submitted comments 

are a part of the public record and 

NMFS will post them to http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/

incidental/research.htm without 

change. All Personal Identifying 

Information (for example, name, 

address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by 

the commenter may be publicly 

accessible. Do not submit confidential 

business information or otherwise 

sensitive or protected information. 

To obtain an electronic copy of the 

application containing a list of the 

references used in this document, write 

to the previously mentioned address, 

telephone the contact listed here (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or 

visit the Internet at: http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/

incidental/research.htm. 

The Foundation has prepared a draft 

Environmental Assessment (EA) in 

accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

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

regulations published by the Council on 

Environmental Quality. The draft EA 

titled ‘‘Draft Amended Environmental 

Assessment of a Marine Geophysical 

Survey by the R/V Marcus G. Langseth 

in the Atlantic Ocean off New Jersey, 

Summer 2015,’’ prepared by LGL, Ltd. 

environmental research associates, on 

behalf of the Foundation and LamontDoherty is available at the same Internet 

address. Information in the LamontDoherty’s application, the Foundation’s 

draft amended EA, and this notice 

collectively provide the environmental 

information related to the proposed 

issuance of the Authorization for public 

review and comment. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeannine Cody, NMFS, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS (301) 427– 

8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as 

amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et 

seq.) directs the Secretary of Commerce 

to allow, upon request, the incidental, 

but not intentional, taking of small 

numbers of marine mammals of a 

species or population stock, by U.S. 

citizens who engage in a specified 

activity (other than commercial fishing) 

within a specified geographical region 

if, after NMFS provides a notice of a 

proposed authorization to the public for 

review and comment: (1) NMFS makes 

certain findings; and (2) the taking is 

limited to harassment. 

An Authorization shall be granted for 

the incidental taking of small numbers 

of marine mammals 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 subsistence uses (where relevant). 

The Authorization must also set forth 

the permissible methods of taking; other 

means of effecting the least practicable 

adverse impact on the species or stock 

and its habitat (i.e., mitigation); and 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible impact’’ 

in 50 CFR 216.103 as ‘‘an impact 

resulting from the specified activity that 

cannot be reasonably expected to, and is 

not reasonably likely to, adversely affect 

the species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’ 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) 

has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

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

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering [Level B 

harassment]. 

Summary of Request 

On December 29, 2014, NMFS 

received an application from LamontDoherty requesting that NMFS issue an 

Authorization for the take of marine 

mammals, incidental to the State 

University of New Jersey at Rutgers 

(Rutgers) conducting a seismic survey in 

the northwest Atlantic Ocean June 

through August, 2015. 

Lamont-Doherty proposes to conduct 

a high-energy, 3-dimensional (3-D) 

seismic survey on the R/V Marcus G. 

Langseth (Langseth) in the northwest 

Atlantic Ocean approximately 25 to 85 

kilometers (km) (15.5 to 52.8 miles (mi)) 

off the New Jersey coast for 

approximately 30 days from June 1 to 

August 31, 2015. The following specific 

aspect of the proposed activity has the 

potential to take marine mammals: 

Increased underwater sound generated 

during the operation of the seismic 

airgun arrays. We anticipate that take, 

by Level B harassment only, of 32 

species of marine mammals could result 

from the specified activity. 

Lamont-Doherty’s application 

presented density estimates obtained 

from the Strategic Environmental 

Research and Development Program 

spatial decision support system (SERDP 

SDSS) Marine Animal Model Mapper. 

The SERDP SDSS Marine Animal Model 

Mapper is a browser-based, interactive 

mapping application that enables users 

to view model results on marine 

mammal distribution in the northwest 

Atlantic Ocean based on the Department 

of the Navy’s OPAREA Density Estimate 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13963 

(NODE) for the Northeast Operating 

Areas (DoN, 2007). In reviewing 

Lamont-Doherty’s application, NMFS 

independently evaluated the density 

outputs from the SERDP SDSS Marine 

Animal Model Mapper and discovered 

that a recent upgrade to the Mapper’s 

model algorithms produced different 

density estimates than what LamontDoherty provided in their 2014 

application and what the Foundation 

presented in their amended 2014 draft 

EA. In consideration of this new density 

information, NMFS will present the 

most current and best available density 

estimates for the northwest Atlantic 

Ocean obtained from the SERDP SDSS 

Mapper in February 2015 in this notice 

of proposed Authorization. In 

consideration of this new information, 

NMFS determined the application 

complete and adequate on February 20, 

2015. 

Description of the Specified Activity 

Overview 

Lamont-Doherty plans to use one 

source vessel, the Langseth, two pairs of 

subarrays configured with four airguns 

as the energy source, and four 

hydrophone streamers, and a P-Cable 

system to conduct the conventional 

seismic survey. In addition to the 

operations of the airguns, LamontDoherty intends to operate a multibeam 

echosounder and a sub-bottom profiler 

on the Langseth continuously 

throughout the proposed survey. 

The purpose of the survey is to collect 

and analyze data on the arrangement of 

sediments deposited during times of 

changing global sea level from roughly 

60 million years ago to present. The 

3-D survey would investigate features 

such as river valleys cut into coastal 

plain sediments now buried under a 

kilometer of younger sediment and 

flooded by today’s ocean. 

Lamont-Doherty, Rutgers, and the 

Foundation originally proposed 

conducting the survey in 2014. After 

completing appropriate environmental 

analyses under appropriate federal 

statutes, NMFS issued an Authorization 

to Lamont-Doherty on July 1, 2014 

effective from July 1 through August 17, 

2014 and an Incidental Take Statement 

(ITS) under the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). LamontDoherty commenced the seismic survey 

on July 1, 2014 but was unable to 

complete the survey due to the Langseth 

experiencing mechanical issues during 

the effective periods set forth in the 

2014 Authorization and the ITS. Thus, 

Lamont-Doherty has requested a new 

Authorization to conduct this rescheduled survey in 2015. The project’s 

objectives remain the same as those 

described for the 2014 survey (see 79 FR 

14779, March 17, 2014 and 79 FR 

38496, July 08, 2014). 

Dates and Duration 

Lamont-Doherty proposes to conduct 

the seismic survey for approximately 30 

days with an additional 2 days for 

contingency operations. The proposed 

study (e.g., equipment testing, startup, 

line changes, repeat coverage of any 

areas, and equipment recovery) would 

include approximately 720 hours of 

airgun operations (i.e., 30 days over 24 

hours). Some minor deviation from 

Lamont-Doherty’s requested dates of 

June through August, 2015, is possible, 

depending on logistics, weather 

conditions, and the need to repeat some 

lines if data quality is substandard. 

Thus, the proposed Authorization, if 

issued, would be effective from June 1 

through August 31, 2015. 

NMFS refers the reader to the Detailed 

Description of Activities section later in 

this notice for more information on the 

scope of the proposed activities. 

Specified Geographic Region 

Lamont-Doherty proposes to conduct 

the seismic survey in the Atlantic 

Ocean, approximately 25 to 85 km (15.5 

to 52.8 mi) off the coast of New Jersey 

between approximately 39.3–39.7° N 

and approximately 73.2–73.8° W (see 

Figure 1). Water depths in the survey 

area are approximately 30 to 75 m (98.4 

to 246 feet (ft)). They would conduct the 

proposed survey outside of New Jersey 

state waters and within the U.S. 

Exclusive Economic Zone. 

Principal and Collaborating 

Investigators 

The proposed survey’s principal 

investigator is Dr. G. Mountain (Rutgers) 

and the collaborating investigators are 

Drs. J. Austin and C. Fulthorpe, and M. 

Nedimovic (University of Texas at 

Austin). 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13964 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 

Detailed Description of the Specified 

Activities 

Transit Activities 

The Langseth would depart from New 

York, NY, and transit for approximately 

eight hours to the proposed survey area. 

Setup, deployment, and streamer 

ballasting would occur over 

approximately three days. At the 

conclusion of the 30-day survey (plus a 

contingency of two additional days for 

gear deployment and retrieval), the 

Langseth would return to New York, 

NY. 

Vessel Specifications 

The survey would involve one source 

vessel, the R/V Langseth and one chase 

vessel. The Langseth, owned by the 

Foundation and operated by LamontDoherty, is a seismic research vessel 

with a quiet propulsion system that 

avoids interference with the seismic 

signals emanating from the airgun array. 

The vessel is 71.5 m (235 ft) long; has 

a beam of 17.0 m (56 ft); a maximum 

draft of 5.9 m (19 ft); and a gross 

tonnage of 3,834 pounds. It has two 

3,550 horsepower (hp) Bergen BRG–6 

diesel engines which drive two 

propellers. Each propeller has four 

blades and the shaft typically rotates at 

750 revolutions per minute. The vessel 

also has an 800-hp bowthruster, which 

is off during seismic acquisition. 

The Langseth’s speed during seismic 

operations would be approximately 4.5 

knots (kt) (8.3 km/hour (hr); 5.1 miles 

per hour (mph)). The vessel’s cruising 

speed outside of seismic operations is 

approximately 10 kt (18.5 km/hr; 11.5 

mph). While the Langseth tows the 

airgun array and the hydrophone 

streamers, its turning rate is limited to 

five degrees per minute. Thus, the 

Langseth’s maneuverability is limited 

during operations while it tows the 

streamers. 

The vessel also has an observation 

tower from which protected species 

visual observers (observers) would 

watch for marine mammals before and 

during the proposed seismic acquisition 

operations. When stationed on the 

observation platform, the observer’s eye 

level will be approximately 21.5 m (71 

ft) above sea level providing the 

observer an unobstructed view around 

the entire vessel. 

The support vessel would be a multipurpose offshore utility vessel similar to 

the Northstar Commander, which is 28 

m (91.9 ft) long with a beam of 8 m (26.2 

ft) and a draft of 2.6 m (8.5 ft). The 

support vessel has twin 450-hp screws 

(Volvo D125–E). 

Data Acquisition Activities 

The proposed survey would cover 

approximately 4,906 km (3,048 mi) of 

transect lines within a 12 by 50 km (7.5 

by 31 mi) area. Each transect line would 

have a spacing interval of 150 m (492 ft) 

in two 6-m (19.7-ft) wide race-track 

patterns. 

During the survey, the Langseth 

would deploy two pairs of subarrays of 

four airguns as an energy source. The 

subarrays would fire alternately, with a 

total volume of approximately 700 cubic 

inches (in3). The receiving system 

would consist of four 3,000-m (1.9-mi) 

hydrophone streamers with a spacing 

interval of 75 m (246 ft) between each 

streamer; a combination of two 3,000-m 

(1.9-mi) hydrophone streamers, and a PCable system. As the Langseth tows the 

airgun array along the survey lines, the 

hydrophone streamers would receive 

the returning acoustic signals and 

transfer the data to the on-board 

processing system. 

Seismic Airguns 

The airguns are a mixture of Bolt 

1500LL and Bolt 1900LLX airguns 

ranging in size from 40 to 220 in3, with 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICESEN17MR15.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13965 

a firing pressure of 1,950 pounds per 

square inch. The dominant frequency 

components range from zero to 188 

Hertz (Hz). 

During the survey, Lamont-Doherty 

would plan to use the full 4-string array 

with most of the airguns in inactive 

mode. One subarray would have four 

airguns in one string on the vessel’s port 

(left) side. The vessel’s starboard (right) 

side would have an identical subarray 

configuration of four airguns in one 

string to form the second source. The 

Langseth would operate the port and 

starboard sources in a ‘‘flip-flop’’ mode, 

firing alternately as it progresses along 

the track. In this configuration, the 

source volume would not exceed 700 

in3 (i.e., the four-string subarray) at any 

time during acquisition (see Figure A1, 

page 79 in the Foundation’s 2014 draft 

amended EA). The Langseth would tow 

each subarray at a depth of either 4.5 or 

6 m (14.8 or 19.7 ft) resulting in a shot 

interval of approximately 5.4 seconds 

(12.5 m; 41 ft). During acquisition the 

airguns will emit a brief (approximately 

0.1 s) pulse of sound. During the 

intervening periods of operations, the 

airguns are silent. 

Airguns function by venting highpressure air into the water which creates 

an air bubble. The pressure signature of 

an individual airgun consists of a sharp 

rise and then fall in pressure, followed 

by several positive and negative 

pressure excursions caused by the 

oscillation of the resulting air bubble. 

The oscillation of the air bubble 

transmits sounds downward through the 

seafloor and there is also a reduction in 

the amount of sound transmitted in the 

near horizontal direction. However, the 

airgun array also emits sounds that 

travel horizontally toward non-target 

areas. 

The nominal source levels of the 

airgun subarrays on the Langseth range 

from 240 to 247 decibels (dB) re: 1 

mPa(peak to peak). (We express sound 

pressure level as the ratio of a measured 

sound pressure and a reference pressure 

level. The commonly used unit for 

sound pressure is dB and the commonly 

used reference pressure level in 

underwater acoustics is 1 microPascal 

(mPa)). Briefly, the effective source 

levels for horizontal propagation are 

lower than source levels for downward 

propagation. We refer the reader to 

Lamont-Doherty’s Authorization 

application and the Foundation’s EA for 

additional information on downward 

and horizontal sound propagation 

related to the airgun’s source levels. 

Additional Acoustic Data Acquisition 

Systems 

Multibeam Echosounder: The 

Langseth will operate a Kongsberg EM 

122 multibeam echosounder 

concurrently during airgun operations 

to map characteristics of the ocean floor. 

The hull-mounted echosounder emits 

brief pulses of sound (also called a ping) 

(10.5 to 13.0 kHz) in a fan-shaped beam 

that extends downward and to the sides 

of the ship. The transmitting beamwidth 

is 1 or 2° fore-aft and 150° athwartship 

and the maximum source level is 242 

dB re: 1 mPa. 

Each ping consists of eight (in water 

greater than 1,000 m; 3,280 ft) or four (in 

water less than 1,000 m; 3,280 ft) 

successive, fan-shaped transmissions, 

from two to 15 milliseconds (ms) in 

duration and each ensonifying a sector 

that extends 1° fore-aft. Continuous 

wave pulses increase from 2 to 15 ms 

long in water depths up to 2,600 m 

(8,530 ft). The echosounder uses 

frequency-modulated chirp pulses up to 

100-ms long in water greater than 2,600 

m (8,530 ft). The successive 

transmissions span an overall crosstrack angular extent of about 150°, with 

2-ms gaps between the pulses for 

successive sectors. 

Sub-bottom Profiler: The Langseth 

will also operate a Knudsen Chirp 3260 

sub-bottom profiler concurrently during 

airgun and echosounder operations to 

provide information about the 

sedimentary features and bottom 

topography. The profiler is capable of 

reaching depths of 10,000 m (6.2 mi). 

The dominant frequency component is 

3.5 kHz and a hull-mounted transducer 

on the vessel directs the beam 

downward in a 27ß cone. The power 

output is 10 kilowatts (kW), but the 

actual maximum radiated power is three 

kilowatts or 222 dB re: 1 mPa. The ping 

duration is up to 64 ms with a pulse 

interval of one second, but a common 

mode of operation is to broadcast five 

pulses at 1-s intervals followed by a 5- 

s pause. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of the Specified Activity 

Table 1 in this notice provides the 

following: all marine mammal species 

with possible or confirmed occurrence 

in the proposed activity area; 

information on those species’ regulatory 

status under the MMPA and the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); abundance; 

occurrence and seasonality in the 

activity area. 

Lamont-Doherty presented species 

information in Table 2 of their 

application but excluded information 

for certain pinniped and cetacean 

species because they anticipated that 

these species would have a more 

northerly distribution during the 

summer and thus would have a low 

likelihood of occurring in the survey 

area. Based on the best available 

information, NMFS expects that certain 

cetacean and pinniped species have the 

potential to occur within the survey area 

and have included additional 

information for these species in Table 1 

of this notice. However, NMFS agrees 

with Lamont-Doherty that these species 

may have a lower likelihood of 

occurrence in the action area during the 

summer. 

TABLE 1—GENERAL INFORMATION ON MARINE MAMMALS THAT COULD POTENTIALLY OCCUR IN THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY

AREA DURING THE SUMMER (JUNE THROUGH AUGUST) IN 2015 

Species Stock name Regulatory 

status 1 2

Stock/Species 

abundance 3

Occurrence 

and range Season 

North Atlantic right whale 

(Eubalaena glacialis).

Western Atlantic .......... MMPA—D, ESA—EN .. 465 common coastal/shelf .. year-round.4

Humpback whale 

(Megaptera novaeangliae).

Gulf of Maine ............... MMPA—D, ESA—EN .. 823 common coastal .......... spring-fall. 

Common minke whale 

(Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata).

Canadian East Coast .. MMPA—D, ESA—NL .. 20,741 rare coastal/shelf ......... spring-summer. 

Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis).Nova Scotia ................. MMPA—D, ESA—EN .. 357 uncommon shelf edge spring. 

Fin whale (Balaenoptera 

physalus).

Western North Atlantic MMPA—D, ESA—EN .. 1,618 common pelagic .......... year-round. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13966 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 

TABLE 1—GENERAL INFORMATION ON MARINE MAMMALS THAT COULD POTENTIALLY OCCUR IN THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY

AREA DURING THE SUMMER (JUNE THROUGH AUGUST) IN 2015—Continued 

Species Stock name Regulatory 

status 1 2

Stock/Species 

abundance 3

Occurrence 

and range Season 

Blue whale (Balaenoptera 

musculus).

Western North Atlantic MMPA—D, ESA—EN .. 440 uncommon coastal/pelagic.occasional. 

Sperm whale (Physeter 

macrocephalus).

Nova Scotia ................. MMPA—D, ESA—EN .. 2,288 common pelagic .......... year-round. 

Dwarf sperm whale (Kogia 

sima).

Western North Atlantic MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 3,785 uncommon shelf .......... year-round. 

Pygmy sperm whale (K. 

breviceps).

Western North Atlantic MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 3,785 uncommon shelf .......... year-round. 

Cuvier’s beaked whale 

(Ziphius cavirostris).

Western North Atlantic MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 6,532 uncommon shelf/pelagic.spring-summer. 

Blainville’s beaked whale 

(Mesoplodon densirostris).

Western North Atlantic MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 5 7,092 uncommon shelf/pelagic.spring-summer. 

Gervais’ beaked whale (M. 

europaeus).

Western North Atlantic MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 5 7,092 uncommon shelf/pelagic.spring-summer. 

Sowerby’s beaked whale 

(M. bidens).

Western North Atlantic MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 5 7,092 uncommon shelf/pelagic.spring-summer. 

True’s beaked whale (M. 

mirus).

Western North Atlantic MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 5 7,092 uncommon shelf/pelagic.

spring-summer. 

Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops 

truncatus).

Western North Atlantic 

Offshore.

MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 77,532 common pelagic .......... spring-summer. 

Western North Atlantic 

Northern Migratory 

Coastal.

MMPA—D, ESA—NL .. 11,548 common coastal .......... summer. 

Pantropical spotted dolphin 

(Stenella attenuata).

Western North Atlantic MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 3,333 rare pelagic .................. summer-fall. 

Atlantic spotted dolphin (S. 

frontalis).

Western North Atlantic MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 44,715 common coastal .......... summer-fall. 

Striped dolphin (S. 

coeruleoalba).

Western North Atlantic MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 54,807 uncommon shelf .......... summer. 

Short-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus delphis).Western North Atlantic MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 173,486 common shelf/pelagic .. summer-fall. 

White-beaked dolphin 

(Lagenorhynchus 

albirostris).

Western North Atlantic MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 2,003 rare coastal/shelf ......... summer. 

Atlantic white-sided-dolphin 

(L. acutus).

Western North Atlantic MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 48,819 uncommon shelf/slope summer-winter. 

Risso’s dolphin (Grampus 

griseus).

Western North Atlantic MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 18,250 common shelf/slope ..... year-round. 

Clymene dolphin (Stenella 

clymene).

Gulf of Mexico ............. MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 5 6,086 rare pelagic .................. unknown. 

False killer whale 

(Pseudorca crassidens).

Western North Atlantic MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 442 rare pelagic .................. spring-summer. 

Pygmy killer whale (Feresa 

attenuate).

Western North Atlantic MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 7 152 Pelagic ......................... unknown. 

Killer whale (Orcinus orca) .. Western North Atlantic MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 8 377 Coastal ......................... unknown. 

Long-finned pilot whale 

(Globicephala melas).

Western North Atlantic MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 26,535 uncommon shelf/pelagic.summer. 

Short-finned pilot whale (G. 

macrorhynchus).

Western North Atlantic MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 21,515 uncommon shelf/pelagic.summer. 

Harbor porpoise (Phocoena 

phocoena).

Gulf of Maine/B Bay of 

Fundy.

MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 79,883 common coastal .......... year-round. 

Gray seal (Halichoerus 

grypus).

Western North Atlantic MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 331,000 common coastal .......... fall-spring. 

Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) Western North Atlantic MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 75,834 common coastal .......... fall-spring. 

Harp seal (Pagophilus 

groenlandicus).

Western North Atlantic MMPA—NC, ESA—NL 7,100,000 rare pack ice ................ Jan-May 

1 MMPA: D = Depleted, S = Strategic, NC = Not Classified. 

2ESA: EN = Endangered, T = Threatened, DL = Delisted, NL = Not listed. 

3Except where noted abundance information obtained from NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS–NE–228, U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico 

Marine Mammal Stock Assessments—2013 (Waring et al., 2014) and the Draft 2014 U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments (in review, 2014). 4Seasonality based on Whitt et al., 2013. 5 Undifferentiated beaked whales abundance estimate (Waring et al., 2014). 6The number of Clymene dolphins off the Atlantic coast is unknown. The best estimate of abundance for the Clymene dolphin was 6,086 (CV 

= 0.93) (Mullin and Fulling, 2003) and represents the first and only estimate to date for this species in the Atlantic Exclusive Economic Zone. 7The numbers of pygmy killer whales off the U.S. or Canadian Atlantic coast are unknown. There is no abundance information for this species 

in the Atlantic. Abundance estimate derived from the Northern Gulf of Mexico stock = 152 (CV = 1.02) (Waring et al., 2014). 8The numbers of killer whales off the Atlantic coast are unknown. There is no abundance information for this species in the Atlantic. Abundance estimate derived from the Northern Gulf of Mexico stock = 28 (CV = 1.02) (Waring et al., 2014) and the Hawaii stock = 349 (CV = 0.98) 

(Barlow, 2006). 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13967 

NMFS refers the public to LamontDoherty’s application, the Foundation’s 

draft EA (see ADDRESSES), NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS–NE– 

228, U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico 

Marine Mammal Stock Assessments— 

2013 (Waring et al., 2014); and the Draft 

2014 U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico 

Marine Mammal Stock Assessments (in 

review, 2015) available online at: http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/

species.htm for further information on 

the biology and local distribution of 

these species. 

Potential Effects of the Specified 

Activities on Marine Mammals 

This section includes a summary and 

discussion of the ways that components 

(e.g., seismic airgun operations, vessel 

movement) of the specified activity may 

impact marine mammals. The 

‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment’’ section later in this 

document will include a quantitative 

analysis of the number of individuals 

that NMFS expects to be taken by this 

activity. The ‘‘Negligible Impact 

Analysis’’ section will include the 

analysis of how this specific proposed 

activity would impact marine mammals 

and will consider the content of this 

section, the ‘‘Estimated Take by 

Incidental Harassment’’ section, the 

‘‘Proposed Mitigation’’ section, and the 

‘‘Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal 

Habitat’’ section to draw conclusions 

regarding the likely impacts of this 

activity on the reproductive success or 

survivorship of individuals and from 

that on the affected marine mammal 

populations or stocks. 

