24906 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 

all PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise which have not received 

their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will 

be the PRC-wide rate; and (3) for all 

non-PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise which have not received 

their own rate, the cash-deposit rate will 

be the rate applicable to the PRC 

exporter/producer combination that 

supplied that non-PRC exporter. These 

suspension-of-liquidation instructions 

will remain in effect until further notice. 

International Trade Commission 

Notification 

In accordance with section 733(f) of 

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our 

preliminary affirmative determination of 

sales at LTFV. Section 735(b)(2) of the 

Act requires the ITC to make its final 

determination as to whether the 

domestic industry in the United States 

is materially injured, or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports of 

coated paper, or sales (or the likelihood 

of sales) for importation, of the 

merchandise under consideration 

within 45 days of our final 

determination. 

Public Comment 

Case briefs or other written comments 

may be submitted to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration no 

later than seven days after the date on 

which the final verification report is 

issued in this proceeding and rebuttal 

briefs, limited to issues raised in case 

briefs, may be submitted no later than 

five days after the deadline date for case 

briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309. A table of 

contents, list of authorities used and an 

executive summary of issues should 

accompany any briefs submitted to the 

Department. This summary should be 

limited to five pages total, including 

footnotes. The Department also requests 

that parties provide an electronic copy 

of its case and rebuttal brief submissions 

in either a ‘‘Microsoft Word’’ or a ‘‘pdf’’ 

format. 

In accordance with section 774 of the 

Act, we will hold a public hearing, if 

requested, to afford interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on arguments 

raised in case or rebuttal briefs. 

Interested parties, who wish to request 

a hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Room 1870, within 30 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests 

should contain the party’s name, 

address, and telephone number, the 

number of participants, and a list of the 

issues to be discussed. If a request for 

a hearing is made, we intend to hold the 

hearing three days after the deadline of 

submission of rebuttal briefs at the U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street 

and Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20230, at a time and 

location to be determined. See 19 CFR 

351.310. Parties should confirm by 

telephone the date, time, and location of 

the hearing two days before the 

scheduled date. 

We will make our final determination 

no later than 135 days after the date of 

publication of this preliminary 

determination, pursuant to section 

735(a)(2) of the Act. 

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: April 28, 2010. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10701 Filed 5–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XW09 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Operation and 

Maintenance of a Liquefied Natural 

Gas Facility off Massachusetts 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorization; receipt of 

application for letter of authorization; 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received an 

application from Neptune LNG LLC 

(Neptune) for an Incidental Harassment 

Authorization (IHA) to take marine 

mammals, by harassment, incidental to 

port commissioning and operations, 

including maintenance and repair 

activities, at its Neptune Deepwater 

Port. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is 

requesting comments on its proposal to 

issue an IHA to Neptune to take, by 

Level B harassment only, several species 

of marine mammals during the specified 

activity. NMFS is also requesting 

comments on its intent to promulgate 

regulations governing the take of marine 

mammals over a 5–year period 

incidental to the same activities 

described herein. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than June 7, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on the 

application should be addressed to 

Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, 

Conservation and Education Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East 

West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910. The mailbox address for 

providing email comments is PR1.0648– 

XW09@noaa.gov. NMFS is not 

responsible for e mail comments sent to 

addresses other than the one provided 

here. Comments sent via e mail, 

including all attachments, must not 

exceed a 10 megabyte file size. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http:// 

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

incidental.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. 

A copy of the application used in this 

document may be obtained by writing to 

the address specified above, telephoning 

the contact listed below (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or 

visiting the internet at: http:// 

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

incidental.htm. Documents cited in this 

notice may also be viewed, by 

appointment, during regular business 

hours, at the aforementioned address. 

The Maritime Administration 

(MARAD) and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(Final EIS) on the Neptune LNG 

Deepwater Port License Application is 

available for viewing at http:// 

www.regulations.gov by entering the 

search words ‘‘Neptune LNG.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Candace Nachman, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 713 2289, ext 

156. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

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

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

the Secretary of Commerce to allow, 

upon request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

authorization is provided to the public 

for review. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 24907 

Authorization for incidental takings 

shall be granted if NMFS finds that the 

taking will have a negligible impact on 

the species or stock(s), will not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of the species or stock(s) for 

subsistence uses (where relevant), and if 

the permissible methods of taking and 

requirements pertaining to the 

mitigation, monitoring and reporting of 

such takings are set forth. NMFS has 

defined ‘‘negligible impact’’ in 50 CFR 

216.103 as ’’...an impact resulting from 

the specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival.’’ 

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

established an expedited process by 

which citizens of the U.S. can apply for 

an authorization to incidentally take 

small numbers of marine mammals by 

harassment. Section 101(a)(5)(D) 

establishes a 45 day time limit for 

NMFS review of an application 

followed by a 30 day public notice and 

comment period on any proposed 

authorizations for the incidental 

harassment of marine mammals. Within 

45 days of the close of the comment 

period, NMFS must either issue or deny 

the authorization. 

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 

NMFS received an application on 

December 14, 2009, from Neptune for 

the taking, by harassment, of marine 

mammals incidental to port 

commissioning and operations, 

including maintenance and repair 

activities, at its Neptune Deepwater Port 

(Port) facility in Massachusetts Bay. 

NMFS reviewed Neptune’s application 

and identified a number of issues 

requiring further clarification. After 

addressing comments from NMFS, 

Neptune modified its application and 

submitted a revised application on 

March 11, 2010. The March 11, 2010, 

application is the one available for 

public comment (see ADDRESSES) and 

considered by NMFS for this proposed 

IHA and subsequent promulgation of 

regulations. 

NMFS issued a 1–year IHA to 

Neptune in June 2008 for the 

construction of the Port (73 FR 33400, 

June 12, 2008), which expired on June 

30, 2009. NMFS issued a second 1–year 

IHA to Neptune for the completion of 

construction and beginning of Port 

operations on June 26, 2009 (74 FR 

31926, July 6, 2009). This IHA became 

effective on July 1, 2009