NMFS intends to provide a 

background of potential effects of 

Lamont-Doherty’s activities in this 

section. This section does not consider 

the specific manner in which LamontDoherty would carry out the proposed 

activity, what mitigation measures 

Lamont-Doherty would implement, and 

how either of those would shape the 

anticipated impacts from this specific 

activity. Operating active acoustic 

sources, such as airgun arrays, has the 

potential for adverse effects on marine 

mammals. The majority of anticipated 

impacts would be from the use of the 

airgun array. 

Acoustic Impacts 

When considering the influence of 

various kinds of sound on the marine 

environment, it is necessary to 

understand that different kinds of 

marine life are sensitive to different 

frequencies of sound. Current data 

indicate that not all marine mammal 

species have equal hearing capabilities 

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

1997; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and 

Hastings, 2008). 

Southall et al. (2007) designated 

‘‘functional hearing groups’’ for marine 

mammals based on available behavioral 

data; audiograms derived from auditory 

evoked potentials; anatomical modeling; 

and other data. Southall et al. (2007) 

also estimated the lower and upper 

frequencies of functional hearing for 

each group. However, animals are less 

sensitive to sounds at the outer edges of 

their functional hearing range and are 

more sensitive to a range of frequencies 

within the middle of their functional 

hearing range. 

The functional groups applicable to 

this proposed survey and the associated 

frequencies are: 

• Low frequency cetaceans (13 

species of mysticetes): functional 

hearing estimates occur between 

approximately 7 Hertz (Hz) and 30 kHz 

(extended from 22 kHz based on data 

indicating that some mysticetes can hear 

above 22 kHz; Au et al., 2006; Lucifredi 

and Stein, 2007; Ketten and Mountain, 

2009; Tubelli et al., 2012); 

• Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 

species of dolphins, six species of larger 

toothed whales, and 19 species of 

beaked and bottlenose whales): 

functional hearing estimates occur 

between approximately 150 Hz and 160 

kHz; 

• High-frequency cetaceans (eight 

species of true porpoises, six species of 

river dolphins, Kogia, the franciscana, 

and four species of cephalorhynchids): 

functional hearing estimates occur 

between approximately 200 Hz and 180 

kHz; and 

• Pinnipeds in water: phocid (true 

seals) functional hearing estimates occur 

between approximately 75 Hz and 100 

kHz (Hemila et al., 2006; Mulsow et al., 

2011; Reichmuth et al., 2013) and 

otariid (seals and sea lions) functional 

hearing estimates occur between 

approximately 100 Hz to 40 kHz. 

As mentioned previously in this 

document, 33 marine mammal species 

(6 mysticetes, 24 odontocetes, and 3 

pinnipeds) would likely occur in the 

proposed action area. Table 2 presents 

the classification of these 33 species 

into their respective functional hearing 

group. NMFS consider a species’ 

functional hearing group when 

analyzing the effects of exposure to 

sound on marine mammals. 

TABLE 2—CLASSIFICATION OF MARINE MAMMALS THAT COULD POTENTIALLY OCCUR IN THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY AREA IN

JUNE THROUGH AUGUST, 2015 BY FUNCTIONAL HEARING GROUP [SOUTHALL et al., 2007] 

Low Frequency Hearing Range .................................................... North Atlantic right, humpback, common minke, sei, fin, and blue whale. 

Mid-Frequency Hearing Range .................................................... Sperm whale, Blainville’s beaked whale, Cuvier’s beaked whale, Gervais’ 

beaked whale, Sowerby’s beaked whale, True’s beaked whale, false killer 

whale, pygmy killer whale, killer whale, bottlenose dolphin, pantropical spotted dolphin, Atlantic spotted dolphin, striped dolphin, short-beaked common 

dolphin, white-beaked dolphin, Atlantic white-sided-dolphin, Risso’s dolphin, 

long-finned pilot whale, short-finned pilot whale. 

High Frequency Hearing Range ................................................... Dwarf sperm whale, pygmy sperm whale, harbor porpoise. 

Pinnipeds in Water Hearing Range .............................................. Gray seal, harbor seal, harp seal. 

1. Potential Effects of Airgun Sounds on 

Marine Mammals 

The effects of sounds from airgun 

operations might include one or more of 

the following: Tolerance, masking of 

natural sounds, behavioral disturbance, 

temporary or permanent impairment, or 

non-auditory physical or physiological 

effects (Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon 

et al., 2003; Nowacek et al., 2007; 

Southall et al., 2007). The effects of 

noise on marine mammals are highly 

variable, often depending on species 

and contextual factors (based on 

Richardson et al., 1995). 

Tolerance 

Studies on marine mammals’ 

tolerance to sound in the natural 

environment are relatively rare. 

Richardson et al. (1995) defined 

tolerance as the occurrence of marine 

mammals in areas where they are 

exposed to human activities or 

manmade noise. In many cases, 

tolerance develops by the animal 

habituating to the stimulus (i.e., the 

gradual waning of responses to a 

repeated or ongoing stimulus) 

(Richardson, et al., 1995), but because of 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13968 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 

ecological or physiological 

requirements, many marine animals 

may need to remain in areas where they 

are exposed to chronic stimuli 

(Richardson, et al., 1995). 

Numerous studies have shown that 

pulsed sounds from airguns are often 

readily detectable in the water at 

distances of many kilometers. Several 

studies have also shown that marine 

mammals at distances of more than a 

few kilometers from operating seismic 

vessels often show no apparent 

response. That is often true even in 

cases when the pulsed sounds must be 

readily audible to the animals based on 

measured received levels and the 

hearing sensitivity of the marine 

mammal group. Although various 

baleen whales and toothed whales, and 

(less frequently) pinnipeds have been 

shown to react behaviorally to airgun 

pulses under some conditions, at other 

times marine mammals of all three types 

have shown no overt reactions (Stone, 

2003; Stone and Tasker, 2006; Moulton 

et al. 2005, 2006) and (MacLean and 

Koski, 2005; Bain and Williams, 2006). 

Weir (2008) observed marine mammal 

responses to seismic pulses from a 24 

airgun array firing a total volume of 

either 5,085 in3 or 3,147 in3 in Angolan 

waters between August 2004 and May 

2005. Weir (2008) recorded a total of 

207 sightings of humpback whales (n = 

66), sperm whales (n = 124), and 

Atlantic spotted dolphins (n = 17) and 

reported that there were no significant 

differences in encounter rates (sightings 

per hour) for humpback and sperm 

whales according to the airgun array’s 

operational status (i.e., active versus 

silent). 

Bain and Williams (2006) examined 

the effects of a large airgun array 

(maximum total discharge volume of 

1,100 in3) on six species in shallow 

waters off British Columbia and 

Washington: Harbor seal, California sea 

lion (Zalophus californianus), Steller 

sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), gray 

whale (Eschrichtius robustus), Dall’s 

porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli), and 

harbor porpoise. Harbor porpoises 

showed reactions at received levels less 

than 155 dB re: 1 mPa at a distance of 

greater than 70 km (43 mi) from the 

seismic source (Bain and Williams, 

2006). However, the tendency for greater 

responsiveness by harbor porpoise is 

consistent with their relative 

responsiveness to boat traffic and some 

other acoustic sources (Richardson, et 

al., 1995; Southall, et al., 2007). In 

contrast, the authors reported that gray 

whales seemed to tolerate exposures to 

sound up to approximately 170 dB re: 

1 mPa (Bain and Williams, 2006) and 

Dall’s porpoises occupied and tolerated 

areas receiving exposures of 170–180 dB 

re: 1 mPa (Bain and Williams, 2006; 

Parsons, et al., 2009). The authors 

observed several gray whales that 

moved away from the airguns toward 

deeper water where sound levels were 

higher due to propagation effects 

resulting in higher noise exposures 

(Bain and Williams, 2006). However, it 

is unclear whether their movements 

reflected a response to the sounds (Bain 

and Williams, 2006). Thus, the authors 

surmised that the lack of gray whale 

responses to higher received sound 

levels were ambiguous at best because 

one expects the species to be the most 

sensitive to the low-frequency sound 

emanating from the airguns (Bain and 

Williams, 2006). 

Pirotta et al. (2014) observed shortterm responses of harbor porpoises to a 

two-dimensional (2–D) seismic survey 

in an enclosed bay in northeast Scotland 

which did not result in broad-scale 

displacement. The harbor porpoises that 

remained in the enclosed bay area 

reduced their buzzing activity by 15 

percent during the seismic survey 

(Pirotta, et al., 2014). Thus, the authors 

suggest that animals exposed to 

anthropogenic disturbance may make 

trade-offs between perceived risks and 

the cost of leaving disturbed areas 

(Pirotta, et al., 2014). 

Masking 

Marine mammals use acoustic signals 

for a variety of purposes, which differ 

among species, but include 

communication between individuals, 

navigation, foraging, reproduction, 

avoiding predators, and learning about 

their environment (Erbe and Farmer, 

2000; Tyack, 2000). 

The term masking refers to the 

inability of an animal to recognize the 

occurrence of an acoustic stimulus 

because of interference of another 

acoustic stimulus (Clark et al., 2009). 

Thus, masking is the obscuring of 

sounds of interest by other sounds, often 

at similar frequencies. It is a 

phenomenon that affects animals that 

are trying to receive acoustic 

information about their environment, 

including sounds from other members 

of their species, predators, prey, and 

sounds that allow them to orient in their 

environment. Masking these acoustic 

signals can disturb the behavior of 

individual animals, groups of animals, 

or entire populations. 

Introduced underwater sound may, 

through masking, reduce the effective 

communication distance of a marine 

mammal species if the frequency of the 

source is close to that used as a signal 

by the marine mammal, and if the 

anthropogenic sound is present for a 

significant fraction of the time 

(Richardson et al., 1995). 

Marine mammals are thought to be 

able to compensate for masking by 

adjusting their acoustic behavior 

through shifting call frequencies, 

increasing call volume, and increasing 

vocalization rates. For example in one 

study, blue whales increased call rates 

when exposed to noise from seismic 

surveys in the St. Lawrence Estuary (Di 

Iorio and Clark, 2010). Other studies 

reported that some North Atlantic right 

whales exposed to high shipping noise 

increased call frequency (Parks et al., 

2007) and some humpback whales 

responded to low-frequency active sonar 

playbacks by increasing song length 

(Miller et al., 2000). Additionally, 

beluga whales change their 

vocalizations in the presence of high 

background noise possibly to avoid 

masking calls (Au et al., 1985; Lesage et 

al., 1999; Scheifele et al., 2005). 

Studies have shown that some baleen 

and toothed whales continue calling in 

the presence of seismic pulses, and 

some researchers have heard these calls 

between the seismic pulses (e.g., 

Richardson et al., 1986; McDonald et al., 

1995; Greene et al., 1999; Nieukirk et 

al., 2004; Smultea et al., 2004; Holst et 

al., 2005a, 2005b, 2006; and Dunn and 

Hernandez, 2009). 

In contrast, Clark and Gagnon (2006) 

reported that fin whales in the northeast 

Pacific Ocean went silent for an 

extended period starting soon after the 

onset of a seismic survey in the area. 

Similarly, NMFS is aware of one report 

that observed sperm whales ceasing 

calls when exposed to pulses from a 

very distant seismic ship (Bowles et al., 

1994). However, more recent studies 

have found that sperm whales 

continued calling in the presence of 

seismic pulses (Madsen et al., 2002; 

Tyack et al., 2003; Smultea et al., 2004; 

Holst et al., 2006; and Jochens et al., 

2008). 

Risch et al. (2012) documented 

reductions in humpback whale 

vocalizations in the Stellwagen Bank 

National Marine Sanctuary concurrent 

with transmissions of the Ocean 

Acoustic Waveguide Remote Sensing 

(OAWRS) low-frequency fish sensor 

system at distances of 200 km (124 mi) 

from the source. The recorded OAWRS 

produced series of frequency modulated 

pulses and the signal received levels 

ranged from 88 to 110 dB re: 1 mPa 

(Risch, et al., 2012). The authors 

hypothesized that individuals did not 

leave the area but instead ceased singing 

and noted that the duration and 

frequency range of the OAWRS signals 

(a novel sound to the whales) were 

similar to those of natural humpback 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13969 

whale song components used during 

mating (Risch et al., 2012). Thus, the 

novelty of the sound to humpback 

whales in the study area provided a 

compelling contextual probability for 

the observed effects (Risch et al., 2012). 

However, the authors did not state or 

imply that these changes had long-term 

effects on individual animals or 

populations (Risch et al., 2012). 

Several studies have also reported 

hearing dolphins and porpoises calling 

while airguns were operating (e.g., 

Gordon et al., 2004; Smultea et al., 2004; 

Holst et al., 2005a, b; and Potter et al., 

2007). The sounds important to small 

odontocetes are predominantly at much 

higher frequencies than the dominant 

components of airgun sounds, thus 

limiting the potential for masking in 

those species. 

Although some degree of masking is 

inevitable when high levels of manmade 

broadband sounds are present in the 

sea, marine mammals have evolved 

systems and behavior that function to 

reduce the impacts of masking. 

Odontocete conspecifics may readily 

detect structured signals, such as the 

echolocation click sequences of small 

toothed whales even in the presence of 

strong background noise because their 

frequency content and temporal features 

usually differ strongly from those of the 

background noise (Au and Moore, 1988, 

1990). The components of background 

noise that are similar in frequency to the 

sound signal in question primarily 

determine the degree of masking of that 

signal. 

Redundancy and context can also 

facilitate detection of weak signals. 

These phenomena may help marine 

mammals detect weak sounds in the 

presence of natural or manmade noise. 

Most masking studies in marine 

mammals present the test signal and the 

masking noise from the same direction. 

The sound localization abilities of 

marine mammals suggest that, if signal 

and noise come from different 

directions, masking would not be as 

severe as the usual types of masking 

studies might suggest (Richardson et al., 

1995). The dominant background noise 

may be highly directional if it comes 

from a particular anthropogenic source 

such as a ship or industrial site. 

Directional hearing may significantly 

reduce the masking effects of these 

sounds by improving the effective 

signal-to-noise ratio. In the cases of 

higher frequency hearing by the 

bottlenose dolphin, beluga whale, and 

killer whale, empirical evidence 

confirms that masking depends strongly 

on the relative directions of arrival of 

sound signals and the masking noise 

(Penner et al., 1986; Dubrovskiy, 1990; 

Bain et al., 1993; Bain and Dahlheim, 

1994). 

Toothed whales and probably other 

marine mammals as well, have 

additional capabilities besides 

directional hearing that can facilitate 

detection of sounds in the presence of 

background noise. There is evidence 

that some toothed whales can shift the 

dominant frequencies of their 

echolocation signals from a frequency 

range with a lot of ambient noise toward 

frequencies with less noise (Au et al., 

1974, 1985; Moore and Pawloski, 1990; 

Thomas and Turl, 1990; Romanenko 

and Kitain, 1992; Lesage et al., 1999). A 

few marine mammal species increase 

the source levels or alter the frequency 

of their calls in the presence of elevated 

sound levels (Dahlheim, 1987; Au, 1993; 

Lesage et al., 1993, 1999; Terhune, 1999; 

Foote et al., 2004; Parks et al., 2007, 

2009; Di Iorio and Clark, 2010; Holt et 

al., 2009). 

These data demonstrating adaptations 

for reduced masking pertain mainly to 

the very high frequency echolocation 

signals of toothed whales. There is less 

information about the existence of 

corresponding mechanisms at moderate 

or low frequencies or in other types of 

marine mammals. For example, Zaitseva 

et al. (1980) found that, for the 

bottlenose dolphin, the angular 

separation between a sound source and 

a masking noise source had little effect 

on the degree of masking when the 

sound frequency was 18 kHz, in contrast 

to the pronounced effect at higher 

frequencies. Studies have noted 

directional hearing at frequencies as low 

as 0.5–2 kHz in several marine 

mammals, including killer whales 

(Richardson et al., 1995a). This ability 

may be useful in reducing masking at 

these frequencies. In summary, high 

levels of sound generated by 

anthropogenic activities may act to 

mask the detection of weaker 

biologically important sounds by some 

marine mammals. This masking may be 

more prominent for lower frequencies. 

For higher frequencies, such as that 

used in echolocation by toothed whales, 

several mechanisms are available that 

may allow them to reduce the effects of 

such masking. 

Behavioral Disturbance 

Marine mammals may behaviorally 

react to sound when exposed to 

anthropogenic noise. Reactions to 

sound, if any, depend on species, state 

of maturity, experience, current activity, 

reproductive state, time of day, and 

many other factors (Richardson et al., 

1995; Wartzok et al., 2004; Southall et 

al., 2007; Weilgart, 2007). 

Types of behavioral reactions can 

include the following: Changing 

durations of surfacing and dives, 

number of blows per surfacing, or 

moving direction and/or speed; 

reduced/increased vocal activities; 

changing/cessation of certain behavioral 

activities (such as socializing or 

feeding); visible startle response or 

aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke 

slapping or jaw clapping); avoidance of 

areas where noise sources are located; 

and/or flight responses (e.g., pinnipeds 

flushing into water from haulouts or 

rookeries). 

The biological significance of many of 

these behavioral disturbances is difficult 

to predict, especially if the detected 

disturbances appear minor. However, 

one could expect the consequences of 

behavioral modification to be 

biologically significant if the change 

affects growth, survival, and/or 

reproduction (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 

2007; Weilgart, 2007). Examples of 

behavioral modifications that could 

impact growth, survival, or 

reproduction include: 

• Drastic changes in diving/surfacing 

patterns (such as those associated with 

beaked whale stranding related to 

exposure to military mid-frequency 

tactical sonar); 

• Permanent habitat abandonment 

due to loss of desirable acoustic 

environment; and 

• Disruption of feeding or social 

interaction resulting in significant 

energetic costs, inhibited breeding, or 

cow-calf separation. 

The onset of behavioral disturbance 

from anthropogenic noise depends on 

both external factors (characteristics of 

noise sources and their paths) and the 

receiving animals (hearing, motivation, 

experience, demography) and is also 

difficult to predict (Richardson et al., 

1995; Southall et al., 2007). 

Baleen Whales: Studies have shown 

that underwater sounds from seismic 

activities are often readily detectable by 

baleen whales in the water at distances 

of many kilometers (Castellote et al., 

2012 for fin whales). Many studies have 

also shown that marine mammals at 

distances more than a few kilometers 

away often show no apparent response 

when exposed to seismic activities (e.g., 

Madsen & Mohl, 2000 for sperm whales; 

Malme et al., 1983, 1984 for gray 

whales; and Richardson et al., 1986 for 

bowhead whales). Other studies have 

shown that marine mammals continue 

important behaviors in the presence of 

seismic pulses (e.g., Dunn & Hernandez, 

2009 for blue whales; Greene Jr. et al., 

1999 for bowhead whales; Holst and 

Beland, 2010; Holst and Smultea, 2008; 

Holst et al., 2005; Nieukirk et al., 2004; 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13970 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 

Richardson, et al., 1986; Smultea et al., 

2004). 

Observers have seen various species 

of Balaenoptera (blue, sei, fin, and 

minke whales) in areas ensonified by 

airgun pulses (Stone, 2003; MacLean 

and Haley, 2004; Stone and Tasker, 

2006), and have localized calls from 

blue and fin whales in areas with airgun 

operations (e.g., McDonald et al., 1995; 

Dunn and Hernandez, 2009; Castellote 

et al., 2010). Sightings by observers on 

seismic vessels off the United Kingdom 

from 1997 to 2000 suggest that, during 

times of good visibility, sighting rates 

for mysticetes (mainly fin and sei 

whales) were similar when large arrays 

of airguns were shooting versus silent 

(Stone, 2003; Stone and Tasker, 2006). 

However, these whales tended to exhibit 

localized avoidance, remaining 

significantly further (on average) from 

the airgun array during seismic 

operations compared with non-seismic 

periods (Stone and Tasker, 2006). 

Ship-based monitoring studies of 

baleen whales (including blue, fin, sei, 

minke, and whales) in the northwest 

Atlantic found that overall, this group 

had lower sighting rates during seismic 

versus non-seismic periods (Moulton 

and Holst, 2010). The authors observed 

that baleen whales as a group were 

significantly farther from the vessel 

during seismic compared with nonseismic periods. Moreover, the authors 

observed that the whales swam away 

more often from the operating seismic 

vessel (Moulton and Holst, 2010). Initial 

sightings of blue and minke whales 

were significantly farther from the 

vessel during seismic operations 

compared to non-seismic periods and 

the authors observed the same trend for 

fin whales (Moulton and Holst, 2010). 

Also, the authors observed that minke 

whales most often swam away from the 

vessel when seismic operations were 

underway (Moulton and Holst, 2010). 

Blue Whales 

McDonald et al. (1995) tracked blue 

whales relative to a seismic survey with 

a 1,600 in3 airgun array. One whale 

started its call sequence within 15 km 

(9.3 mi) from the source, then followed 

a pursuit track that decreased its 

distance to the vessel where it stopped 

calling at a range of 10 km (6.2 mi) 

(estimated received level at 143 dB re: 

1 mPa (peak-to-peak)). After that point, 

the ship increased its distance from the 

whale which continued a new call 

sequence after approximately one hour 

and 10 km (6.2 mi) from the ship. The 

authors reported that the whale had 

taken a track paralleling the ship during 

the cessation phase but observed the 

whale moving diagonally away from the 

ship after approximately 30 minutes 

continuing to vocalize. Because the 

whale may have approached the ship 

intentionally or perhaps was unaffected 

by the airguns, the authors concluded 

that there was insufficient data to infer 

conclusions from their study related to 

blue whale responses (McDonald, et al., 

1995). 

Dunn and Hernandez (2009) tracked 

blue whales in the eastern tropical 

Pacific Ocean near the northern East 

Pacific Rise using 25 ocean-bottommounted hydrophones and ocean 

bottom seismometers during the 

conduct of an academic seismic survey 

by the R/V Maurice Ewing in 1997. 

During the airgun operations, the 

authors recorded the airgun pulses 

across the entire seismic array which 

they determined were detectable by 

eight whales that had entered into the 

area during a period of airgun activity 

(Dunn and Hernandez, 2009). The 

authors were able to track each whale 

call-by-call using the B components of 

the calls and examine the whales’ 

locations and call characteristics with 

respect to the periods of airgun activity. 

The authors tracked the blue whales 

from 28 to 100 km (17 to 62 mi) away 

from active air-gun operations, but did 

not observe changes in call rates and 

found no evidence of anomalous 

behavior that they could directly ascribe 

to the use of the airguns (Dunn and 

Hernandez, 2009; Wilcock et al., 2014). 

Further, the authors state that while the 

data do not permit a thorough 

investigation of behavioral responses, 

they observed no correlation in 

vocalization or movement with the 

concurrent airgun activity and estimated 

that the sound levels produced by the 

Ewing’s airguns and were approximately 

less than 145 dB re: 1 mPa (Dunn and 

Hernandez, 2009). 

Fin Whales 

Castellote et al. (2010) observed 

localized avoidance by fin whales 

during seismic airgun events in the 

western Mediterranean Sea and adjacent 

Atlantic waters from 2006–2009 and 

reported that singing fin whales moved 

away from an operating airgun array for 

a time period that extended beyond the 

duration of the airgun activity. 

Gray Whales 

A few studies have documented 

reactions of migrating and feeding (but 

not wintering) gray whales (Eschrichtius 

robustus) to seismic surveys. Malme et 

al. (1986, 1988) studied the responses of 

feeding eastern Pacific gray whales to 

pulses from a single 100-in3 airgun off 

St. Lawrence Island in the northern 

Bering Sea. They estimated, based on 

small sample sizes, that 50 percent of 

feeding gray whales stopped feeding at 

an average received pressure level of 

173 dB re: 1 mPa on an (approximate) 

root mean square basis, and that 10 

percent of feeding whales interrupted 

feeding at received levels of 163 dB re: 

1 mPa. Those findings were generally 

consistent with the results of 

experiments conducted on larger 

numbers of gray whales that were 

migrating along the California coast 

(Malme et al., 1984; Malme and Miles, 

1985), and western Pacific gray whales 

feeding off Sakhalin Island, Russia 

(Wursig et al., 1999; Gailey et al., 2007; 

Johnson et al., 2007; Yazvenko et al., 

2007a, 2007b), along with data on gray 

whales off British Columbia (Bain and 

Williams, 2006). 

Data on short-term reactions by 

cetaceans to impulsive noises are not 

necessarily indicative of long-term or 

biologically significant effects. It is not 

known whether impulsive sounds affect 

reproductive rate or distribution and 

habitat use in subsequent days or years. 

However, gray whales have continued to 

migrate annually along the west coast of 

North America with substantial 

increases in the population over recent 

years, despite intermittent seismic 

exploration (and much ship traffic) in 

that area for decades (Appendix A in 

Malme et al., 1984; Richardson et al., 

1995; Allen and Angliss, 2014). The 

western Pacific gray whale population 

did not appear affected by a seismic 

survey in its feeding ground during a 

previous year (Johnson et al., 2007). 

Similarly, bowhead whales (Balaena 

mysticetus) have continued to travel to 

the eastern Beaufort Sea each summer, 

and their numbers have increased 

notably, despite seismic exploration in 

their summer and autumn range for 

many years (Richardson et al., 1987; 

Allen and Angliss, 2014). The history of 

coexistence between seismic surveys 

and baleen whales suggests that brief 

exposures to sound pulses from any 

single seismic survey are unlikely to 

result in prolonged effects. 

Humpback Whales 

McCauley et al. (1998, 2000) studied 

the responses of humpback whales off 

western Australia to a full-scale seismic 

survey with a 16-airgun array (2,678-in3) 

and to a single, 20-in3 airgun with 

source level of 227 dB re: 1 mPa (peakto-peak). In the 1998 study, the 

researchers documented that avoidance 

reactions began at five to eight km (3.1 

to 4.9 mi) from the array, and that those 

reactions kept most pods approximately 

three to four km (1.9 to 2.5 mi) from the 

operating seismic boat. In the 2000 

study, McCauley et al. noted localized 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13971 

displacement during migration of four 

to five km (2.5 to 3.1 mi) by traveling 

pods and seven to 12 km (4.3 to 7.5 mi) 

by more sensitive resting pods of cowcalf pairs. Avoidance distances with 

respect to the single airgun were smaller 

but consistent with the results from the 

full array in terms of the received sound 

levels. The mean received level for 

initial avoidance of an approaching 

airgun was 140 dB re: 1 mPa for 

humpback pods containing females, and 

at the mean closest point of approach 

distance, the received level was 143 dB 

re: 1 mPa. The initial avoidance response 

generally occurred at distances of five to 

eight km (3.1 to 4.9 mi) from the airgun 

array and 2 km (1.2 mi) from the single 

airgun. However, some individual 

humpback whales, especially males, 

approached within distances of 100 to 

400 m (328 to 1,312 ft), where the 

maximum received level was 179 dB re: 

1 mPa. 

Data collected by observers during 

several of Lamont-Doherty’s seismic 

surveys in the northwest Atlantic Ocean 

showed that sighting rates of humpback 

whales were significantly greater during 

non-seismic periods compared with 

periods when a full array was operating 

(Moulton and Holst, 2010). In addition, 

humpback whales were more likely to 

swim away and less likely to swim 

towards a vessel during seismic versus 

non-seismic periods (Moulton and 

Holst, 2010). 

Humpback whales on their summer 

feeding grounds in southeast Alaska did 

not exhibit persistent avoidance when 

exposed to seismic pulses from a 1.64– 

L (100-in3) airgun (Malme et al., 1985). 

Some humpbacks seemed ‘‘startled’’ at 

received levels of 150 to 169 dB re: 1 

mPa. Malme et al. (1985) concluded that 

there was no clear evidence of 

avoidance, despite the possibility of 

subtle effects, at received levels up to 

172 re: 1 mPa. However, Moulton and 

Holst (2010) reported that humpback 

whales monitored during seismic 

surveys in the northwest Atlantic had 

lower sighting rates and were most often 

seen swimming away from the vessel 

during seismic periods compared with 

periods when airguns were silent. 

Other studies have suggested that 

south Atlantic humpback whales 

wintering off Brazil may be displaced or 

even strand upon exposure to seismic 

surveys (Engel et al., 2004). However, 

the evidence for this was circumstantial 

and subject to alternative explanations 

(IAGC, 2004). Also, the evidence was 

not consistent with subsequent results 

from the same area of Brazil (Parente et 

al., 2006), or with direct studies of 

humpbacks exposed to seismic surveys 

in other areas and seasons. After 

allowance for data from subsequent 

years, there was ‘‘no observable direct 

correlation’’ between strandings and 

seismic surveys (IWC, 2007: 236). 

Toothed Whales: Few systematic data 

are available describing reactions of 

toothed whales to noise pulses. 

However, systematic work on sperm 

whales is underway (e.g., Gordon et al., 

2006; Madsen et al., 2006; Winsor and 

Mate, 2006; Jochens et al., 2008; Miller 

et al., 2009) and there is an increasing 

amount of information about responses 

of various odontocetes to seismic 

surveys based on monitoring studies 

(e.g., Stone, 2003; Smultea et al., 2004; 

Moulton and Miller, 2005; Bain and 

Williams, 2006; Holst et al., 2006; Stone 

and Tasker, 2006; Potter et al., 2007; 

Hauser et al., 2008; Holst and Smultea, 

2008; Weir, 2008; Barkaszi et al., 2009; 

Richardson et al., 2009; Moulton and 

Holst, 2010). Reactions of toothed 

whales to large arrays of airguns are 

variable and, at least for delphinids, 

seem to be confined to a smaller radius 

than has been observed for mysticetes. 

Delphinids 

Seismic operators and protected 

species observers (observers) on seismic 

vessels regularly see dolphins and other 

small toothed whales near operating 

airgun arrays, but in general there is a 

tendency for most delphinids to show 

some avoidance of operating seismic 

vessels (e.g., Goold, 1996a,b,c; 

Calambokidis and Osmek, 1998; Stone, 

2003; Moulton and Miller, 2005; Holst 

et al., 2006; Stone and Tasker, 2006; 

Weir, 2008; Richardson et al., 2009; 

Barkaszi et al., 2009; Moulton and 

Holst, 2010). Some dolphins seem to be 

attracted to the seismic vessel and 

floats, and some ride the bow wave of 

the seismic vessel even when large 

arrays of airguns are firing (e.g., 

Moulton and Miller, 2005). Nonetheless, 

there have been indications that small 

toothed whales sometimes move away 

or maintain a somewhat greater distance 

from the vessel when a large array of 

airguns is operating than when it is 

silent (e.g., Goold, 1996a,b,c; Stone and 

Tasker, 2006; Weir, 2008, Barry et al., 

2010; Moulton and Holst, 2010). In most 

cases, the avoidance radii for delphinids 

appear to be small, on the order of one 

km or less, and some individuals show 

no apparent avoidance. 

Captive bottlenose dolphins exhibited 

changes in behavior when exposed to 

strong pulsed sounds similar in 

duration to those typically used in 

seismic surveys (Finneran et al., 2000, 

2002, 2005). However, the animals 

tolerated high received levels of sound 

(pk–pk level > 200 dB re 1 mPa) before 

exhibiting aversive behaviors. 

Killer Whales 

Observers stationed on seismic 

vessels operating off the United 

Kingdom from 1997–2000 have 

provided data on the occurrence and 

behavior of various toothed whales 

exposed to seismic pulses (Stone, 2003; 

Gordon et al., 2004). The studies note 

that killer whales were significantly 

farther from large airgun arrays during 

periods of active airgun operations 

compared with periods of silence. The 

displacement of the median distance 

from the array was approximately 0.5 

km (0.3 mi) or more. Killer whales also 

appear to be more tolerant of seismic 

shooting in deeper water (Stone, 2003; 

Gordon et al., 2004). 

Porpoises 

Results for porpoises depend upon 

the species. The limited available data 

suggest that harbor porpoises show 

stronger avoidance of seismic operations 

than do Dall’s porpoises (Stone, 2003; 

MacLean and Koski, 2005; Bain and 

Williams, 2006; Stone and Tasker, 

2006). Dall’s porpoises seem relatively 

tolerant of airgun operations (MacLean 

and Koski, 2005; Bain and Williams, 

2006), although they too have been 

observed to avoid large arrays of 

operating airguns (Calambokidis and 

Osmek, 1998; Bain and Williams, 2006). 

This apparent difference in 

responsiveness of these two porpoise 

species is consistent with their relative 

responsiveness to boat traffic and some 

other acoustic sources (Richardson et 

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

Sperm Whales 

Most studies of sperm whales exposed 

to airgun sounds indicate that the whale 

shows considerable tolerance of airgun 

pulses (e.g., Stone, 2003; Moulton et al., 

2005, 2006a; Stone and Tasker, 2006; 

Weir, 2008). In most cases the whales do 

not show strong avoidance, and they 

continue to call. However, controlled 

exposure experiments in the Gulf of 

Mexico indicate alteration of foraging 

behavior upon exposure to airgun 

sounds (Jochens et al., 2008; Miller et 

al., 2009; Tyack, 2009). 

Beaked Whales 

There are almost no specific data on 

the behavioral reactions of beaked 

whales to seismic surveys. Most beaked 

whales tend to avoid approaching 

vessels of other types (e.g., Wursig et al., 

1998). They may also dive for an 

extended period when approached by a 

vessel (e.g., Kasuya, 1986), although it is 

uncertain how much longer such dives 

may be as compared to dives by 

undisturbed beaked whales, which also 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13972 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 

are often quite long (Baird et al., 2006; 

Tyack et al., 2006). 

Based on a single observation, 

Aguilar-Soto et al. (2006) suggested a 

reduction in foraging efficiency of 

Cuvier’s beaked whales during a close 

approach by a vessel. In contrast, 

Moulton and Holst (2010) reported 15 

sightings of beaked whales during 

seismic studies in the northwest 

Atlantic and the authors observed seven 

of those sightings during times when at 

least one airgun was operating. Because 

sighting rates and distances were similar 

during seismic and non-seismic periods, 

the authors could not correlate changes 

to beaked whale behavior to the effects 

of airgun operations (Moulton and 

Holst, 2010). 

Similarly, other studies have observed 

northern bottlenose whales remain in 

the general area of active seismic 

operations while continuing to produce 

high-frequency clicks when exposed to 

sound pulses from distant seismic 

surveys (Gosselin and Lawson, 2004; 

Laurinolli and Cochrane, 2005; Simard 

et al., 2005). 

Pinnipeds 

Pinnipeds are not likely to show a 

strong avoidance reaction to the airgun 

sources proposed for use. Visual 

monitoring from seismic vessels has 

shown only slight (if any) avoidance of 

airguns by pinnipeds and only slight (if 

any) changes in behavior. Monitoring 

work in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea during 

1996–2001 provided considerable 

information regarding the behavior of 

Arctic ice seals exposed to seismic 

pulses (Harris et al., 2001; Moulton and 

Lawson, 2002). These seismic projects 

usually involved arrays of 6 to 16 

airguns with total volumes of 560 to 

1,500 in3. The combined results suggest 

that some seals avoid the immediate 

area around seismic vessels. In most 

survey years, ringed seal (Phoca 

hispida) sightings tended to be farther 

away from the seismic vessel when the 

airguns were operating than when they 

were not (Moulton and Lawson, 2002). 

However, these avoidance movements 

were relatively small, on the order of 

100 m (328 ft) to a few hundreds of 

meters, and many seals remained within 

100–200 m (328–656 ft) of the trackline 

as the operating airgun array passed by 

the animals. Seal sighting rates at the 

water surface were lower during airgun 

array operations than during no-airgun 

periods in each survey year except 1997. 

Similarly, seals are often very tolerant of 

pulsed sounds from seal-scaring devices 

(Mate and Harvey, 1987; Jefferson and 

Curry, 1994; Richardson et al., 1995). 

However, initial telemetry work 

suggests that avoidance and other 

behavioral reactions by two other 

species of seals to small airgun sources 

may at times be stronger than evident to 

date from visual studies of pinniped 

reactions to airguns (Thompson et al., 

1998). 

Hearing Impairment 

Exposure to high intensity sound for 

a sufficient duration may result in 

auditory effects such as a noise-induced 

threshold shift—an increase in the 

auditory threshold after exposure to 

noise (Finneran et al., 2005). Factors 

that influence the amount of threshold 

shift include the amplitude, duration, 

frequency content, temporal pattern, 

and energy distribution of noise 

exposure. The magnitude of hearing 

threshold shift normally decreases over 

time following cessation of the noise 

exposure. The amount of threshold shift 

just after exposure is the initial 

threshold shift. If the threshold shift 

eventually returns to zero (i.e., the 

threshold returns to the pre-exposure 

value), it is a temporary threshold shift 

(Southall et al., 2007). 

Threshold Shift (noise-induced loss of 

hearing)—When animals exhibit 

reduced hearing sensitivity (i.e., sounds 

must be louder for an animal to detect 

them) following exposure to an intense 

sound or sound for long duration, it is 

referred to as a noise-induced threshold 

shift (TS). An animal can experience 

temporary threshold shift (TTS) or 

permanent threshold shift (PTS). TTS 

can last from minutes or hours to days 

(i.e., there is complete recovery), can 

occur in specific frequency ranges (i.e., 

an animal might only have a temporary 

loss of hearing sensitivity between the 

frequencies of 1 and 10 kHz), and can 

be of varying amounts (for example, an 

animal’s hearing sensitivity might be 

reduced initially by only 6 dB or 

reduced by 30 dB). PTS is permanent, 

but some recovery is possible. PTS can 

also occur in a specific frequency range 

and amount as mentioned above for 

TTS. 

The following physiological 

mechanisms are thought to play a role 

in inducing auditory TS: Effects to 

sensory hair cells in the inner ear that 

reduce their sensitivity, modification of 

the chemical environment within the 

sensory cells, residual muscular activity 

in the middle ear, displacement of 

certain inner ear membranes, increased 

blood flow, and post-stimulatory 

reduction in both efferent and sensory 

neural output (Southall et al., 2007). 

The amplitude, duration, frequency, 

temporal pattern, and energy 

distribution of sound exposure all can 

affect the amount of associated TS and 

the frequency range in which it occurs. 

As amplitude and duration of sound 

exposure increase, so, generally, does 

the amount of TS, along with the 

recovery time. For intermittent sounds, 

less TS could occur than compared to a 

continuous exposure with the same 

energy (some recovery could occur 

between intermittent exposures 

depending on the duty cycle between 

sounds) (Kryter et al., 1966; Ward, 

1997). For example, one short but loud 

(higher SPL) sound exposure may 

induce the same impairment as one 

longer but softer sound, which in turn 

may cause more impairment than a 

series of several intermittent softer 

sounds with the same total energy 

(Ward, 1997). Additionally, though TTS 

is temporary, prolonged exposure to 

sounds strong enough to elicit TTS, or 

shorter-term exposure to sound levels 

well above the TTS threshold, can cause 

PTS, at least in terrestrial mammals 

(Kryter, 1985). Although in the case of 

the proposed seismic survey, NMFS 

does not expect that animals would 

experience levels high enough or 

durations long enough to result in PTS. 

PTS is considered auditory injury 

(Southall et al., 2007). Irreparable 

damage to the inner or outer cochlear 

hair cells may cause PTS; however, 

other mechanisms are also involved, 

such as exceeding the elastic limits of 

certain tissues and membranes in the 

middle and inner ears and resultant 

changes in the chemical composition of 

the inner ear fluids (Southall et al., 

2007). 

Although the published body of 

scientific literature contains numerous 

theoretical studies and discussion 

papers on hearing impairments that can 

occur with exposure to a loud sound, 

only a few studies provide empirical 

information on the levels at which 

noise-induced loss in hearing sensitivity 

occurs in non-human animals. 

Recent studies by Kujawa and 

Liberman (2009) and Lin et al. (2011) 

found that despite completely reversible 

threshold shifts that leave cochlear 

sensory cells intact, large threshold 

shifts could cause synaptic level 

changes and delayed cochlear nerve 

degeneration in mice and guinea pigs, 

respectively. NMFS notes that the high 

level of TTS that led to the synaptic 

changes shown in these studies is in the 

range of the high degree of TTS that 

Southall et al. (2007) used to calculate 

PTS levels. It is unknown whether 

smaller levels of TTS would lead to 

similar changes. NMFS, however, 

acknowledges the complexity of noise 

exposure on the nervous system, and 

will re-examine this issue as more data 

become available. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13973 

For marine mammals, published data 

are limited to the captive bottlenose 

dolphin, beluga, harbor porpoise, and 

Yangtze finless porpoise (Finneran et 

al., 2000, 2002b, 2003, 2005a, 2007, 

2010a, 2010b; Finneran and Schlundt, 

2010; Lucke et al., 2009; Mooney et al., 

2009a, 2009b; Popov et al., 2011a, 

2011b; Kastelein et al., 2012a; Schlundt 

et al., 2000; Nachtigall et al., 2003, 

2004). For pinnipeds in water, data are 

limited to measurements of TTS in 

harbor seals, an elephant seal, and 

California sea lions (Kastak et al., 1999, 

2005; Kastelein et al., 2012b). 

Lucke et al. (2009) found a threshold 

shift (TS) of a harbor porpoise after 

exposing it to airgun noise with a 

received sound pressure level (SPL) at 

200.2 dB (peak-to-peak) re: 1 mPa, which 

corresponds to a sound exposure level 

of 164.5 dB re: 1 mPa2 s after integrating 

exposure. NMFS currently uses the rootmean-square (rms) of received SPL at 

180 dB and 190 dB re: 1 mPa as the 

threshold above which permanent 

threshold shift (PTS) could occur for 

cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively. 

Because the airgun noise is a broadband 

impulse, one cannot directly determine 

the equivalent of rms SPL from the 

reported peak-to-peak SPLs. However, 

applying a conservative conversion 

factor of 16 dB for broadband signals 

from seismic surveys (McCauley, et al., 

2000) to correct for the difference 

between peak-to-peak levels reported in 

Lucke et al. (2009) and rms SPLs, the 

rms SPL for TTS would be 

approximately 184 dB re: 1 mPa, and the 

received levels associated with PTS 

(Level A harassment) would be higher. 

This is still above NMFS’ current 180 

dB rms re: 1 mPa threshold for injury. 

However, NMFS recognizes that TTS of 

harbor porpoises is lower than other 

cetacean species empirically tested 

(Finneran & Schlundt, 2010; Finneran et 

al., 2002; Kastelein and Jennings, 2012). 

A recent study on bottlenose dolphins 

(Schlundt, et al., 2013) measured 

hearing thresholds at multiple 

frequencies to determine the amount of 

TTS induced before and after exposure 

to a sequence of impulses produced by 

a seismic air gun. The air gun volume 

and operating pressure varied from 40– 

150 in3 and 1000–2000 psi, respectively. 

After three years and 180 sessions, the 

authors observed no significant TTS at 

any test frequency, for any combinations 

of air gun volume, pressure, or 

proximity to the dolphin during 

behavioral tests (Schlundt, et al., 2013). 

Schlundt et al. (2013) suggest that the 

potential for airguns to cause hearing 

loss in dolphins is lower than 

previously predicted, perhaps as a result 

of the low-frequency content of air gun 

impulses compared to the highfrequency hearing ability of dolphins 

Marine mammal hearing plays a 

critical role in communication with 

conspecifics, and interpretation of 

environmental cues for purposes such 

as predator avoidance and prey capture. 

Depending on the degree (elevation of 

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

time), and frequency range of TTS, and 

the context in which it is experienced, 

TTS can have effects on marine 

mammals ranging from discountable to 

serious (similar to those discussed in 

auditory masking, below). For example, 

a marine mammal may be able to readily 

compensate for a brief, relatively small 

amount of TTS in a non-critical 

frequency range that occurs during a 

time where ambient noise is lower and 

there are not as many competing sounds 

present. Alternatively, a larger amount 

and longer duration of TTS sustained 

during time when communication is 

critical for successful mother/calf 

interactions could have more serious 

impacts. Also, depending on the degree 

and frequency range, the effects of PTS 

on an animal could range in severity, 

although it is considered generally more 

serious because it is a permanent 

condition. Of note, reduced hearing 

sensitivity as a simple function of aging 

has been observed in marine mammals, 

as well as humans and other taxa 

(Southall et al., 2007), so one can infer 

that strategies exist for coping with this 

condition to some degree, though likely 

not without cost. 

Given the higher level of sound 

necessary to cause PTS as compared 

with TTS, it is considerably less likely 

that PTS would occur during the 

proposed seismic survey. Cetaceans 

generally avoid the immediate area 

around operating seismic vessels, as do 

some other marine mammals. Some 

pinnipeds show avoidance reactions to 

airguns, but their avoidance reactions 

are generally not as strong or consistent 

compared to cetacean reactions. 

Non-auditory Physical Effects: Nonauditory physical effects might occur in 

marine mammals exposed to strong 

underwater pulsed sound. Possible 

types of non-auditory physiological 

effects or injuries that theoretically 

might occur in mammals close to a 

strong sound source include stress, 

neurological effects, bubble formation, 

and other types of organ or tissue 

damage. Some marine mammal species 

(i.e., beaked whales) may be especially 

susceptible to injury and/or stranding 

when exposed to strong pulsed sounds. 

Classic stress responses begin when 

an animal’s central nervous system 

perceives a potential threat to its 

homeostasis. That perception triggers 

stress responses regardless of whether a 

stimulus actually threatens the animal; 

the mere perception of a threat is 

sufficient to trigger a stress response 

(Moberg, 2000; Sapolsky et al., 2005; 

Seyle, 1950). Once an animal’s central 

nervous system perceives a threat, it 

mounts a biological response or defense 

that consists of a combination of the 

four general biological defense 

responses: behavioral responses; 

autonomic nervous system responses; 

neuroendocrine responses; or immune 

responses. 

In the case of many stressors, an 

animal’s first and most economical (in 

terms of biotic costs) response is 

behavioral avoidance of the potential 

stressor or avoidance of continued 

exposure to a stressor. An animal’s 

second line of defense to stressors 

involves the sympathetic part of the 

autonomic nervous system and the 

classical ‘‘fight or flight’’ response, 

which includes the cardiovascular 

system, the gastrointestinal system, the 

exocrine glands, and the adrenal 

medulla to produce changes in heart 

rate, blood pressure, and gastrointestinal 

activity that humans commonly 

associate with stress. These responses 

have a relatively short duration and may 

or may not have significant long-term 

effects on an animal’s welfare. 

An animal’s third line of defense to 

stressors involves its neuroendocrine or 

sympathetic nervous systems; the 

system that has received the most study 

has been the hypothalmus-pituitaryadrenal system (also known as the HPA 

axis in mammals or the hypothalamuspituitary-interrenal axis in fish and 

some reptiles). Unlike stress responses 

associated with the autonomic nervous 

system, the pituitary hormones regulate 

virtually all neuroendocrine functions 

affected by stress—including immune 

competence, reproduction, metabolism, 

and behavior. Stress-induced changes in 

the secretion of pituitary hormones have 

been implicated in failed reproduction 

(Moberg, 1987; Rivier, 1995), altered 

metabolism (Elasser et al., 2000), 

reduced immune competence (Blecha, 

2000), and behavioral disturbance. 

Increases in the circulation of 

glucocorticosteroids (cortisol, 

corticosterone, and aldosterone in 

marine mammals; see Romano et al., 

2004) have been equated with stress for 

many years. 

The primary distinction between 

stress (which is adaptive and does not 

normally place an animal at risk) and 

distress is the biotic cost of the 

response. During a stress response, an 

animal uses glycogen stores that the 

body quickly replenishes after 

alleviation of the stressor. In such 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13974 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 

circumstances, the cost of the stress 

response would not pose a risk to the 

animal’s welfare. However, when an 

animal does not have sufficient energy 

reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of 

a stress response, it diverts energy 

resources from other biotic functions, 

which impair those functions that 

experience the diversion. For example, 

when mounting a stress response diverts 

energy away from growth in young 

animals, those animals may experience 

stunted growth. When mounting a stress 

response diverts energy from a fetus, an 

animal’s reproductive success and 

fitness will suffer. In these cases, the 

animals will have entered a prepathological or pathological state called 

‘‘distress’’ (sensu Seyle, 1950) or 

‘‘allostatic loading’’ (sensu McEwen and 

Wingfield, 2003). This pathological state 

will last until the animal replenishes its 

biotic reserves sufficient to restore 

normal function. Note that these 

examples involved a long-term (days or 

weeks) stress response exposure to 

stimuli. 

Relationships between these 

physiological mechanisms, animal 

behavior, and the costs of stress 

responses have also been documented 

fairly well through controlled 

experiment; because this physiology 

exists in every vertebrate that has been 

studied, it is not surprising that stress 

responses and their costs have been 

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

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

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

2004; Lankford et al., 2005; Reneerkens 

et al., 2002; Thompson and Hamer, 

2000). Although no information has 

been collected on the physiological 

responses of marine mammals to 

anthropogenic sound exposure, studies 

of other marine animals and terrestrial 

animals would lead us to expect some 

marine mammals to experience 

physiological stress responses and, 

perhaps, physiological responses that 

would be classified as ‘‘distress’’ upon 

exposure to anthropogenic sounds. 

For example, Jansen (1998) reported 

on the relationship between acoustic 

exposures and physiological responses 

that are indicative of stress responses in 

humans (e.g., elevated respiration and 

increased heart rates). Jones (1998) 

reported on reductions in human 

performance when faced with acute, 

repetitive exposures to acoustic 

disturbance. Trimper et al. (1998) 

reported on the physiological stress 

responses of osprey to low-level aircraft 

noise while Krausman et al. (2004) 

reported on the auditory and physiology 

stress responses of endangered Sonoran 

pronghorn to military overflights. Smith 

et al. (2004a, 2004b) identified noiseinduced physiological transient stress 

responses in hearing-specialist fish (i.e., 

goldfish) that accompanied short- and 

long-term hearing losses. Welch and 

Welch (1970) reported physiological 

and behavioral stress responses that 

accompanied damage to the inner ears 

of fish and several mammals. 

Hearing is one of the primary senses 

marine mammals use to gather 

information about their environment 

and communicate with conspecifics. 

Although empirical information on the 

relationship between sensory 

impairment (TTS, PTS, and acoustic 

masking) on marine mammals remains 

limited, we assume that reducing a 

marine mammal’s ability to gather 

information about its environment and 

communicate with other members of its 

species would induce stress, based on 

data that terrestrial animals exhibit 

those responses under similar 

conditions (NRC, 2003) and because 

marine mammals use hearing as their 

primary sensory mechanism. Therefore, 

NMFS assumes that acoustic exposures 

sufficient to trigger onset PTS or TTS 

would be accompanied by physiological 

stress responses. More importantly, 

marine mammals might experience 

stress responses at received levels lower 

than those necessary to trigger onset 

TTS. Based on empirical studies of the 

time required to recover from stress 

responses (Moberg, 2000), NMFS also 

assumes that stress responses could 

persist beyond the time interval 

required for animals to recover from 

TTS and might result in pathological 

and pre-pathological states that would 

be as significant as behavioral responses 

to TTS. 

Resonance effects (Gentry, 2002) and 

direct noise-induced bubble formations 

(Crum et al., 2005) are implausible in 

the case of exposure to an impulsive 

broadband source like an airgun array. 

If seismic surveys disrupt diving 

patterns of deep-diving species, this 

might result in bubble formation and a 

form of the bends, as speculated to 

occur in beaked whales exposed to 

sonar. However, there is no specific 

evidence of this upon exposure to 

airgun pulses. 

In general, there are few data about 

the potential for strong, anthropogenic 

underwater sounds to cause nonauditory physical effects in marine 

mammals. Such effects, if they occur at 

all, would presumably be limited to 

short distances and to activities that 

extend over a prolonged period. The 

available data do not allow 

identification of a specific exposure 

level above which non-auditory effects 

can be expected (Southall et al., 2007) 

or any meaningful quantitative 

predictions of the numbers (if any) of 

marine mammals that might be affected 

in those ways. There is no definitive 

evidence that any of these effects occur 

even for marine mammals in close 

proximity to large arrays of airguns. In 

addition, marine mammals that show 

behavioral avoidance of seismic vessels, 

including some pinnipeds, are unlikely 

to incur non-auditory impairment or 

other physical effects. Therefore, it is 

unlikely that such effects would occur 

given the brief duration of exposure 

during the proposed survey. 

Stranding and Mortality 

When a living or dead marine 

mammal swims or floats onto shore and 

becomes ‘‘beached’’ or incapable of 

returning to sea, the event is a 

‘‘stranding’’ (Geraci et al., 1999; Perrin 

and Geraci, 2002; Geraci and 

Lounsbury, 2005; NMFS, 2007). The 

legal definition for a stranding under the 

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

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

the United States; or (ii) in waters under 

the jurisdiction of the United States 

(including any navigable waters); or (B) 

a marine mammal is alive and is (i) on 

a beach or shore of the United States 

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

on a beach or shore of the United States 

and, although able to return to the 

water, is in need of apparent medical 

attention; or (iii) in the waters under the 

jurisdiction of the United States 

(including any navigable waters), but is 

unable to return to its natural habitat 

under its own power or without 

assistance’’. 

Marine mammals strand for a variety 

of reasons, such as infectious agents, 

biotoxicosis, starvation, fishery 

interaction, ship strike, unusual 

oceanographic or weather events, sound 

exposure, or combinations of these 

stressors sustained concurrently or in 

series. However, the cause or causes of 

most strandings are unknown (Geraci et 

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

Best, 1982). Numerous studies suggest 

that the physiology, behavior, habitat 

relationships, age, or condition of 

cetaceans may cause them to strand or 

might pre-dispose them to strand when 

exposed to another phenomenon. These 

suggestions are consistent with the 

conclusions of numerous other studies 

that have demonstrated that 

combinations of dissimilar stressors 

commonly combine to kill an animal or 

dramatically reduce its fitness, even 

though one exposure without the other 

does not produce the same result 

(Chroussos, 2000; Creel, 2005; DeVries 

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

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


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13975 

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

2004). 

2. Potential Effects of Other Acoustic 

Devices 

Multibeam Echosounder: LamontDoherty would operate the Kongsberg 

EM 122 multibeam echosounder from 

the source vessel during the planned 

study. Sounds from the multibeam 

echosounder are very short pulses, 

occurring for two to 15 ms once every 

five to 20 s, depending on water depth. 

Most of the energy in the sound pulses 

emitted by this echosounder is at 

frequencies near 12 kHz, and the 

maximum source level is 242 dB re: 1 

mPa. The beam is narrow (1 to 2ß) in 

fore-aft extent and wide (150ß) in the 

cross-track extent. Each ping consists of 

eight (in water greater than 1,000 m 

deep) or four (less than 1,000 m deep) 

successive fan-shaped transmissions 

(segments) at different cross-track 

angles. Any given mammal at depth 

near the trackline would be in the main 

beam for only one or two of the 

segments. Also, marine mammals that 

encounter the Kongsberg EM 122 are 

unlikely to be subjected to repeated 

pulses because of the narrow fore-aft 

width of the beam and will receive only 

limited amounts of pulse energy 

because of the short pulses. Animals 

close to the vessel (where the beam is 

narrowest) are especially unlikely to be 

ensonified for more than one 2- to 15- 

ms pulse (or two pulses if in the overlap 

area). Similarly, Kremser et al. (2005) 

noted that the probability of a cetacean 

swimming through the area of exposure 

when an echosounder emits a pulse is 

small. The animal would have to pass 

the transducer at close range and be 

swimming at speeds similar to the 

vessel in order to receive the multiple 

pulses that might result in sufficient 

exposure to cause temporary threshold 

shift. 

NMFS has considered the potential 

for behavioral responses such as 

stranding and indirect injury or 

mortality from Lamont-Doherty’s use of 

the multibeam echosounder. In 2013, an 

International Scientific Review Panel 

(ISRP) investigated a 2008 mass 

stranding of approximately 100 melonheaded whales in a Madagascar lagoon 

system (Southall et al., 2013) associated 

with the use of a high-frequency 

mapping system. The report indicated 

that the use of a 12-kHz multibeam 

echosounder was the most plausible and 

likely initial behavioral trigger of the 

mass stranding event. This was the first 

time that a relatively high-frequency 

mapping sonar system had been 

associated with a stranding event. 

However, the report also notes that there 

were several site- and situation-specific 

secondary factors that may have 

contributed to the avoidance responses 

that lead to the eventual entrapment and 

mortality of the whales within the Loza 

Lagoon system (e.g., the survey vessel 

transiting in a north-south direction on 

the shelf break parallel to the shore may 

have trapped the animals between the 

sound source and the shore driving 

them towards the Loza Lagoon). They 

concluded that for odontocete cetaceans 

that hear well in the 10–50 kHz range, 

where ambient noise is typically quite 

low, high-power active sonars operating 

in this range may be more easily audible 

and have potential effects over larger 

areas than low frequency systems that 

have more typically been considered in 

terms of anthropogenic noise impacts 

(Southall, et al., 2013). However, the 

risk may be very low given the extensive 

use of these systems worldwide on a 

daily basis and the lack of direct 

evidence of such responses previously 

reported (Southall, et al., 2013). 

Navy sonars linked to avoidance 

reactions and stranding of cetaceans: (1) 

Generally have longer pulse duration 

than the Kongsberg EM 122; and (2) are 

often directed close to horizontally 

versus more downward for the 

echosounder. The area of possible 

influence of the echosounder is much 

smaller—a narrow band below the 

source vessel. Also, the duration of 

exposure for a given marine mammal 

can be much longer for naval sonar. 

During Lamont-Doherty’s operations, 

the individual pulses will be very short, 

and a given mammal would not receive 

many of the downward-directed pulses 

as the vessel passes by the animal. The 

following section outlines possible 

effects of an echosounder on marine 

mammals. 

Masking: Marine mammal 

communications would not be masked 

appreciably by the echosounder’s 

signals given the low duty cycle of the 

echosounder and the brief period when 

an individual mammal is likely to be 

within its beam. Furthermore, in the 

case of baleen whales, the 

echosounder’s signals (12 kHz) do not 

overlap with the predominant 

frequencies in the calls, which would 

avoid any significant masking. 

Behavioral Responses: Behavioral 

reactions of free-ranging marine 

mammals to sonars, echosounders, and 

other sound sources appear to vary by 

species and circumstance. Observed 

reactions have included increased 

vocalizations and no dispersal by pilot 

whales (Rendell and Gordon, 1999), and 

strandings by beaked whales. During 

exposure to a 21 to 25 kHz ‘‘whalefinding’’ sonar with a source level of 

215 dB re: 1 mPa, gray whales reacted by 

orienting slightly away from the source 

and being deflected from their course by 

approximately 200 m (Frankel, 2005). 

When a 38-kHz echosounder and a 150- 

kHz acoustic Doppler current profiler 

were transmitting during studies in the 

eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, baleen 

whales showed no significant responses, 

while spotted and spinner dolphins 

were detected slightly more often and 

beaked whales less often during visual 

surveys (Gerrodette and Pettis, 2005). 

Captive bottlenose dolphins and a 

beluga whale exhibited changes in 

behavior when exposed to 1-s tonal 

signals at frequencies similar to those 

emitted by Lamont-Doherty’s 

echosounder, and to shorter broadband 

pulsed signals. Behavioral changes 

typically involved what appeared to be 

deliberate attempts to avoid the sound 

exposure (Schlundt et al., 2000; 

Finneran et al., 2002; Finneran and 

Schlundt, 2004). The relevance of those 

data to free-ranging odontocetes is 

uncertain, and in any case, the test 

sounds were quite different in duration 

as compared with those from an 

echosounder. 

Hearing Impairment and Other 

Physical Effects: Given recent stranding 

events associated with the operation of 

mid-frequency tactical sonar, there is 

concern that mid-frequency sonar 

sounds can cause serious impacts to 

marine mammals (see earlier 

discussion). However, the echosounder 

proposed for use by the Langseth is 

quite different from sonar used for naval 

operations. The echosounder’s pulse 

duration is very short relative to the 

naval sonar. Also, at any given location, 

an individual marine mammal would be 

in the echosounder’s beam for much 

less time given the generally downward 

orientation of the beam and its narrow 

fore-aft beamwidth; navy sonar often 

uses near-horizontally-directed sound. 

Those factors would all reduce the 

sound energy received from the 

echosounder relative to that from naval 

sonar. 

Lamont-Doherty would also operate a 

sub-bottom profiler from the source 

vessel during the proposed survey. The 

profiler’s sounds are very short pulses, 

occurring for one to four ms once every 

second. Most of the energy in the sound 

pulses emitted by the profiler is at 3.5 

kHz, and the beam is directed 

downward. The sub-bottom profiler on 

the Langseth has a maximum source 

level of 222 dB re: 1 mPa. Kremser et al. 

(2005) noted that the probability of a 

cetacean swimming through the area of 

exposure when a bottom profiler emits 

a pulse is small—even for a profiler 

more powerful than that on the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13976 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 

Langseth—if the animal was in the area, 

it would have to pass the transducer at 

close range and in order to be subjected 

to sound levels that could cause 

temporary threshold shift. 

Masking: Marine mammal 

communications would not be masked 

appreciably by the profiler’s signals 

given the directionality of the signal and 

the brief period when an individual 

mammal is likely to be within its beam. 

Furthermore, in the case of most baleen 

whales, the profiler’s signals do not 

overlap with the predominant 

frequencies in the calls, which would 

avoid significant masking. 

Behavioral Responses: Responses to 

the profiler are likely to be similar to the 

other pulsed sources discussed earlier if 

received at the same levels. However, 

the pulsed signals from the profiler are 

considerably weaker than those from the 

echosounder. 

Hearing Impairment and Other 

Physical Effects: It is unlikely that the 

profiler produces pulse levels strong 

enough to cause hearing impairment or 

other physical injuries even in an 

animal that is (briefly) in a position near 

the source. The profiler operates 

simultaneously with other higher-power 

acoustic sources. Many marine 

mammals would move away in response 

to the approaching higher-power 

sources or the vessel itself before the 

mammals would be close enough for 

there to be any possibility of effects 

from the less intense sounds from the 

profiler. 

3. Potential Effects of Vessel Movement 

and Collisions 

Vessel movement in the vicinity of 

marine mammals has the potential to 

result in either a behavioral response or 

a direct physical interaction. We discuss 

both scenarios here. 

Behavioral Responses to Vessel 

Movement: There are limited data 

concerning marine mammal behavioral 

responses to vessel traffic and vessel 

noise, and a lack of consensus among 

scientists with respect to what these 

responses mean or whether they result 

in short-term or long-term adverse 

effects. In those cases where there is a 

busy shipping lane or where there is a 

large amount of vessel traffic, marine 

mammals may experience acoustic 

masking (Hildebrand, 2005) if they are 

present in the area (e.g., killer whales in 

Puget Sound; Foote et al., 2004; Holt et 

al., 2008). In cases where vessels 

actively approach marine mammals 

(e.g., whale watching or dolphin 

watching boats), scientists have 

documented that animals exhibit altered 

behavior such as increased swimming 

speed, erratic movement, and active 

avoidance behavior (Bursk, 1983; 

Acevedo, 1991; Baker and MacGibbon, 

1991; Trites and Bain, 2000; Williams et 

al., 2002; Constantine et al., 2003), 

reduced blow interval (Ritcher et al., 

2003), disruption of normal social 

behaviors (Lusseau, 2003; 2006), and the 

shift of behavioral activities which may 

increase energetic costs (Constantine et 

al., 2003; 2004). A detailed review of 

marine mammal reactions to ships and 

boats is available in Richardson et al. 

(1995). For each of the marine mammal 

taxonomy groups, Richardson et al. 

(1995) provides the following 

assessment regarding reactions to vessel 

traffic: 

Toothed whales: In summary, toothed 

whales sometimes show no avoidance 

reaction to vessels, or even approach 

them. However, avoidance can occur, 

especially in response to vessels of 

types used to chase or hunt the animals. 

This may cause temporary 

displacement, but we know of no clear 

evidence that toothed whales have 

abandoned significant parts of their 

range because of vessel traffic. 

Baleen whales: When baleen whales 

receive low-level sounds from distant or 

stationary vessels, the sounds often 

seem to be ignored. Some whales 

approach the sources of these sounds. 

When vessels approach whales slowly 

and non-aggressively, whales often 

exhibit slow and inconspicuous 

avoidance maneuvers. In response to 

strong or rapidly changing vessel noise, 

baleen whales often interrupt their 

normal behavior and swim rapidly 

away. Avoidance is especially strong 

when a boat heads directly toward the 

whale. 

Behavioral responses to stimuli are 

complex and influenced to varying 

degrees by a number of factors, such as 

species, behavioral contexts, 

geographical regions, source 

characteristics (moving or stationary, 

speed, direction, etc.), prior experience 

of the animal and physical status of the 

animal. For example, studies have 

shown that beluga whales’ reactions 

varied when exposed to vessel noise 

and traffic. In some cases, naive beluga 

whales exhibited rapid swimming from 

ice-breaking vessels up to 80 km (49.7 

mi) away, and showed changes in 

surfacing, breathing, diving, and group 

composition in the Canadian high 

Arctic where vessel traffic is rare (Finley 

et al., 1990). In other cases, beluga 

whales were more tolerant of vessels, 

but responded differentially to certain 

vessels and operating characteristics by 

reducing their calling rates (especially 

older animals) in the St. Lawrence River 

where vessel traffic is common (Blane 

and Jaakson, 1994). In Bristol Bay, 

Alaska, beluga whales continued to feed 

when surrounded by fishing vessels and 

resisted dispersal even when 

purposefully harassed (Fish and Vania, 

1971). 

In reviewing more than 25 years of 

whale observation data, Watkins (1986) 

concluded that whale reactions to vessel 

traffic were ‘‘modified by their previous 

experience and current activity: 

habituation often occurred rapidly, 

attention to other stimuli or 

preoccupation with other activities 

sometimes overcame their interest or 

wariness of stimuli.’’ Watkins noticed 

that over the years of exposure to ships 

in the Cape Cod area, minke whales 

changed from frequent positive interest 

(e.g., approaching vessels) to generally 

uninterested reactions; fin whales 

changed from mostly negative (e.g., 

avoidance) to uninterested reactions; 

right whales apparently continued the 

same variety of responses (negative, 

uninterested, and positive responses) 

with little change; and humpbacks 

dramatically changed from mixed 

responses that were often negative to 

reactions that were often strongly 

positive. Watkins (1986) summarized 

that ‘‘whales near shore, even in regions 

with low vessel traffic, generally have 

become less wary of boats and their 

noises, and they have appeared to be 

less easily disturbed than previously. In 

particular locations with intense 

shipping and repeated approaches by 

boats (such as the whale-watching areas 

of Stellwagen Bank), more and more 

whales had positive reactions to familiar 

vessels, and they also occasionally 

approached other boats and yachts in 

the same ways.’’ 

Vessel Strike 

Ship strikes of cetaceans can cause 

major wounds, which may lead to the 

death of the animal. An animal at the 

surface could be struck directly by a 

vessel, a surfacing animal could hit the 

bottom of a vessel, or a vessel’s 

propeller could injure an animal just 

below the surface. The severity of 

injuries typically depends on the size 

and speed of the vessel (Knowlton and 

Kraus, 2001; Laist et al., 2001; 

Vanderlaan and Taggart, 2007). 

The most vulnerable marine mammals 

are those that spend extended periods of 

time at the surface in order to restore 

oxygen levels within their tissues after 

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

addition, some baleen whales, such as 

the North Atlantic right whale, seem 

generally unresponsive to vessel sound, 

making them more susceptible to vessel 

collisions (Nowacek et al., 2004). These 

species are primarily large, slow moving 

whales. Smaller marine mammals (e.g., 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13977 

bottlenose dolphin) move quickly 

through the water column and are often 

seen riding the bow wave of large ships. 

Marine mammal responses to vessels 

may include avoidance and changes in 

dive pattern (NRC, 2003). 

An examination of all known ship 

strikes from all shipping sources 

(civilian and military) indicates vessel 

speed is a principal factor in whether a 

vessel strike results in death (Knowlton 

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

Jensen and Silber, 2003; Vanderlaan and 

Taggart, 2007). In assessing records with 

known vessel speeds, Laist et al. (2001) 

found a direct relationship between the 

occurrence of a whale strike and the 

speed of the vessel involved in the 

collision. The authors concluded that 

most deaths occurred when a vessel was 

traveling in excess of 24.1 km/h (14.9 

mph; 13 kts). 

Entanglement 

Entanglement can occur if wildlife 

becomes immobilized in survey lines, 

cables, nets, or other equipment that is 

moving through the water column. The 

proposed seismic survey would require 

towing approximately 8.0 km (4.9 mi) of 

equipment and cables. This size of the 

array generally carries a lower risk of 

entanglement for marine mammals. 

Wildlife, especially slow moving 

individuals, such as large whales, have 

a low probability of entanglement due to 

the low amount of slack in the lines, 

slow speed of the survey vessel, and 

onboard monitoring. Lamont-Doherty 

has no recorded cases of entanglement 

of marine mammals during their 

conduct of over 10 years of seismic 

surveys (NSF, 2014). 

Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal 

Habitat 

The primary potential impacts to 

marine mammal habitat and other 

marine species are associated with 

elevated sound levels produced by 

airguns. This section describes the 

potential impacts to marine mammal 

habitat from the specified activity. 

Anticipated Effects on Fish 

NMFS considered the effects of the 

survey on marine mammal prey (i.e., 

fish and invertebrates), as a component 

of marine mammal habitat in the 

following subsections. 

There are three types of potential 

effects of exposure to seismic surveys: 

(1) Pathological, (2) physiological, and 

(3) behavioral. Pathological effects 

involve lethal and temporary or 

permanent sub-lethal injury. 

Physiological effects involve temporary 

and permanent primary and secondary 

stress responses, such as changes in 

levels of enzymes and proteins. 

Behavioral effects refer to temporary 

and (if they occur) permanent changes 

in exhibited behavior (e.g., startle and 

avoidance behavior). The three 

categories are interrelated in complex 

ways. For example, it is possible that 

certain physiological and behavioral 

changes could potentially lead to an 

ultimate pathological effect on 

individuals (i.e., mortality). 

The available information on the 

impacts of seismic surveys on marine 

fish is from studies of individuals or 

portions of a population. There have 

been no studies at the population scale. 

The studies of individual fish have often 

been on caged fish that were exposed to 

airgun pulses in situations not 

representative of an actual seismic 

survey. Thus, available information 

provides limited insight on possible 

real-world effects at the ocean or 

population scale. 

Hastings and Popper (2005), Popper 

(2009), and Popper and Hastings (2009) 

provided recent critical reviews of the 

known effects of sound on fish. The 

following sections provide a general 

synopsis of the available information on 

the effects of exposure to seismic and 

other anthropogenic sound as relevant 

to fish. The information comprises 

results from scientific studies of varying 

degrees of rigor plus some anecdotal 

information. Some of the data sources 

may have serious shortcomings in 

methods, analysis, interpretation, and 

reproducibility that must be considered 

when interpreting their results (see 

Hastings and Popper, 2005). Potential 

adverse effects of the program’s sound 

sources on marine fish are noted. 

Pathological Effects: The potential for 

pathological damage to hearing 

structures in fish depends on the energy 

level of the received sound and the 

physiology and hearing capability of the 

species in question. For a given sound 

to result in hearing loss, the sound must 

exceed, by some substantial amount, the 

hearing threshold of the fish for that 

sound (Popper, 2005). The 

consequences of temporary or 

permanent hearing loss in individual 

fish on a fish population are unknown; 

however, they likely depend on the 

number of individuals affected and 

whether critical behaviors involving 

sound (e.g., predator avoidance, prey 

capture, orientation and navigation, 

reproduction, etc.) are adversely 

affected. 

There are few data about the 

mechanisms and characteristics of 

damage impacting fish that by exposure 

to seismic survey sounds. Peer-reviewed 

scientific literature has presented few 

data on this subject. NMFS is aware of 

only two papers with proper 

experimental methods, controls, and 

careful pathological investigation that 

implicate sounds produced by actual 

seismic survey airguns in causing 

adverse anatomical effects. 

One such study indicated anatomical 

damage, and the second indicated 

temporary threshold shift in fish 

hearing. The anatomical case is 

McCauley et al. (2003), who found that 

exposure to airgun sound caused 

observable anatomical damage to the 

auditory maculae of pink snapper 

(Pagrus auratus). This damage in the 

ears had not been repaired in fish 

sacrificed and examined almost two 

months after exposure. On the other 

hand, Popper et al. (2005) documented 

only temporary threshold shift (as 

determined by auditory brainstem 

response) in two of three fish species 

from the Mackenzie River Delta. This 

study found that broad whitefish 

(Coregonus nasus) exposed to five 

airgun shots were not significantly 

different from those of controls. During 

both studies, the repetitive exposure to 

sound was greater than would have 

occurred during a typical seismic 

survey. However, the substantial lowfrequency energy produced by the 

airguns (less than 400 Hz in the study 

by McCauley et al. (2003) and less than 

approximately 200 Hz in Popper et al. 

(2005)) likely did not propagate to the 

fish because the water in the study areas 

was very shallow (approximately 9 m in 

the former case and less than 2 m in the 

latter). Water depth sets a lower limit on 

the lowest sound frequency that will 

propagate (i.e., the cutoff frequency) at 

about one-quarter wavelength (Urick, 

1983; Rogers and Cox, 1988). 

Wardle et al. (2001) suggested that in 

water, acute injury and death of 

organisms exposed to seismic energy 

depends primarily on two features of 

the sound source: (1) The received peak 

pressure and (2) the time required for 

the pressure to rise and decay. 

Generally, as received pressure 

increases, the period for the pressure to 

rise and decay decreases, and the 

chance of acute pathological effects 

increases. According to Buchanan et al. 

(2004), for the types of seismic airguns 

and arrays involved with the proposed 

program, the pathological (mortality) 

zone for fish would be expected to be 

within a few meters of the seismic 

source. Numerous other studies provide 

examples of no fish mortality upon 

exposure to seismic sources (Falk and 

Lawrence, 1973; Holliday et al., 1987; 

La Bella et al., 1996; Santulli et al., 

1999; McCauley et al., 2000a,b, 2003; 

Bjarti, 2002; Thomsen, 2002; Hassel et 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13978 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 

al., 2003; Popper et al., 2005; Boeger et 

al., 2006). 

The National Park Service conducted 

an experiment of the effects of a single 

700 in3 airgun in Lake Meade, Nevada 

(USGS, 1999) to understand the effects 

of a marine reflection survey of the Lake 

Meade fault system (Paulson et al., 

1993, in USGS, 1999). The researchers 

suspended the airgun 3.5 m (11.5 ft) 

above a school of threadfin shad in Lake 

Meade and fired three successive times 

at a 30 second interval. Neither surface 

inspection nor diver observations of the 

water column and bottom found any 

dead fish. 

For a proposed seismic survey in 

Southern California, USGS (1999) 

conducted a review of the literature on 

the effects of airguns on fish and 

fisheries. They reported a 1991 study of 

the Bay Area Fault system from the 

continental shelf to the Sacramento 

River, using a 10 airgun (5,828 in3) 

array. Brezzina and Associates, hired by 

USGS to monitor the effects of the 

surveys, concluded that airgun 

operations were not responsible for the 

death of any of the fish carcasses 

observed, and the airgun profiling did 

not appear to alter the feeding behavior 

of sea lions, seals, or pelicans observed 

feeding during the seismic surveys. 

Some studies have reported that 

mortality of fish, fish eggs, or larvae can 

occur close to seismic sources 

(Kostyuchenko, 1973; Dalen and 

Knutsen, 1986; Booman et al., 1996; 

Dalen et al., 1996). Some of the reports 

claimed seismic effects from treatments 

quite different from actual seismic 

survey sounds or even reasonable 

surrogates. However, Payne et al. (2009) 

reported no statistical differences in 

mortality/morbidity between control 

and exposed groups of capelin eggs or 

monkfish larvae. Saetre and Ona (1996) 

applied a worst-case scenario, 

mathematical model to investigate the 

effects of seismic energy on fish eggs 

and larvae. They concluded that 

mortality rates caused by exposure to 

seismic surveys are so low, as compared 

to natural mortality rates, that the 

impact of seismic surveying on 

recruitment to a fish stock must be 

regarded as insignificant. 

Physiological Effects: Physiological 

effects refer to cellular and/or 

biochemical responses of fish to 

acoustic stress. Such stress potentially 

could affect fish populations by 

increasing mortality or reducing 

reproductive success. Primary and 

secondary stress responses of fish after 

exposure to seismic survey sound 

appear to be temporary in all studies 

done to date (Sverdrup et al., 1994; 

Santulli et al., 1999; McCauley et al., 

2000a, b). The periods necessary for the 

biochemical changes to return to normal 

are variable and depend on numerous 

aspects of the biology of the species and 

of the sound stimulus. 

Behavioral Effects—Behavioral effects 

include changes in the distribution, 

migration, mating, and catchability of 

fish populations. Studies investigating 

the possible effects of sound (including 

seismic survey sound) on fish behavior 

have been conducted on both uncaged 

and caged individuals (e.g., Chapman 

and Hawkins, 1969; Pearson et al., 1992; 

Santulli et al., 1999; Wardle et al., 2001; 

Hassel et al., 2003). Typically, in these 

studies fish exhibited a sharp startle 

response at the onset of a sound 

followed by habituation and a return to 

normal behavior after the sound ceased. 

The former Minerals Management 

Service (MMS, 2005) assessed the 

effects of a proposed seismic survey in 

Cook Inlet, Alaska. The seismic survey 

proposed using three vessels, each 

towing two, four-airgun arrays ranging 

from 1,500 to 2,500 in3. The Minerals 

Management Service noted that the 

impact to fish populations in the survey 

area and adjacent waters would likely 

be very low and temporary and also 

concluded that seismic surveys may 

displace the pelagic fishes from the area 

temporarily when airguns are in use. 

However, fishes displaced and avoiding 

the airgun noise are likely to backfill the 

survey area in minutes to hours after 

cessation of seismic testing. Fishes not 

dispersing from the airgun noise (e.g., 

demersal species) may startle and move 

short distances to avoid airgun 

emissions. 

In general, any adverse effects on fish 

behavior or fisheries attributable to 

seismic testing may depend on the 

species in question and the nature of the 

fishery (season, duration, fishing 

method). They may also depend on the 

age of the fish, its motivational state, its 

size, and numerous other factors that are 

difficult, if not impossible, to quantify at 

this point, given such limited data on 

effects of airguns on fish, particularly 

under realistic at-sea conditions 

(Lokkeborg et al., 2012; Fewtrell and 

McCauley, 2012). NMFS would expect 

prey species to return to their preexposure behavior once seismic firing 

ceased (Lokkeborg et al., 2012; Fewtrell 

and McCauley, 2012). 

Anticipated Effects on Invertebrates 

The existing body of information on 

the impacts of seismic survey sound on 

marine invertebrates is very limited. 

However, there is some unpublished 

and very limited evidence of the 

potential for adverse effects on 

invertebrates, thereby justifying further 

discussion and analysis of this issue. 

The three types of potential effects of 

exposure to seismic surveys on marine 

invertebrates are pathological, 

physiological, and behavioral. Based on 

the physical structure of their sensory 

organs, marine invertebrates appear to 

be specialized to respond to particle 

displacement components of an 

impinging sound field and not to the 

pressure component (Popper et al., 

2001). The only information available 

on the impacts of seismic surveys on 

marine invertebrates involves studies of 

individuals; there have been no studies 

at the population scale. Thus, available 

information provides limited insight on 

possible real-world effects at the 

regional or ocean scale. 

Moriyasu et al. (2004) and Payne et al. 

(2008) provide literature reviews of the 

effects of seismic and other underwater 

sound on invertebrates. The following 

sections provide a synopsis of available 

information on the effects of exposure to 

seismic survey sound on species of 

decapod crustaceans and cephalopods, 

the two taxonomic groups of 

invertebrates on which most such 

studies have been conducted. The 

available information is from studies 

with variable degrees of scientific 

soundness and from anecdotal 

information. A more detailed review of 

the literature on the effects of seismic 

survey sound on invertebrates is in 

Appendix E of Foundation’s 2011 

Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (NSF/USGS, 2011). 

Pathological Effects: In water, lethal 

and sub-lethal injury to organisms 

exposed to seismic survey sound 

appears to depend on at least two 

features of the sound source: (1) The 

received peak pressure; and (2) the time 

required for the pressure to rise and 

decay. Generally, as received pressure 

increases, the period for the pressure to 

rise and decay decreases, and the 

chance of acute pathological effects 

increases. For the type of airgun array 

planned for the proposed program, the 

pathological (mortality) zone for 

crustaceans and cephalopods is 

expected to be within a few meters of 

the seismic source, at most; however, 

very few specific data are available on 

levels of seismic signals that might 

damage these animals. This premise is 

based on the peak pressure and rise/

decay time characteristics of seismic 

airgun arrays currently in use around 

the world. 

Some studies have suggested that 

seismic survey sound has a limited 

pathological impact on early 

developmental stages of crustaceans 

(Pearson et al., 1994; Christian et al., 

2003; DFO, 2004). However, the impacts 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13979 

appear to be either temporary or 

insignificant compared to what occurs 

under natural conditions. Controlled 

field experiments on adult crustaceans 

(Christian et al., 2003, 2004; DFO, 2004) 

and adult cephalopods (McCauley et al., 

2000a,b) exposed to seismic survey 

sound have not resulted in any 

significant pathological impacts on the 

animals. It has been suggested that 

exposure to commercial seismic survey 

activities has injured giant squid 

(Guerra et al., 2004), but the article 

provides little evidence to support this 

claim. 

Tenera Environmental (2011) reported 

that Norris and Mohl (1983, 

summarized in Mariyasu et al., 2004) 

observed lethal effects in squid (Loligo 

vulgaris) at levels of 246 to 252 dB after 

3 to 11 minutes. Another laboratory 

study observed abnormalities in larval 

scallops after exposure to low frequency 

noise in tanks (de Soto et al., 2013). 

Andre et al. (2011) exposed four 

cephalopod species (Loligo vulgaris, 

Sepia officinalis, Octopus vulgaris, and 

Ilex coindetii) to two hours of 

continuous sound from 50 to 400 Hz at 

157 ± 5 dB re: 1 mPa. They reported 

lesions to the sensory hair cells of the 

statocysts of the exposed animals that 

increased in severity with time, 

suggesting that cephalopods are 

particularly sensitive to low-frequency 

sound. The received sound pressure 

level was 157 +/¥ 5 dB re: 1 mPa, with 

peak levels at 175 dB re 1 mPa. As in the 

McCauley et al. (2003) paper on sensory 

hair cell damage in pink snapper as a 

result of exposure to seismic sound, the 

cephalopods were subjected to higher 

sound levels than they would be under 

natural conditions, and they were 

unable to swim away from the sound 

source. 

Physiological Effects: Physiological 

effects refer mainly to biochemical 

responses by marine invertebrates to 

acoustic stress. Such stress potentially 

could affect invertebrate populations by 

increasing mortality or reducing 

reproductive success. Studies have 

noted primary and secondary stress 

responses (i.e., changes in haemolymph 

levels of enzymes, proteins, etc.) of 

crustaceans occurring several days or 

months after exposure to seismic survey 

sounds (Payne et al., 2007). The authors 

noted that crustaceans exhibited no 

behavioral impacts (Christian et al., 

2003, 2004; DFO, 2004). The periods 

necessary for these biochemical changes 

to return to normal are variable and 

depend on numerous aspects of the 

biology of the species and of the sound 

stimulus. 

Behavioral Effects: There is increasing 

interest in assessing the possible direct 

and indirect effects of seismic and other 

sounds on invertebrate behavior, 

particularly in relation to the 

consequences for fisheries. Changes in 

behavior could potentially affect such 

aspects as reproductive success, 

distribution, susceptibility to predation, 

and catchability by fisheries. Studies 

investigating the possible behavioral 

effects of exposure to seismic survey 

sound on crustaceans and cephalopods 

have been conducted on both uncaged 

and caged animals. In some cases, 

invertebrates exhibited startle responses 

(e.g., squid in McCauley et al., 2000). In 

other cases, the authors observed no 

behavioral impacts (e.g., crustaceans in 

Christian et al., 2003, 2004; DFO, 2004). 

There have been anecdotal reports of 

reduced catch rates of shrimp shortly 

after exposure to seismic surveys; 

however, other studies have not 

observed any significant changes in 

shrimp catch rate (Andriguetto-Filho et 

al., 2005). Similarly, Parry and Gason 

(2006) did not find any evidence that 

lobster catch rates were affected by 

seismic surveys. Any adverse effects on 

crustacean and cephalopod behavior or 

fisheries attributable to seismic survey 

sound depend on the species in 

question and the nature of the fishery 

(season, duration, fishing method). 

In examining impacts to fish and 

invertebrates as prey species for marine 

mammals, we expect fish to exhibit a 

range of behaviors including no reaction 

or habituation (Pen ̃ a et al., 2013) to 

startle responses and/or avoidance 

(Fewtrell and McCauley, 2012). We 

expect that the seismic survey would 

have no more than a temporary and 

minimal adverse effect on any fish or 

invertebrate species. Although there is a 

potential for injury to fish or marine life 

in close proximity to the vessel, we 

expect that the impacts of the seismic 

survey on fish and other marine life 

specifically related to acoustic activities 

would be temporary in nature, 

negligible, and would not result in 

substantial impact to these species or to 

their role in the ecosystem. Based on the 

preceding discussion, NMFS does not 

anticipate that the proposed activity 

would have any habitat-related effects 

that could cause significant or long-term 

consequences for individual marine 

mammals or their populations. 

Proposed Mitigation 

In order to issue an incidental take 

authorization 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 adverse 

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 

(where relevant). 

Lamont-Doherty has reviewed the 

following source documents and has 

incorporated a suite of proposed 

mitigation measures into their project 

description. 

(1) Protocols used during previous 

Lamont-Doherty and Foundationfunded seismic research cruises as 

approved by us and detailed in the 

Foundation’s 2011 PEIS and 2014 draft 

EA; 

(2) Previous incidental harassment 

authorizations applications and 

authorizations that NMFS has approved 

and authorized; and 

(3) Recommended best practices in 

Richardson et al. (1995), Pierson et al. 

(1998), and Weir and Dolman, (2007). 

To reduce the potential for 

disturbance from acoustic stimuli 

associated with the activities, LamontDoherty, and/or its designees have 

proposed to implement the following 

mitigation measures for marine 

mammals: 

(1) Vessel-based visual mitigation 

monitoring; 

(2) Proposed exclusion zones; 

(3) Power down procedures; 

(4) Shutdown procedures; 

(5) Ramp-up procedures; and 

(6) Speed and course alterations. 

NMFS reviewed Lamont-Doherty’s 

proposed mitigation measures and has 

proposed additional measures to effect 

the least practicable adverse impact on 

marine mammals. They are: 

(1) Expanded shutdown procedures 

for North Atlantic right whales; 

(2) Expanded power down procedures 

for concentrations of six or more whales 

that do not appear to be traveling (e.g., 

feeding, socializing, etc.). 

Vessel-Based Visual Mitigation 

Monitoring 

Lamont-Doherty would position 

observers aboard the seismic source 

vessel to watch for marine mammals 

near the vessel during daytime airgun 

operations and during any start-ups at 

night. Observers would also watch for 

marine mammals near the seismic 

vessel for at least 30 minutes prior to the 

start of airgun operations after an 

extended shutdown (i.e., greater than 

approximately eight minutes for this 

proposed cruise). When feasible, the 

observers would conduct observations 

during daytime periods when the 

seismic system is not operating for 

comparison of sighting rates and 

behavior with and without airgun 

operations and between acquisition 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13980 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 

periods. Based on the observations, the 

Langseth would power down or 

shutdown the airguns when marine 

mammals are observed within or about 

to enter a designated exclusion zone for 

cetaceans or pinnipeds. 

During seismic operations, at least 

four protected species observers would 

be aboard the Langseth. Lamont-Doherty 

would appoint the observers with 

NMFS concurrence and they would 

conduct observations during ongoing 

daytime operations and nighttime rampups of the airgun array. During the 

majority of seismic operations, two 

observers would be on duty from the 

observation tower to monitor marine 

mammals near the seismic vessel. Using 

two observers would increase the 

effectiveness of detecting animals near 

the source vessel. However, during 

mealtimes and bathroom breaks, it is 

sometimes difficult to have two 

observers on effort, but at least one 

observer would be on watch during 

bathroom breaks and mealtimes. 

Observers would be on duty in shifts of 

no longer than four hours in duration. 

Two observers on the Langseth would 

also be on visual watch during all 

nighttime ramp-ups of the seismic 

airguns. A third observer would monitor 

the passive acoustic monitoring 

equipment 24 hours a day to detect 

vocalizing marine mammals present in 

the action area. In summary, a typical 

daytime cruise would have scheduled 

two observers (visual) on duty from the 

observation tower, and an observer 

(acoustic) on the passive acoustic 

monitoring system. Before the start of 

the seismic survey, Lamont-Doherty 

would instruct the vessel’s crew to 

assist in detecting marine mammals and 

implementing mitigation requirements. 

The Langseth is a suitable platform for 

marine mammal observations. When 

stationed on the observation platform, 

the eye level would be approximately 

21.5 m (70.5 ft) above sea level, and the 

observer would have a good view 

around the entire vessel. During 

daytime, the observers would scan the 

area around the vessel systematically 

with reticle binoculars (e.g., 7 × 50 

Fujinon), Big-eye binoculars (25 × 150), 

and with the naked eye. During 

darkness, night vision devices would be 

available (ITT F500 Series Generation 3 

binocular-image intensifier or 

equivalent), when required. Laser rangefinding binoculars (Leica LRF 1200 laser 

rangefinder or equivalent) would be 

available to assist with distance 

estimation. They are useful in training 

observers to estimate distances visually, 

but are generally not useful in 

measuring distances to animals directly. 

The user measures distances to animals 

with the reticles in the binoculars. 

Lamont-Doherty would immediately 

power down or shutdown the airguns 

when observers see marine mammals 

within or about to enter the designated 

exclusion zone. The observer(s) would 

continue to maintain watch to 

determine when the animal(s) are 

outside the exclusion zone by visual 

confirmation. Airgun operations would 

not resume until the observer has 

confirmed that the animal has left the 

zone, or if not observed after 15 minutes 

for species with shorter dive durations 

(small odontocetes and pinnipeds) or 30 

minutes for species with longer dive 

durations (mysticetes and large 

odontocetes, including sperm, pygmy 

sperm, dwarf sperm, killer, and beaked 

whales). 

Proposed Mitigation Exclusion Zones 

Lamont-Doherty would use safety 

radii to designate exclusion zones and 

to estimate take for marine mammals. 

Table 3 shows the distances at which 

one would expect to receive sound 

levels (160-, 180-, and 190-dB,) from the 

airgun subarrays and a single airgun. If 

the protected species visual observer 

detects marine mammal(s) within or 

about to enter the appropriate exclusion 

zone, the Langseth crew would 

immediately power down the airgun 

array, or perform a shutdown if 

necessary (see Shut-down Procedures). 

TABLE 3—DISTANCES TO WHICH SOUND LEVELS GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 160 re: 1 μPa COULD BE RECEIVED

DURING THE PROPOSED SURVEY OFFSHORE NEW JERSEY IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC OCEAN, JUNE THROUGH AUGUST, 2015 

Source and volume 

(in3) 

Tow 

depth 

(m) 

Water 

depth 

(m) 

Predicted RMS 

distances (m) 1

190 dB2 180 dB 160 dB 

Single Bolt airgun (40 in3) ........................................................................................... 6 <100 21 73 995 

4-Airgun subarray (700 in3) ......................................................................................... 4 .5 <100 101 378 5,240 

4-Airgun subarray (700 in3) ......................................................................................... 6 <100 118 439 6,100 

1Predicted distances for 160-dB and 180-dB based on information presented in Lamont-Doherty’s application. 

2 Lamont-Doherty did not request take for pinniped species in their application and consequently did not include distances for the 190-dB 

isopleth for pinnipeds in Table 1 of their application. Because NMFS anticipates that pinnipeds have the potential to occur in the survey area, Lamont-Doherty calculated the distances for the 190-dB isopleth and submitted them to NMFS on for inclusion in this table. 

The 180- or 190-dB level shutdown 

criteria are applicable to cetaceans as 

specified by NMFS (2000). LamontDoherty used these levels to establish 

the exclusion zones as presented in 

their application. 

Retrospective Analysis and Model 

Validation for Exclusion Zones 

For seismic surveys in shallow-water 

environments, the complexity of local 

geology and seafloor topography can 

make it difficult to accurately predict 

associated sound levels and establish 

appropriate mitigation radii required to 

ensure the safety of local marine 

protected species (Crone et al., 2014). 

Lamont-Doherty has explored solutions 

to this problem by measuring received 

levels using the ship’s multichannel 

seismic (MCS) streamer. 

Recently, Lamont-Doherty conducted 

a retrospective sound power analysis of 

one of the lines acquired during 

Lamont-Doherty’s truncated seismic 

survey offshore New Jersey in 2014. 

Despite encountering mechanical 

difficulties during the 2014 survey, the 

Langseth collected nearly 30,000 shot 

gathers with a 700 in3 source towed at 

4.5 m (15 ft) depth, along several lines 

measuring approximately 50 km (31 mi), 

with multichannel streamers (Dr. Tim 

Crone, pers. comm.). After conducting 

the survey, Lamont-Doherty analyzed of 

one of the lines (Line 1876OL; shot 

upslope in water depths ranging from 

about 50 to 20 m (164 to 66 ft)) to verify 

the accuracy of their acoustic modelling 

approach to estimating mitigation 

exclusion zones. Following the sound 

power analysis protocols described in 

Crone et al. (2014), Lamont-Doherty 

observed that the actual distances 

measured for the exclusion and buffer 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13981 

zones were smaller than what LamontDoherty’s model predicted (Table 4). 

TABLE 4—RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF IN SITU DATA TO VALIDATE MODELED MITIGATION RADII. RMS POWER LEVELS

WITH ESTIMATED MITIGATION RADII CALCULATED SHOWING THE PREDICTED RADII USED DURING THE 2014 SURVEY

OFFSHORE NEW JERSEY AND THE SITU STREAMER DATA WITH MEASURED RADII DURING THE SAME SURVEY

[Preliminary data provided by Tim Crone (2015)] 

RMS Level 

(dB re 1 μPa) 

Tow 

depth 

(m) 

Water 

depth 

(m) 

RMS Distances 

(m) 

Predicted 

radii for the 

2014 survey 1

In situ 

measured radii 

for the 2014 

Survey 2

Percent difference in modeled radii vs. measured radii 

180 dB .............. 4.5 ≤50 378 78 Modeled zone is ∼ 79.3% larger than measured radii. 

160 dB .............. 4.5 ≤50 5,240 1,521 Modeled zone is ∼ 70.9% larger than measured radii. 

1Predicted radii for the proposed 2015 survey offshore New Jersey are the same radii used in the 2014 survey conducted offshore New Jersey. 1 Measured streamer data (mean) by Lamont-Doherty following protocols described in (Crone et al., 2014). 

Lamont-Doherty used a similar 

process to develop and confirm the 

conservativeness of the mitigation radii 

for a shallow-water seismic survey in 

the northeast Pacific Ocean offshore 

Washington in 2012. Crone et al. (2014) 

analyzed the received sound levels from 

the 2012 survey and reported that the 

actual distances for the exclusion and 

buffer zones were two to three times 

smaller than what Lamont-Doherty’s 

modeling approach predicted. 

While these results confirm the role 

that bathymetry plays in propagation, 

they also confirm that empirical 

measurements from the Gulf of Mexico 

survey likely over-estimated the size of 

the exclusion zones for the 2012 

Washington and 2014 New Jersey 

shallow-water seismic surveys. NMFS 

reviewed this preliminary information 

in consideration of how these data 

reflect on the accuracy of LamontDoherty’s current modeling approach. 

Power Down Procedures 

A power down involves decreasing 

the number of airguns in use such that 

the radius of the 180-dB or 190-dB 

exclusion zone is smaller to the extent 

that marine mammals are no longer 

within or about to enter the exclusion 

zone. A power down of the airgun array 

can also occur when the vessel is 

moving from one seismic line to 

another. During a power down for 

mitigation, the Langseth would operate 

one airgun (40 in3). The continued 

operation of one airgun would alert 

marine mammals to the presence of the 

seismic vessel in the area. A shutdown 

occurs when the Langseth suspends all 

airgun activity. 

If the observer detects a marine 

mammal outside the exclusion zone and 

the animal is likely to enter the zone, 

the crew would power down the airguns 

to reduce the size of the 180-dB or 190- 

dB exclusion zone before the animal 

enters that zone. Likewise, if a mammal 

is already within the zone after 

detection, the crew would power-down 

the airguns immediately. During a 

power down of the airgun array, the 

crew would operate a single 40-in3

airgun which has a smaller exclusion 

zone. If the observer detects a marine 

mammal within or near the smaller 

exclusion zone around the airgun (Table 

3), the crew would shut down the single 

airgun (see next section). 

Resuming Airgun Operations After a 

Power Down: Following a power-down, 

the Langseth crew would not resume 

full airgun activity until the marine 

mammal has cleared the 180-dB or 190- 

dB exclusion zone. The observers would 

consider the animal to have cleared the 

exclusion zone if: 

• The observer has visually observed 

the animal leave the exclusion zone; or 

• An observer has not sighted the 

animal within the exclusion zone for 15 

minutes for species with shorter dive 

durations (i.e., small odontocetes or 

pinnipeds), or 30 minutes for species 

with longer dive durations (i.e., 

mysticetes and large odontocetes, 

including sperm, pygmy sperm, dwarf 

sperm, and beaked whales); or 

The Langseth crew would resume 

operating the airguns at full power after 

15 minutes of sighting any species with 

short dive durations (i.e., small 

odontocetes or pinnipeds). Likewise, the 

crew would resume airgun operations at 

full power after 30 minutes of sighting 

any species with longer dive durations 

(i.e., mysticetes and large odontocetes, 

including sperm, pygmy sperm, dwarf 

sperm, and beaked whales). 

NMFS estimates that the Langseth 

would transit outside the original 180- 

dB or 190-dB exclusion zone after an 8- 

minute wait period. This period is based 

on the average speed of the Langseth 

while operating the airguns (8.5 km/h; 

5.3 mph). Because the vessel has 

transited away from the vicinity of the 

original sighting during the 8-minute 

period, implementing ramp-up 

procedures for the full array after an 

extended power down (i.e., transiting 

for an additional 35 minutes from the 

location of initial sighting) would not 

meaningfully increase the effectiveness 

of observing marine mammals 

approaching or entering the exclusion 

zone for the full source level and would 

not further minimize the potential for 

take. The Langseth’s observers are 

continually monitoring the exclusion 

zone for the full source level while the 

mitigation airgun is firing. On average, 

observers can observe to the horizon (10 

km; 6.2 mi) from the height of the 

Langseth’s observation deck and should 

be able to say with a reasonable degree 

of confidence whether a marine 

mammal would be encountered within 

this distance before resuming airgun 

operations at full power. 

Shutdown Procedures 

The Langseth crew would shut down 

the operating airgun(s) if they see a 

marine mammal within or approaching 

the exclusion zone for the single airgun. 

The crew would implement a 

shutdown: 

(1) If an animal enters the exclusion 

zone of the single airgun after the crew 

has initiated a power down; or 

(2) If an observer sees the animal is 

initially within the exclusion zone of 

the single airgun when more than one 

airgun (typically the full airgun array) is 

operating. 

Resuming Airgun Operations after a 

Shutdown: Following a shutdown in 

excess of eight minutes, the Langseth 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13982 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 

crew would initiate a ramp-up with the 

smallest airgun in the array (40-in3). The 

crew would turn on additional airguns 

in a sequence such that the source level 

of the array would increase in steps not 

exceeding 6 dB per five-minute period 

over a total duration of approximately 

30 minutes. During ramp-up, the 

observers would monitor the exclusion 

zone, and if he/she sees a marine 

mammal, the Langseth crew would 

implement a power down or shutdown 

as though the full airgun array were 

operational. 

During periods of active seismic 

operations, there are occasions when the 

Langseth crew would need to 

temporarily shut down the airguns due 

to equipment failure or for maintenance. 

In this case, if the airguns are inactive 

longer than eight minutes, the crew 

would follow ramp-up procedures for a 

shutdown described earlier and the 

observers would monitor the full 

exclusion zone and would implement a 

power down or shutdown if necessary. 

If the full exclusion zone is not visible 

to the observer for at least 30 minutes 

prior to the start of operations in either 

daylight or nighttime, the Langseth crew 

would not commence ramp-up unless at 

least one airgun (40-in3 or similar) has 

been operating during the interruption 

of seismic survey operations. Given 

these provisions, it is likely that the 

vessel’s crew would not ramp up the 

airgun array from a complete shutdown 

at night or in thick fog, because the 

outer part of the zone for that array 

would not be visible during those 

conditions. 

If one airgun has operated during a 

power down period, ramp-up to full 

power would be permissible at night or 

in poor visibility, on the assumption 

that marine mammals would be alerted 

to the approaching seismic vessel by the 

sounds from the single airgun and could 

move away. The vessel’s crew would 

not initiate a ramp-up of the airguns if 

an observer sees the marine mammal 

within or near the applicable exclusion 

zones during the day or close to the 

vessel at night. 

Ramp-Up Procedures 

Ramp-up of an airgun array provides 

a gradual increase in sound levels, and 

involves a step-wise increase in the 

number and total volume of airguns 

firing until the full volume of the airgun 

array is achieved. The purpose of a 

ramp-up is to ‘‘warn’’ marine mammals 

in the vicinity of the airguns, and to 

provide the time for them to leave the 

area and thus avoid any potential injury 

or impairment of their hearing abilities. 

Lamont-Doherty would follow a rampup procedure when the airgun array 

begins operating after an 8 minute 

period without airgun operations or 

when shut down has exceeded that 

period. Lamont-Doherty has used 

similar waiting periods (approximately 

eight to 10 minutes) during previous 

seismic surveys. 

Ramp-up would begin with the 

smallest airgun in the array (40 in3). The 

crew would add airguns in a sequence 

such that the source level of the array 

would increase in steps not exceeding 

six dB per five minute period over a 

total duration of approximately 30 to 35 

minutes. During ramp-up, the observers 

would monitor the exclusion zone, and 

if marine mammals are sighted, LamontDoherty would implement a powerdown or shut-down as though the full 

airgun array were operational. 

If the complete exclusion zone has not 

been visible for at least 30 minutes prior 

to the start of operations in either 

daylight or nighttime, Lamont-Doherty 

would not commence the ramp-up 

unless at least one airgun (40 in3 or 

similar) has been operating during the 

interruption of seismic survey 

operations. Given these provisions, it is 

likely that the crew would not ramp up 

the airgun array from a complete shutdown at night or in thick fog, because 

the outer part of the exclusion zone for 

that array would not be visible during 

those conditions. If one airgun has 

operated during a power-down period, 

ramp-up to full power would be 

permissible at night or in poor visibility, 

on the assumption that marine 

mammals would be alerted to the 

approaching seismic vessel by the 

sounds from the single airgun and could 

move away. Lamont-Doherty would not 

initiate a ramp-up of the airguns if an 

observer sights a marine mammal 

within or near the applicable exclusion 

zones. NMFS refers the reader to Figure 

2, which presents a flowchart 

representing the ramp-up, power down, 

and shut down protocols described in 

this notice. 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13983 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–C Special Procedures for Situations or 

Species of Concern 

Considering the highly endangered 

status of North Atlantic right whales, 

the Langseth crew would shut down the 

airgun(s) immediately in the unlikely 

event that observers detect this species, 

regardless of the distance from the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICESEN17MR15.001</GPH>

Proposed Power-Down and Shut-Down Procedures for the R/V Langseth 

IF 

PSO observes a marine mammal that 

is within the EZ for the full source level 

or enter the EZ. 

IF IF 

Decision Point (Yes/No) 

Visual confirmation that 

MM has left the EZ for 

the full source leveL 

No 

1 Ramp-Up Procedures 

Yes 

OR 

PSO observes a 

Yes 

IF 

'¥ 

PSO observes a 

marine mammal near or 

within the EZ for the 

Decision Point (Yes/No) 

Visual confirmation that 

MM has left the EZ for 

the full source level 

in less than 8 minutes1• 

No 

For a given survey, Lamont-Doherty would calculate a specified period based on the 180-dB exclusion zone radius in 

relation to the average planned speed of the Langseth while surveying. Lamont-Doherty has used similar periods (8-10 

minutes} for previous surveys. Ramp up not occur if a marine mammal has not de a red the exclusion zone forthe full 

array. 

Date: March 10, 2015 
13984 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 

vessel. The Langseth would only begin 

ramp-up if observers have not seen the 

North Atlantic right whale for 30 

minutes. 

The Langseth would avoid exposing 

concentrations of humpback, sei, fin, 

blue, and/or sperm whales to sounds 

greater than 160 dB and would power 

down the array, if necessary. For 

purposes of this planned survey, a 

concentration or group of whales will 

consist of six or more individuals 

visually sighted that do not appear to be 

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

Speed and Course Alterations 

If during seismic data collection, 

Lamont-Doherty detects marine 

mammals outside the exclusion zone 

and, based on the animal’s position and 

direction of travel, is likely to enter the 

exclusion zone, the Langseth would 

change speed and/or direction if this 

does not compromise operational safety. 

Due to the limited maneuverability of 

the primary survey vessel, altering 

speed, and/or course can result in an 

extended period of time to realign onto 

the transect. However, if the animal(s) 

appear likely to enter the exclusion 

zone, the Langseth would undertake 

further mitigation actions, including a 

power down or shut down of the 

airguns. 

Mitigation Conclusions 

NMFS has carefully evaluated 

Lamont-Doherty’s proposed mitigation 

measures in the context of ensuring that 

we prescribe the means of effecting the 

least practicable impact on the affected 

marine mammal species and stocks and 

their habitat. Our evaluation of potential 

measures included consideration of the 

following factors in relation to one 

another: 

• The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure is 

expected to minimize adverse impacts 

to marine mammals; 

• The proven or likely efficacy of the 

specific measure to minimize adverse 

impacts as planned; and 

• The practicability of the measure 

for applicant implementation. 

Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed 

by NMFS should be able to accomplish, 

have a reasonable likelihood of 

accomplishing (based on current 

science), or contribute to the 

accomplishment of one or more of the 

general goals listed here: 

1. Avoidance or minimization of 

injury or death of marine mammals 

wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may 

contribute to this goal). 

2. A reduction in the numbers of 

marine mammals (total number or 

number at biologically important time 

or location) exposed to airgun 

operations that we expect to result in 

the take of marine mammals (this goal 

may contribute to 1, above, or to 

reducing harassment takes only). 

3. A reduction in the number of times 

(total number or number at biologically 

important time or location) individuals 

would be exposed to airgun operations 

that we expect to result in the take of 

marine mammals (this goal may 

contribute to 1, above, or to reducing 

harassment takes only). 

4. A reduction in the intensity of 

exposures (either total number or 

number at biologically important time 

or location) to airgun operations that we 

expect to result in the take of marine 

mammals (this goal may contribute to a, 

above, or to reducing the severity of 

harassment takes only). 

5. Avoidance or minimization of 

adverse effects to marine mammal 

habitat, paying special attention to the 

food base, activities that block or limit 

passage to or from biologically 

important areas, permanent destruction 

of habitat, or temporary destruction/

disturbance of habitat during a 

biologically important time. 

6. For monitoring directly related to 

mitigation—an increase in the 

probability of detecting marine 

mammals, thus allowing for more 

effective implementation of the 

mitigation. 

Based on the evaluation of LamontDoherty’s proposed measures, as well as 

other measures proposed by NMFS, 

NMFS has preliminarily determined 

that the proposed mitigation measures 

provide the means of effecting the least 

practicable impact on marine mammal 

species or stocks and their habitat, 

paying particular attention to rookeries, 

mating grounds, and areas of similar 

significance. 

Proposed Monitoring 

In order to issue an Incidental Take 

Authorization 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 we expect to be present 

in the proposed action area. 

Lamont-Doherty submitted a marine 

mammal monitoring plan in section XIII 

of the Authorization application. NMFS, 

the Foundation, or Lamont-Doherty may 

modify or supplement the plan based on 

comments or new information received 

from the public during the public 

comment period. 

Monitoring measures prescribed by 

NMFS should accomplish one or more 

of the following general goals: 

1. An increase in the probability of 

detecting marine mammals, both within 

the mitigation zone (thus allowing for 

more effective implementation of the 

mitigation) and during other times and 

locations, in order to generate more data 

to contribute to the analyses mentioned 

later; 

2. An increase in our understanding 

of how many marine mammals would 

be affected by seismic airguns and other 

active acoustic sources and the 

likelihood of associating those 

exposures with specific adverse effects, 

such as behavioral harassment, 

temporary or permanent threshold shift; 

3. An increase in our understanding 

of how marine mammals respond to 

stimuli that we expect to result in take 

and how those anticipated adverse 

effects on individuals (in different ways 

and to varying degrees) may impact the 

population, species, or stock 

(specifically through effects on annual 

rates of recruitment or survival) through 

any of the following methods: 

a. Behavioral observations in the 

presence of stimuli compared to 

observations in the absence of stimuli 

(i.e., to be able to accurately predict 

received level, distance from source, 

and other pertinent information); 

b. Physiological measurements in the 

presence of stimuli compared to 

observations in the absence of stimuli 

(i.e., to be able to accurately predict 

received level, distance from source, 

and other pertinent information); 

c. Distribution and/or abundance 

comparisons in times or areas with 

concentrated stimuli versus times or 

areas without stimuli; 

4. An increased knowledge of the 

affected species; and 

5. An increase in our understanding 

of the effectiveness of certain mitigation 

and monitoring measures. 

Proposed Monitoring Measures 

Lamont-Doherty proposes to sponsor 

marine mammal monitoring during the 

present project to supplement the 

mitigation measures that require realtime monitoring, and to satisfy the 

monitoring requirements of the 

Authorization. Lamont-Doherty 

understands that NMFS would review 

the monitoring plan and may require 

refinements to the plan. LamontDoherty planned the monitoring work as 

a self-contained project independent of 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13985 

any other related monitoring projects 

that may occur in the same regions at 

the same time. Further, Lamont-Doherty 

is prepared to discuss coordination of 

its monitoring program with any other 

related work that might be conducted by 

other groups working insofar as it is 

practical for Lamont-Doherty. 

Vessel-Based Passive Acoustic 

Monitoring 

Passive acoustic monitoring would 

complement the visual mitigation 

monitoring program, when practicable. 

Visual monitoring typically is not 

effective during periods of poor 

visibility or at night, and even with 

good visibility, is unable to detect 

marine mammals when they are below 

the surface or beyond visual range. 

Passive acoustical monitoring can 

improve detection, identification, and 

localization of cetaceans when used in 

conjunction with visual observations. 

The passive acoustic monitoring would 

serve to alert visual observers (if on 

duty) when vocalizing cetaceans are 

detected. It is only useful when marine 

mammals call, but it can be effective 

either by day or by night, and does not 

depend on good visibility. The acoustic 

observer would monitor the system in 

real time so that he/she can advise the 

visual observers if they acoustically 

detect cetaceans. 

The passive acoustic monitoring 

system consists of hardware (i.e., 

hydrophones) and software. The ‘‘wet 

end’’ of the system consists of a towed 

hydrophone array connected to the 

vessel by a tow cable. The tow cable is 

250 m (820.2 ft) long and the 

hydrophones are fitted in the last 10 m 

(32.8 ft) of cable. A depth gauge, 

attached to the free end of the cable, 

which is typically towed at depths less 

than 20 m (65.6 ft). The Langseth crew 

would deploy the array from a winch 

located on the back deck. A deck cable 

would connect the tow cable to the 

electronics unit in the main computer 

lab where the acoustic station, signal 

conditioning, and processing system 

would be located. The Pamguard 

software amplifies, digitizes, and then 

processes the acoustic signals received 

by the hydrophones. The system can 

detect marine mammal vocalizations at 

frequencies up to 250 kHz. 

One acoustic observer, an expert 

bioacoustician with primary 

responsibility for the passive acoustic 

monitoring system would be aboard the 

Langseth in addition to the four visual 

observers. The acoustic observer would 

monitor the towed hydrophones 24 

hours per day during airgun operations 

and during most periods when the 

Langseth is underway while the airguns 

are not operating. However, passive 

acoustic monitoring may not be possible 

if damage occurs to both the primary 

and back-up hydrophone arrays during 

operations. The primary passive 

acoustic monitoring streamer on the 

Langseth is a digital hydrophone 

streamer. Should the digital streamer 

fail, back-up systems should include an 

analog spare streamer and a hullmounted hydrophone. 

One acoustic observer would monitor 

the acoustic detection system by 

listening to the signals from two 

channels via headphones and/or 

speakers and watching the real-time 

spectrographic display for frequency 

ranges produced by cetaceans. The 

observer monitoring the acoustical data 

would be on shift for one to six hours 

at a time. The other observers would 

rotate as an acoustic observer, although 

the expert acoustician would be on 

passive acoustic monitoring duty more 

frequently. 

When the acoustic observer detects a 

vocalization while visual observations 

are in progress, the acoustic observer on 

duty would contact the visual observer 

immediately, to alert him/her to the 

presence of cetaceans (if they have not 

already been seen), so that the vessel’s 

crew can initiate a power down or 

shutdown, if required. The observer 

would enter the information regarding 

the call into a database. Data entry 

would include an acoustic encounter 

identification number, whether it was 

linked with a visual sighting, date, time 

when first and last heard and whenever 

any additional information was 

recorded, position and water depth 

when first detected, bearing if 

determinable, species or species group 

(e.g., unidentified dolphin, sperm 

whale), types and nature of sounds 

heard (e.g., clicks, continuous, sporadic, 

whistles, creaks, burst pulses, strength 

of signal, etc.), and any other notable 

information. Acousticians record the 

acoustic detection for further analysis. 

Observer Data and Documentation 

Observers would record data to 

estimate the numbers of marine 

mammals exposed to various received 

sound levels and to document apparent 

disturbance reactions or lack thereof. 

They would use the data to estimate 

numbers of animals potentially ‘taken’ 

by harassment (as defined in the 

MMPA). They will also provide 

information needed to order a power 

down or shut down of the airguns when 

a marine mammal is within or near the 

exclusion zone. 

When an observer makes a sighting, 

they will record the following 

information: 

1. Species, group size, age/size/sex 

categories (if determinable), behavior 

when first sighted and after initial 

sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing 

and distance from seismic vessel, 

sighting cue, apparent reaction to the 

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

approach, paralleling, etc.), and 

behavioral pace. 

2. Time, location, heading, speed, 

activity of the vessel, sea state, 

visibility, and sun glare. 

The observer will record the data 

listed under (2) at the start and end of 

each observation watch, and during a 

watch whenever there is a change in one 

or more of the variables. 

Observers will record all observations 

and power downs or shutdowns in a 

standardized format and will enter data 

into an electronic database. The 

observers will verify the accuracy of the 

data entry by computerized data validity 

checks during data entry and by 

subsequent manual checking of the 

database. These procedures will allow 

the preparation of initial summaries of 

data during and shortly after the field 

program, and will facilitate transfer of 

the data to statistical, graphical, and 

other programs for further processing 

and archiving. 

Results from the vessel-based 

observations will provide: 

1. The basis for real-time mitigation 

(airgun power down or shutdown). 

2. Information needed to estimate the 

number of marine mammals potentially 

taken by harassment, which LamontDoherty must report to the Office of 

Protected Resources. 

3. Data on the occurrence, 

distribution, and activities of marine 

mammals and turtles in the area where 

Lamont-Doherty would conduct the 

seismic study. 

4. Information to compare the 

distance and distribution of marine 

mammals and turtles relative to the 

source vessel at times with and without 

seismic activity. 

5. Data on the behavior and 

movement patterns of marine mammals 

detected during non-active and active 

seismic operations. 

Proposed Reporting 

Lamont-Doherty would submit a 

report to us and to the Foundation 

within 90 days after the end of the 

cruise. The report would describe the 

operations conducted and sightings of 

marine mammals and turtles near the 

operations. The report would provide 

full documentation of methods, results, 

and interpretation pertaining to all 

monitoring. The 90-day report would 

summarize the dates and locations of 

seismic operations, and all marine 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13986 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 

mammal sightings (dates, times, 

locations, activities, associated seismic 

survey activities). The report would also 

include estimates of the number and 

nature of exposures that could result in 

‘‘takes’’ of marine mammals by 

harassment or in other ways. 

In the unanticipated event that the 

specified activity clearly causes the take 

of a marine mammal in a manner not 

permitted by the authorization (if 

issued), such as an injury, serious 

injury, or mortality (e.g., ship-strike, 

gear interaction, and/or entanglement), 

Lamont-Doherty shall immediately 

cease the specified activities and 

immediately report the take to the 

Incidental Take Program Supervisor, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 

301–427–8401 and/or by email to 

Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov and ITP.Cody@

noaa.gov and the Northeast Regional 

Stranding Coordinator at (978) 281– 

9300. The report must include the 

following information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/

longitude) of the incident; 

• Name and type of vessel involved; 

• Vessel’s speed during and leading 

up to the incident; 

• Description of the incident; 

• Status of all sound source use in the 

24 hours preceding the incident; 

• Water depth; 

• Environmental conditions (e.g., 

wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea 

state, cloud cover, and visibility); 

• Description of all marine mammal 

observations in the 24 hours preceding 

the incident; 

• Species identification or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Fate of the animal(s); and 

• Photographs or video footage of the 

animal(s) (if equipment is available). 

Lamont-Doherty shall not resume its 

activities until we are able to review the 

circumstances of the prohibited take. 

We shall work with Lamont-Doherty to 

determine what is necessary to 

minimize the likelihood of further 

prohibited take and ensure MMPA 

compliance. Lamont-Doherty may not 

resume their activities until notified by 

us via letter, email, or telephone. 

In the event that Lamont-Doherty 

discovers an injured or dead marine 

mammal, and the lead visual observer 

determines that the cause of the injury 

or death is unknown and the death is 

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

moderate state of decomposition as we 

describe in the next paragraph), LamontDoherty will immediately report the 

incident to the Incidental Take Program 

Supervisor, Permits and Conservation 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, at 301–427–8401 and/or by 

email to Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov and 

ITP.Cody@noaa.gov and the Northeast 

Regional Stranding Coordinator at (978) 

281–9300. The report must include the 

same information identified in the 

paragraph above this section. Activities 

may continue while NMFS reviews the 

circumstances of the incident. NMFS 

would work with Lamont-Doherty to 

determine whether modifications in the 

activities are appropriate. 

In the event that Lamont-Doherty 

discovers an injured or dead marine 

mammal, and the lead visual observer 

determines that the injury or death is 

not associated with or related to the 

authorized activities (e.g., previously 

wounded animal, carcass with moderate 

to advanced decomposition, or 

scavenger damage), Lamont-Doherty 

would report the incident to the 

Incidental Take Program Supervisor, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 

301–427–8401 and/or by email to 

Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov and ITP.Cody@

noaa.gov and the Northeast Regional 

Stranding Coordinator at (978) 281– 

9300, within 24 hours of the discovery. 

Lamont-Doherty would provide 

photographs or video footage (if 

available) or other documentation of the 

stranded animal sighting to NMFS. 

Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) 

has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

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

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering [Level B 

harassment]. 

Acoustic stimuli (i.e., increased 

underwater sound) generated during the 

operation of the airgun sub-arrays may 

have the potential to result in the 

behavioral disturbance of some marine 

mammals. Thus, NMFS proposes to 

authorize take by Level B harassment 

resulting from the operation of the 

sound sources for the proposed seismic 

survey based upon the current acoustic 

exposure criteria shown in Table 4. 

TABLE 5—NMFS’ CURRENT ACOUSTIC EXPOSURE CRITERIA

Criterion Criterion definition Threshold 

Level A Harassment (Injury) Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS) (Any level above that 

which is known to cause TTS).

180 dB re 1 microPa-m (cetaceans)/190 dB re 1 

microPa-m (pinnipeds) root mean square (rms). 

Level B Harassment ............ Behavioral Disruption (for impulse noises) ..................... 160 dB re 1 microPa-m (rms). 

NMFS’ practice is to apply the 160 dB 

re: 1 mPa received level threshold for 

underwater impulse sound levels to 

determine whether take by Level B 

harassment occurs. 

The probability of vessel and marine 

mammal interactions (i.e., ship strike) 

occurring during the proposed survey is 

unlikely due to the Langseth’s slow 

operational speed, which is typically 4.6 

kts (8.5 km/h; 5.3 mph). Outside of 

seismic operations, the Langseth’s 

cruising speed would be approximately 

11.5 mph (18.5 km/h; 10 kts) which is 

generally below the speed at which 

studies have noted reported increases of 

marine mammal injury or death (Laist et 

al., 2001). In addition, the Langseth has 

a number of other advantages for 

avoiding ship strikes as compared to 

most commercial merchant vessels, 

including the following: the Langseth’s 

bridge offers good visibility to visually 

monitor for marine mammal presence; 

observers posted during operations scan 

the ocean for marine mammals and 

must report visual alerts of marine 

mammal presence to crew; and the 

observers receive extensive training that 

covers the fundamentals of visual 

observing for marine mammals and 

information about marine mammals and 

their identification at sea. Thus, NMFS 

does not anticipate that take would 

result from the movement of the vessel. 

Lamont-Doherty did not estimate any 

additional take from sound sources 

other than airguns. NMFS does not 

expect the sound levels produced by the 

echosounder and sub-bottom profiler to 

exceed the sound levels produced by 

the airguns. Lamont-Doherty will not 

operate the multibeam echosounder and 

sub-bottom profiler during transits to 

and from the survey area, (i.e., when the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13987 

airguns are not operating), and, 

therefore, NMFS does not anticipate 

additional takes from these sources in 

this particular case. 

NMFS is currently evaluating the 

broader use of these types of sources to 

determine under what specific 

circumstances coverage for incidental 

take would or would not be advisable. 

NMFS is working on guidance that 

would outline a consistent 

recommended approach for applicants 

to address the potential impacts of these 

types of sources. 

NMFS considers the probability for 

entanglement of marine mammals as 

low because of the vessel speed and the 

monitoring efforts onboard the survey 

vessel. Therefore, NMFS does not 

believe it is necessary to authorize 

additional takes for entanglement at this 

time. 

There is no evidence that planned 

activities could result in serious injury 

or mortality within the specified 

geographic area for the requested 

proposed Authorization. The required 

mitigation and monitoring measures 

would minimize any potential risk for 

serious injury or mortality. 

The following sections describe 

Lamont-Doherty’s methods to estimate 

take by incidental harassment. LamontDoherty’s based their estimates on the 

number of marine mammals that could 

be harassed by seismic operations with 

the airgun sub-array during 

approximately 4,906 km (approximately 

3,044.7 miles (mi) of transect lines in 

the northwest Atlantic Ocean as 

depicted in Figure 1 (Figure 1 of 

Lamont-Doherty’s application). 

Lamont-Doherty’s Ensonified Area 

Calculations: In order to estimate the 

potential number of marine mammals 

exposed to airgun sounds, LamontDoherty considers the total marine area 

within the 160-dB radius around the 

operating airguns. This ensonified area 

includes areas of overlapping transect 

lines. Lamont-Doherty determined the 

ensonified area by entering the planned 

survey lines into a MapInfo GIS, using 

the software to identify the relevant 

areas by ‘‘drawing’’ the applicable 160- 

dB buffer (see Table 3; Table 1 in the 

application) around each seismic line, 

and then calculating the total area 

within the buffers. 

Because Lamont-Doherty assumes that 

the Langseth may need to repeat some 

tracklines, accommodate the turning of 

the vessel, address equipment 

malfunctions, or conduct equipment 

testing to complete the survey; they 

have increased the proposed number of 

square kilometers (km2) for the seismic 

operations from approximately 1,629.7 

km (629.2 square miles (mi2) by 25 

percent to 2,037.1 km2 (786.5 mi2) to 

account for contingency operations. 

Lamont-Doherty’s Take Estimates: 

Lamont-Doherty calculated the numbers 

of different individuals potentially 

exposed to approximately 160 dB re: 1 

mParms by multiplying the expected 

species density estimates (in number/

km2) for that area in the absence of a 

seismic program times the estimated 

area of ensonification (i.e., 2,037.1 km2; 

786.5 mi2) which includes a 25 percent 

contingency factor to account for 

repeated tracklines. Lamont-Doherty 

acknowledged in their application that 

this approach does not allow for 

turnover in the mammal populations in 

the area during the course of the survey; 

thus the number of individuals exposed 

may be underestimated because the 

approach does not account for new 

animals entering or passing through the 

ensonification area. 

NMFS’ Proposed Methodology for Take 

Estimation 

As discussed earlier, Lamont-Doherty 

estimated the incidental take of marine 

mammals during the proposed survey 

area by multiplying the total ensonified 

survey area (2,037 km2 which includes 

a 25 percent contingency) by the 

applicable marine mammals densities 

derived from the U.S. Navy’s OPAREA 

Density Estimates (NODES) database 

(DoN, 2007). However, this 

methodology of estimating take could 

underestimate take both for numbers of 

individuals and the numbers of times 

they may be taken because the survey 

would occur in a small area (12 m x 50 

m) for approximately 30 days, 24 hours 

per day, and Lamont-Doherty’s 

proposed method does not account for 

the fact that new individuals could 

enter into the area during the 30 days, 

or the fact that new instances of take of 

the same animals could likely occur on 

subsequent days. To account for this 

potential underestimation of incidental 

take, NMFS proposes a methodology 

informed by the Marine Mammal 

Commission’s comments on the 2014 

seismic survey (MMC, 2014) to estimate 

incidental take, which factors in a time 

component. 

NMFS’ Ensonified Area Calculations: 

In order to estimate the potential 

number of marine mammals exposed to 

airgun sounds, NMFS estimated the 

total ensonified area within the 160-dB 

radius including areas of overlap 

(57,878 km2; 22,346 mi2) and added an 

additional 25 percent contingency factor 

to account for the increased line effort 

over a period of 30 days. The result was 

a total ensonified area estimate of 

72,348 km2 (27,934 mi2). 

NMFS Density Estimates: For the 

proposed Authorization, NMFS 

reviewed Lamont-Doherty’s take 

estimates presented in Table 3 of their 

application and revised the density 

estimates (where available) as well as 

the take calculations for several species 

based upon the best available density 

information from the SERDP SDSS 

Marine Animal Model Mapper tool for 

the summer months (DoN, 2007; 

accessed on February 10, 2015); or 

abundance or species presence 

information from Palka (2012); mean 

group size information from the 

Cetacean and Turtle Assessment 

Program (CeTAP) surveys (CeTAP, 

1982) and the Atlantic Marine 

Assessment Program for Protected 

Species (AMAPPS) surveys in 2010, 

2011, and 2013. 

For species where the SERDP SDSS 

NODES summer model produced a 

density estimate of zero, NMFS 

increased the take estimates from zero to 

the average (mean) group size (weighted 

by effort and rounded up) derived from 

(CeTAP, 1982), and the Atlantic Marine 

Assessment Program for Protected 

Species (AMAPPS) surveys in 2010, 

2011, and 2013. NMFS used the mean 

group size for these species because of 

the low likelihood of encountering these 

species in the survey area. Based upon 

the best available information, NMFS 

does expect that it is necessary to 

assume that Lamont-Doherty would 

encounter the largest mean group size 

within the survey area. Those species 

include: North Atlantic right, blue, 

humpback, sei, fin, and minke whales; 

clymene, pan-tropical spotted, striped, 

short-beaked common, white-beaked, 

and Atlantic white-sided dolphins, 

harbor porpoises, gray, harp, and harbor 

seals. 

For North Atlantic right whales, 

NMFS increased the estimated mean 

group size of one whale (based on 

CeTAP (1982) and AMAPPS (2010, 

2011, and 2013) survey data) to three 

whales account for cow/calf pairs based 

on additional supporting information 

from Whitt et al. (2013) which reported 

on the occurrence of cow-calf pair in 

nearshore waters off New Jersey. 

Table 6 presents the revised estimates 

of the possible numbers of marine 

mammals exposed to sound levels 

greater than or equal to 160 dB re: 1 mPa 

during the proposed seismic survey. 

Estimating Instances of Exposures: 

For the proposed Authorization, NMFS 

estimated the number of total exposures 

that could occur over 30 days by 

multiplying the following: 

• The total ensonified area including 

overlap/contingency (72,348 km2; 

27,934 mi2); by 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13988 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 

• The available marine mammal 

densities derived from the SERDP SDSS 

Marine Animal Mapper Model summer 

NODES database (DoN, 2007); by 

• An adjustment factor that assumes 

that (assumes that 25 percent of animals 

would move away from the survey area 

and would not experience a reexposure. NMFS bases the turnover 

factor using information on baleen 

whales in the North Pacific (Wood et al., 

2012; Bailey et al., 2010). 

NMFS’ approach to accounting for 

time and instances of re-exposure better 

captures the number of instances of take 

that could occur during the survey. 

Also, NMFS’ use of the turnover factor 

recognizes some of the limitations of 

using a static density estimate as 

proposed in Lamont-Doherty’s 

application. However, this approach, 

which represents a total number of 

exposures over 30 days of airgun 

operations, including extra contingency 

days, likely overestimates the numbers 

of individual animals taken because of 

the assumption of limited animal 

movement and the absence of mitigation 

measures. 

Estimating Take of Individuals: NMFS 

calculated the numbers of different 

individuals potentially taken by 

dividing the total number of instances of 

exposures that could occur over 30 days 

of airgun operations by the average 

number of re-exposures that a particular 

animal could experience within the 

ensonified area (in this case, LamontDoherty provided an estimate of 35.5 

times which NMFS used for this 

calculation). 

TABLE 6—DENSITIES, MEAN GROUP SIZE, AND ESTIMATES OF THE POSSIBLE NUMBERS OF MARINE MAMMALS EXPOSED

TO SOUND LEVELS GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 160 dB re: 1 μPa OVER 30 DAYS DURING THE PROPOSED SEISMIC SURVEY IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC OCEAN, SUMMER 2015 

Species Density 

estimate 1

Modeled 

number of 

instances of 

exposures 

to sound 

levels 

≥160 dB 

Modeled 

number of 

exposures 

accounting 

turnover 

Modeled 

number of 

individuals 

exposed to 

sound 

levels 

≥160 dB 

Proposed 

take 

authorization 2

Percent 

of species 

or stock 3

Population 

trend 4

Blue whale .................................. 0 0 0 0 1 0.23 No data. 

Fin whale .................................... 0 .014 1 .01 0 .76 1 3 0.19 No data. 

Humpback whale ........................ 0 0 0 0 3 0.36 Increasing. 

Minke whale ............................... 0 0 0 0 2 0.01 No data. 

North Atlantic right whale ........... 0 0 0 0 3 0.65 Increasing. 

Sei whale .................................... 0 .74 53 40 .15 3 3 0.84 No data. 

Sperm whale .............................. 17 .07 1,235 926 .23 27 27 1.18 No data. 

Dwarf sperm whale .................... 0 .004 0 .29 0 .22 0 2 0.05 No data. 

Pygmy sperm whale ................... 0 .004 0 .29 0 .22 0 2 0.05 No data. 

Cuvier’s beaked whale ............... 0 .57 41 .24 30 .93 1 3 0.05 No data. 

Gervais’ beaked whale ............... 0 .57 41 .24 30 .93 1 4 0.06 No data. 

Sowerby’s beaked whale ........... 0 .57 41 .24 30 .93 1 3 0.04 No data. 

True’s beaked whale .................. 0 .57 41 .24 30 .93 1 3 0.04 No data. 

Blainville beaked whale .............. 0 .57 41 .24 30 .93 1 3 0.04 No data. 

Bottlenose dolphin (pelagic) ....... 269 19,461 .48 14,596 .11 411 411 0.53 No data. 

Bottlenose dolphin (coastal) ....... 269 19,461 .48 14,596 .11 411 411 3.56 No data. 

Pantropical spotted dolphin ........ 0 0 0 0 6 0.18 No data. 

Atlantic spotted dolphin .............. 87 .3 6,315 .94 4,736 .95 133 133 0.30 No data. 

Striped dolphin ........................... 0 0 0 0 52 0.09 No data. 

Short-beaked common dolphin .. 0 0 0 0 36 0.02 No data. 

Clymene dolphin ........................ 0 0 0 0 27 0.44 No data. 

White-beaked dolphin ................ 0 0 0 0 16 0.80 No data. 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin ....... 0 0 0 0 53 0.11 No data. 

Risso’s dolphin ........................... 32 .88 2,378 .79 1,784 .09 50 50 0.28 No data. 

False killer whale ....................... 0 0 0 0 7 1.58 No data. 

Pygmy killer whale ..................... 0 0 0 0 2 1.32 No data. 

Killer whale ................................. 0 0 0 0 7 1.86 No data. 

Long-finned pilot whale .............. 0 .444 32 .12 24 .09 1 20 0.08 No data. 

Short-finned pilot whale ............. 0 .444 32 .12 24 .09 1 20 0.08 No data. 

Harbor porpoise ......................... 0 0 0 0 4 0.005 No data. 

Gray seal .................................... 0 0 0 0 2 0.001 Increasing. 

Harbor seal ................................. 0 0 0 0 2 0.003 No data. 

Harp seal .................................... 0 0 0 0 2 0.00003 Increasing. 

1Except where noted, densities are the mean values for the survey area calculated from the SERDP SDSS NODES summer model expressed 

as number of individuals per 1,000 km2 (Read et al., 2009). 2Proposed take includes adjustments to modeled exposures of less than or equal to 1 instance of exposure for species with no density information. The SERDP SDSS NODES summer model produced a density estimate of zero, NMFS increased the take estimate from zero to the 

mean group size based on CETAP (1982) and the Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species (AMAPPS) summer survey data 

(2010, 2011, and 2013). 3 4Table 1 in this notice lists the stock species abundance estimates used in calculating the percentage of species/stock. Population trend information from Waring et al., 2014. No data = Insufficient data to determine population trend. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13989 

Encouraging and Coordinating 

Research 

Lamont-Doherty would coordinate the 

planned marine mammal monitoring 

program associated with the seismic 

survey in the northwest Atlantic Ocean 

with applicable U.S. agencies. 

Analysis and Preliminary 

Determinations 

Negligible Impact 

Negligible impact’ is ‘‘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). The lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival (i.e., population 

level effects) forms the basis of a 

negligible impact finding. Thus, 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 behavioral 

harassment, NMFS must consider other 

factors, such as the likely nature of any 

responses (their intensity, duration, 

etc.), the context of any responses 

(critical reproductive time or location, 

migration, etc.), as well as the number 

and nature of estimated Level A 

harassment takes, the number of 

estimated mortalities, effects on habitat, 

and the status of the species. 

In making a negligible impact 

determination, NMFS considers: 

• The number of anticipated injuries, 

serious injuries, or mortalities; 

• The number, nature, and intensity, 

and duration of Level B harassment; and 

• The context in which the takes 

occur (e.g., impacts to areas of 

significance, impacts to local 

populations, and cumulative impacts 

when taking into account successive/

contemporaneous actions when added 

to baseline data); 

• The status of stock or species of 

marine mammals (i.e., depleted, not 

depleted, decreasing, increasing, stable, 

impact relative to the size of the 

population); 

• Impacts on habitat affecting rates of 

recruitment/survival; and 

• The effectiveness of monitoring and 

mitigation measures to reduce the 

number or severity of incidental take. 

For reasons stated previously in this 

document and based on the following 

factors, Lamont-Doherty’s specified 

activities are not likely to cause longterm behavioral disturbance, permanent 

threshold shift, or other non-auditory 

injury, serious injury, or death. They 

include: 

• The anticipated impacts of LamontDoherty’s survey activities on marine 

mammals are temporary behavioral 

changes due to avoidance of the area. 

• The likelihood that marine 

mammals approaching the survey area 

will be traveling through the area or 

opportunistically foraging within the 

vicinity, as no breeding, calving, 

pupping, or nursing areas, or haul-outs, 

overlap with the survey area. 

• The low potential of the survey to 

cause an effect on coastal bottlenose 

dolphin populations due to the fact that 

Lamont-Doherty’s study area is 

approximately 20 km (12 mi) away from 

the identified habitats for coastal 

bottlenose dolphins and their calves. 

• The low likelihood that North 

Atlantic right whales would be exposed 

to sound levels greater than or equal to 

160 dB re: 1 mPa due to the requirement 

that the Langseth crew must shutdown 

the airgun(s) immediately if observers 

detect this species, at any distance from 

the vessel. 

• The likelihood that, given sufficient 

notice through relatively slow ship 

speed, NMFS expects marine mammals 

to move away from a noise source that 

is annoying prior to its becoming 

potentially injurious; 

• The availability of alternate areas of 

similar habitat value for marine 

mammals to temporarily vacate the 

survey area during the operation of the 

airgun(s) to avoid acoustic harassment; 

• NMFS also expects that the seismic 

survey would have no more than a 

temporary and minimal adverse effect 

on any fish or invertebrate species that 

serve as prey species for marine 

mammals, and therefore consider the 

potential impacts to marine mammal 

habitat minimal; 

• The relatively low potential for 

temporary or permanent hearing 

impairment and the likelihood that 

Lamont-Doherty would avoid this 

impact through the incorporation of the 

required monitoring and mitigation 

measures; and 

• The high likelihood that trained 

visual protected species observers 

would detect marine mammals at close 

proximity to the vessel. 

NMFS does not anticipate that any 

injuries, serious injuries, or mortalities 

would occur as a result of LamontDoherty’s proposed activities, and 

NMFS does not propose to authorize 

injury, serious injury, or mortality at 

this time. We anticipate only behavioral 

disturbance to occur primarily in the 

form of avoidance behavior to the sound 

source during the conduct of the survey 

activities. 

Table 6 in this document outlines the 

number of requested Level B harassment 

takes that we anticipate as a result of 

these activities. NMFS anticipates that 

33 marine mammal species could occur 

in the proposed action area. Of the 

marine mammal species under our 

jurisdiction that are known to occur or 

likely to occur in the study area, six of 

these species are listed as endangered 

under the ESA and depleted under the 

MMPA, including: The blue, fin, 

humpback, north Atlantic right, sei, and 

sperm whales 

Due to the nature, degree, instances, 

and context of Level B (behavioral) 

harassment anticipated and described 

(see ‘‘Potential Effects on Marine 

Mammals’’ section in this notice), 

NMFS does not expect the activity to 

impact annual rates of recruitment or 

survival for any affected species or 

stock. The seismic survey would not 

take place in areas of significance for 

marine mammal feeding, resting, 

breeding, or calving and would not 

adversely impact marine mammal 

habitat, including the identified habitats 

for coastal bottlenose dolphins and their 

calves. 

Many animals perform vital functions, 

such as feeding, resting, traveling, and 

socializing, on a diel cycle (i.e., 24 hour 

cycle). Behavioral reactions to noise 

exposure (such as disruption of critical 

life functions, displacement, or 

avoidance of important habitat) are 

more likely to be significant if they last 

more than one diel cycle or recur on 

subsequent days (Southall et al., 2007). 

While NMFS anticipates that the 

seismic operations would occur on 

consecutive days, the estimated 

duration of the survey would last no 

more than 30 days but would increase 

sound levels in the marine environment 

in a relatively small area surrounding 

the vessel (compared to the range of the 

animals), which is constantly travelling 

over distances, and some animals may 

only be exposed to and harassed by 

sound for less than a day. 

In summary, NMFS expects marine 

mammals to avoid the survey area, 

thereby reducing the risk of exposure 

and impacts. We do not anticipate 

disruption to reproductive behavior and 

there is no anticipated effect on annual 

rates of recruitment or survival of 

affected marine mammals. 

Based on the analysis herein of the 

likely effects of the specified activity on 

marine mammals and their habitat, and 

taking into consideration the 

implementation of the proposed 

monitoring and mitigation measures, 

NMFS finds that Lamont-Doherty’s 

proposed seismic survey would have a 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13990 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 

negligible impact on the affected marine 

mammal species or stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As mentioned previously, NMFS 

estimates that Lamont-Doherty’s 

activities could potentially affect, by 

Level B harassment only, 33 species of 

marine mammals under our jurisdiction. 

For each species, these take estimates 

are small numbers relative to the 

population sizes and we have provided 

the regional population estimates for the 

marine mammal species that may be 

taken by Level B harassment in Table 6 

in this notice. 

Impact on Availability of Affected 

Species or Stock for Taking for 

Subsistence Uses 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of marine mammals implicated by this 

action. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

There are six marine mammal species 

listed as endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act that may occur 

in the proposed survey area: the blue, 

fin, humpback, north Atlantic right, sei, 

and sperm whales. Under section 7 of 

the ESA, the Foundation has initiated 

formal consultation with NMFS on the 

proposed seismic survey. NMFS (i.e., 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Office of Protected Resources, Permits 

and Conservation Division) will also 

consult internally with NMFS on the 

proposed issuance of an Authorization 

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

MMPA. NMFS and the Foundation will 

conclude the consultation prior to a 

determination on the issuance of the 

Authorization. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

The Foundation has prepared a draft 

EA titled ‘‘Draft Amended 

Environmental Assessment of a Marine 

Geophysical Survey by the R/V Marcus 

G. Langseth in the Atlantic Ocean off 

New Jersey, Summer 2015.’’ NMFS has 

posted this draft amended EA on our 

Web site concurrently with the 

publication of this notice. NMFS will 

independently evaluate the 

Foundation’s draft EA and determine 

whether or not to adopt it or prepare a 

separate NEPA analysis and incorporate 

relevant portions of the Foundation’s 

draft EA by reference. NMFS will 

review all comments submitted in 

response to this notice to complete the 

NEPA process prior to making a final 

decision on the Authorization request. 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes issuing 

an Authorization to Lamont-Doherty for 

conducting a seismic survey in the 

northwest Atlantic Ocean off the New 

Jersey coast June 1 through August 31, 

2015, provided they incorporate the 

proposed mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting requirements. 

Draft Proposed Authorization 

This section contains the draft text for 

the proposed Authorization. NMFS 

proposes to include this language in the 

Authorization if issued. 

Incidental Harassment Authorization 

We hereby authorize the LamontDoherty Earth Observatory (LamontDoherty), Columbia University, P.O. Box 

1000, 61 Route 9W, Palisades, New York 

10964–8000, under section 101(a)(5)(D) 

of the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(D)) and 

50 CFR 216.107, to incidentally harass 

small numbers of marine mammals 

incidental to a marine geophysical 

survey conducted by the R/V Marcus G. 

Langseth (Langseth) marine geophysical 

survey in the northwest Atlantic Ocean 

off the New Jersey coast June 1 through 

August 31, 2015. 

1. Effective Dates 

This Authorization is valid from June 

1 through August 31, 2015. 

2. Specified Geographic Region 

This Authorization is valid only for 

specified activities associated with the 

R/V Marcus G. Langseth’s (Langseth) 

seismic operations as specified in 

Lamont-Doherty’s Incidental 

Harassment Authorization 

(Authorization) application and 

environmental analysis in the following 

specified geographic area: 

a. In the Atlantic Ocean bounded by 

the following coordinates: 

approximately 25 to 85 km (15.5 to 52.8 

mi) off the coast of New Jersey between 

approximately 39.3–39.7° N and 

approximately 73.2–73.8° W, as 

specified in Lamont-Doherty’s 

application and the National Science 

Foundation’s environmental analysis. 

3. Species Authorized and Level of 

Takes 

a. This authorization limits the 

incidental taking of marine mammals, 

by Level B harassment only, to the 

following species in the area described 

in Condition 2(a): 

i. Mysticetes—3 North Atlantic right 

whales; 3 humpback whales; 2 common 

minke whales; 3 sei whales; 3 fin 

whales; and 1 blue whale. 

ii. Odontocetes—27 sperm whales; 2 

dwarf sperm whales; 2 pygmy sperm 

whales; 3 Cuvier’s beaked whales; 4 

Gervais beaked whales; 3 Sowerby’s 

beaked whales; 3 True’s beaked whales; 

3 Blainville beaked whales; 411 

bottlenose dolphins (coastal and 

pelagic); 6 pantropical spotted dolphins; 

133 Atlantic spotted dolphins; 52 

striped dolphins; 36 short-beaked 

common dolphins; 16 white beaked 

dolphins; 53 Atlantic white-sided 

dolphins; 50 Risso’s dolphins; 27 

clymene dolphins; 7 false killer whales; 

2 pygmy killer whales; 7 killer whales; 

20 long-finned pilot whales; 20 shortfinned pilot whales; and 4 harbor 

porpoises. 

iii. Pinnipeds—2 gray seals; 2 harbor 

seals; and 2 harp seals. 

iv. During the seismic activities, if the 

Holder of this Authorization encounters 

any marine mammal species that are not 

listed in Condition 3 for authorized 

taking and are likely to be exposed to 

sound pressure levels greater than or 

equal to 160 decibels (dB) re: 1 mPa, 

then the Holder must alter speed or 

course or shut-down the airguns to 

avoid take. 

b. The taking by injury (Level A 

harassment), serious injury, or death of 

any of the species listed in Condition 3 

or the taking of any kind of any other 

species of marine mammal is prohibited 

and may result in the modification, 

suspension or revocation of this 

Authorization. 

c. This Authorization limits the 

methods authorized for taking by Level 

B harassment to the following acoustic 

sources: 

i. a sub-airgun array with a total 

capacity of 700 in3 (or smaller); 

4. Reporting Prohibited Take 

The Holder of this Authorization must 

report the taking of any marine mammal 

in a manner prohibited under this 

Authorization immediately to the Office 

of Protected Resources, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, at 301–427–8401 and/ 

or by email to Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov 

and ITP.Cody@noaa.gov. 

5. Cooperation 

We require the Holder of this 

Authorization to cooperate with the 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, and any other 

Federal, state or local agency monitoring 

the impacts of the activity on marine 

mammals. 

6. Mitigation and Monitoring 

Requirements 

We require the Holder of this 

Authorization to implement the 

following mitigation and monitoring 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13991 

requirements when conducting the 

specified activities to achieve the least 

practicable adverse impact on affected 

marine mammal species or stocks: 

Visual Observers 

a. Utilize two, National Marine 

Fisheries Service-qualified, vessel-based 

Protected Species Visual Observers 

(visual observers) to watch for and 

monitor marine mammals near the 

seismic source vessel during daytime 

airgun operations (from civil twilightdawn to civil twilight-dusk) and before 

and during start-ups of airguns day or 

night. 

i. At least one visual observer will be 

on watch during meal times and 

restroom breaks. 

ii. Observer shifts will last no longer 

than four hours at a time. 

iii. Visual observers will also conduct 

monitoring while the Langseth crew 

deploy and recover the airgun array and 

streamers from the water. 

iv. When feasible, visual observers 

will conduct observations during 

daytime periods when the seismic 

system is not operating for comparison 

of sighting rates and behavioral 

reactions during, between, and after 

airgun operations. 

v. The Langseth’s vessel crew will 

also assist in detecting marine 

mammals, when practicable. Visual 

observers will have access to reticle 

binoculars (7x50 Fujinon), and big-eye 

binoculars (25x150). 

Exclusion Zones 

b. Establish a 180-decibel (dB) or 190- 

dB exclusion zone for cetaceans and 

pinnipeds, respectively, before starting 

the airgun subarray (700 in3); and a 180- 

dB or 190-dB exclusion zone for 

cetaceans and pinnipeds, respectively 

for the single airgun (40 in3). Observers 

will use the predicted radius distance 

for the 180-dB or 190-dB exclusion 

zones for cetaceans and pinnipeds. 

Visual Monitoring at the Start of Airgun 

Operations 

c. Monitor the entire extent of the 

exclusion zones for at least 30 minutes 

(day or night) prior to the ramp-up of 

airgun operations after a shutdown. 

d. Delay airgun operations if the 

visual observer sees a cetacean within 

the 180-dB exclusion zone for cetaceans 

or 190-dB exclusion zone for pinnipeds 

until the marine mammal(s) has left the 

area. 

i. If the visual observer sees a marine 

mammal that surfaces, then dives below 

the surface, the observer shall wait 30 

minutes. If the observer sees no marine 

mammals during that time, he/she 

should assume that the animal has 

moved beyond the 180-dB exclusion 

zone for cetaceans or 190-dB exclusion 

zone for pinnipeds. 

ii. If for any reason the visual observer 

cannot see the full 180-dB exclusion 

zone for cetaceans or the 190-dB 

exclusion zone for pinnipeds for the 

entire 30 minutes (i.e., rough seas, fog, 

darkness), or if marine mammals are 

near, approaching, or within zone, the 

Langseth may not resume airgun 

operations. 

iii. If one airgun is already running at 

a source level of at least 180 dB re: 1 mPa 

or 190 dB re: 1 mPa, the Langseth may 

start the second gun—and subsequent 

airguns—without observing relevant 

exclusion zones for 30 minutes, 

provided that the observers have not 

seen any marine mammals near the 

relevant exclusion zones (in accordance 

with Condition 6(b)). 

Passive Acoustic Monitoring 

e. Utilize the passive acoustic 

monitoring (PAM) system, to the 

maximum extent practicable, to detect 

and allow some localization of marine 

mammals around the Langseth during 

all airgun operations and during most 

periods when airguns are not operating. 

One visual observer and/or 

bioacoustician will monitor the PAM at 

all times in shifts no longer than 6 

hours. A bioacoustician shall design and 

set up the PAM system and be present 

to operate or oversee PAM, and 

available when technical issues occur 

during the survey. 

f. Do and record the following when 

an observer detects an animal by the 

PAM: 

i. Notify the visual observer 

immediately of a vocalizing marine 

mammal so a power-down or shut-down 

can be initiated, if required; 

ii. enter the information regarding the 

vocalization into a database. The data to 

be entered include an acoustic 

encounter identification number, 

whether it was linked with a visual 

sighting, date, time when first and last 

heard and whenever any additional 

information was recorded, position, and 

water depth when first detected, bearing 

if determinable, species or species group 

(e.g., unidentified dolphin, sperm 

whale), types and nature of sounds 

heard (e.g., clicks, continuous, sporadic, 

whistles, creaks, burst pulses, strength 

of signal, etc.), and any other notable 

information. 

Ramp-Up Procedures 

g. Implement a ‘‘ramp-up’’ procedure 

when starting the airguns at the 

beginning of seismic operations or any 

time after the entire array has been 

shutdown, which means start the 

smallest gun first and add airguns in a 

sequence such that the source level of 

the array will increase in steps not 

exceeding approximately 6 dB per 5- 

minute period. During ramp-up, the 

observers will monitor the exclusion 

zone, and if marine mammals are 

sighted, a course/speed alteration, 

power-down, or shutdown will be 

implemented as though the full array 

were operational. 

Recording Visual Detections 

h. Visual observers must record the 

following information when they have 

sighted a marine mammal: 

i. Species, group size, age/size/sex 

categories (if determinable), behavior 

when first sighted and after initial 

sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing 

and distance from seismic vessel, 

sighting cue, apparent reaction to the 

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

approach, paralleling, etc., and 

including responses to ramp-up), and 

behavioral pace; and 

ii. Time, location, heading, speed, 

activity of the vessel (including number 

of airguns operating and whether in 

state of ramp-up or shut-down), 

Beaufort sea state and wind force, 

visibility, and sun glare; and 

iii. The data listed under 6(f)(ii) at the 

start and end of each observation watch 

and during a watch whenever there is a 

change in one or more of the variables. 

Speed or Course Alteration 

i. Alter speed or course during 

seismic operations if a marine mammal, 

based on its position and relative 

motion, appears likely to enter the 

relevant exclusion zone. If speed or 

course alteration is not safe or 

practicable, or if after alteration the 

marine mammal still appears likely to 

enter the exclusion zone, the Holder of 

this Authorization will implement 

further mitigation measures, such as a 

shutdown. 

Power-Down Procedures 

j. Power down the airguns if a visual 

observer detects a marine mammal 

within, approaching, or entering the 

relevant exclusion zones. A powerdown means reducing the number of 

operating airguns to a single operating 

40 in3 airgun. This would reduce the 

exclusion zone to the degree that the 

animal(s) is outside of it. 

Resuming Airgun Operations After a 

Power-Down 

k. Following a power-down, if the 

marine mammal approaches the smaller 

designated exclusion zone, the airguns 

must then be completely shut-down. 

Airgun activity will not resume until the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13992 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 

observer has visually observed the 

marine mammal(s) exiting the exclusion 

zone and is not likely to return, or has 

not been seen within the exclusion zone 

for 15 minutes for species with shorter 

dive durations (small odontocetes) or 30 

minutes for species with longer dive 

durations (mysticetes and large 

odontocetes, including sperm, pygmy 

sperm, dwarf sperm, killer, and beaked 

whales). 

l. Following a power-down and 

subsequent animal departure, the 

Langseth may resume airgun operations 

at full power. Initiation requires that the 

observers can effectively monitor the 

full exclusion zones described in 

Condition 6(b). If the observer sees a 

marine mammal within or about to enter 

the relevant zones then the Langseth 

will implement a course/speed 

alteration, power-down, or shutdown. 

Shutdown Procedures 

m. Shutdown the airgun(s) if a visual 

observer detects a marine mammal 

within, approaching, or entering the 

relevant exclusion zone. A shutdown 

means that the Langseth turns off all 

operating airguns. 

n. If a North Atlantic right whale 

(Eubalaena glacialis) is visually sighted, 

the airgun array will be shut down 

regardless of the distance of the 

animal(s) to the sound source. The array 

will not resume firing until 30 minutes 

after the last documented whale visual 

sighting. 

Resuming Airgun Operations After a 

Shutdown 

o. Following a shutdown, if the 

observer has visually confirmed that the 

animal has departed the 180-dB zone for 

cetaceans or the 190-dB zone for 

pinnipeds within a period of less than 

or equal to 8 minutes after the 

shutdown, then the Langseth may 

resume airgun operations at full power. 

p. If the observer has not seen the 

animal depart the 180-dB zone for 

cetaceans or the 190-dB zone for 

pinnipeds, the Langseth shall not 

resume airgun activity until 15 minutes 

has passed for species with shorter dive 

times (i.e., small odontocetes and 

pinnipeds) or 30 minutes has passed for 

species with longer dive durations (i.e., 

mysticetes and large odontocetes, 

including sperm, pygmy sperm, dwarf 

sperm, killer, and beaked whales). The 

Langseth will follow the ramp-up 

procedures described in Conditions 6(g). 

Survey Operations at Night 

q. The Langseth may continue marine 

geophysical surveys into night and lowlight hours if the Holder of the 

Authorization initiates these segment(s) 

of the survey when the observers can 

view and effectively monitor the full 

relevant exclusion zones. 

r. This Authorization does not permit 

the Holder of this Authorization to 

initiate airgun array operations from a 

shut-down position at night or during 

low-light hours (such as in dense fog or 

heavy rain) when the visual observers 

cannot view and effectively monitor the 

full relevant exclusion zones. 

s. To the maximum extent practicable, 

the Holder of this Authorization should 

schedule seismic operations (i.e., 

shooting the airguns) during daylight 

hours. 

Mitigation Airgun 

t. The Langseth may operate a smallvolume airgun (i.e., mitigation airgun) 

during turns and maintenance at 

approximately one shot per minute. The 

Langseth would not operate the smallvolume airgun for longer than three 

hours in duration during turns. During 

turns or brief transits between seismic 

tracklines, one airgun would continue to 

operate. 

Special Procedures for Large Whale 

Concentrations 

u. The Langseth will power-down the 

array and avoid concentrations of 

humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae), 

sei (Balaenoptera borealis), fin 

(Balaenoptera physalus), blue 

(Balaenoptera musculus), and/or sperm 

whales (Physeter macrocephalus) if 

possible (i.e., avoid exposing 

concentrations of these animals to 

sounds greater than 160 dB re: 1 mPa). 

For purposes of the survey, a 

concentration or group of whales will 

consist of six or more individuals 

visually sighted that do not appear to be 

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

The Langseth will follow the procedures 

described in Conditions 6(k) for 

resuming operations after a power 

down. 

7. Reporting Requirements 

This Authorization requires the 

Holder of this Authorization to: 

a. Submit a draft report on all 

activities and monitoring results to the 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, within 90 

days of the completion of the Langseth’s 

cruise. This report must contain and 

summarize the following information: 

i. Dates, times, locations, heading, 

speed, weather, sea conditions 

(including Beaufort sea state and wind 

force), and associated activities during 

all seismic operations and marine 

mammal sightings; 

ii. Species, number, location, distance 

from the vessel, and behavior of any 

marine mammals, as well as associated 

seismic activity (number of shutdowns), 

observed throughout all monitoring 

activities. 

iii. An estimate of the number (by 

species) of marine mammals with 

known exposures to the seismic activity 

(based on visual observation) at received 

levels greater than or equal to 160 dB re: 

1 mPa and/or 180 dB re 1 mPa for 

cetaceans and 190-dB re 1 mPa for 

pinnipeds and a discussion of any 

specific behaviors those individuals 

exhibited. 

iv. An estimate of the number (by 

species) of marine mammals with 

estimated exposures (based on modeling 

results) to the seismic activity at 

received levels greater than or equal to 

160 dB re: 1 mPa and/or 180 dB re 1 mPa 

for cetaceans and 190-dB re 1 mPa for 

pinnipeds with a discussion of the 

nature of the probable consequences of 

that exposure on the individuals. 

v. A description of the 

implementation and effectiveness of the: 

(A) Terms and conditions of the 

Biological Opinion’s Incidental Take 

Statement (attached); and (B) mitigation 

measures of the Incidental Harassment 

Authorization. For the Biological 

Opinion, the report will confirm the 

implementation of each Term and 

Condition, as well as any conservation 

recommendations, and describe their 

effectiveness, for minimizing the 

adverse effects of the action on 

Endangered Species Act listed marine 

mammals. 

b. Submit a final report to the Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, within 30 

days after receiving comments from us 

on the draft report. If we decide that the 

draft report needs no comments, we will 

consider the draft report to be the final 

report. 

8. Reporting Prohibited Take 

In the unanticipated event that the 

specified activity clearly causes the take 

of a marine mammal in a manner not 

permitted by the authorization (if 

issued), such as an injury, serious 

injury, or mortality (e.g., ship-strike, 

gear interaction, and/or entanglement), 

the Observatory shall immediately cease 

the specified activities and immediately 

report the take to the Incidental Take 

Program Supervisor, Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301– 

427–8401 and/or by email to 

Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov and ITP.Cody@

noaa.gov and the Northeast Regional 

Stranding Coordinator at (978) 281– 

9300. The report must include the 

following information: 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 51 / Tuesday, March 17, 2015 / Notices 13993 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/

longitude) of the incident; 

• Name and type of vessel involved; 

• Vessel’s speed during and leading 

up to the incident; 

• Description of the incident; 

• Status of all sound source use in the 

24 hours preceding the incident; 

• Water depth; 

• Environmental conditions (e.g., 

wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea 

state, cloud cover, and visibility); 

• Description of all marine mammal 

observations in the 24 hours preceding 

the incident; 

• Species identification or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Fate of the animal(s); and 

• Photographs or video footage of the 

animal(s) (if equipment is available). 

Lamont-Doherty shall not resume its 

activities until we are able to review the 

circumstances of the prohibited take. 

We shall work with Lamont-Doherty to 

determine what is necessary to 

minimize the likelihood of further 

prohibited take and ensure MMPA 

compliance. Lamont-Doherty may not 

resume their activities until notified by 

us via letter, email, or telephone. 

9. Reporting an Injured or Dead Marine 

Mammal With an Unknown Cause of 

Death 

In the event that Lamont-Doherty 

discovers an injured or dead marine 

mammal, and the lead visual observer 

determines that the cause of the injury 

or death is unknown and the death is 

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

moderate state of decomposition as we 

describe in the next paragraph), the 

Observatory will immediately report the 

incident to the Incidental Take Program 

Supervisor, Permits and Conservation 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, at 301–427–8401 and/or by 

email to Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov and 

ITP.Cody@noaa.gov and the Northeast 

Regional Stranding Coordinator at (978) 

281–9300. The report must include the 

same information identified in the 

paragraph above this section. Activities 

may continue while NMFS reviews the 

circumstances of the incident. NMFS 

would work with Lamont-Doherty to 

determine whether modifications in the 

activities are appropriate. 

10. Reporting an Injured or Dead Marine 

Mammal Unrelated to the Activities 

In the event that Lamont-Doherty 

discovers an injured or dead marine 

mammal, and the lead visual observer 

determines that the injury or death is 

not associated with or related to the 

authorized activities (e.g., previously 

wounded animal, carcass with moderate 

to advanced decomposition, or 

scavenger damage), Lamont-Doherty 

would report the incident to the 

Incidental Take Program Supervisor, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 

301–427–8401 and/or by email to 

Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov and ITP.Cody@

noaa.gov and the Northeast Regional 

Stranding Coordinator at (978) 281– 

9300, within 24 hours of the discovery. 

The Observatory would provide 

photographs or video footage (if 

available) or other documentation of the 

stranded animal sighting to NMFS. 

11. Endangered Species Act Biological 

Opinion and Incidental Take Statement 

Lamont-Doherty is required to comply 

with the Terms and Conditions of the 

Incidental Take Statement 

corresponding to the Endangered 

Species Act Biological Opinion issued 

to the National Science Foundation and 

NMFS’ Office of Protected Resources, 

Permits and Conservation Division 

(attached). A copy of this Authorization 

and the Incidental Take Statement must 

be in the possession of all contractors 

and protected species observers 

operating under the authority of this 

Incidental Harassment Authorization. 

Request for Public Comments 

NMFS invites comments on our 

analysis, the draft authorization, and 

any other aspect of the Notice of 

proposed Authorization for LamontDoherty’s activities. Please include any 

supporting data or literature citations 

with your comments to help inform our 

final decision on Lamont-Doherty’s 

request for an application. 

Dated: March 11, 2015. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–05913 Filed 3–16–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES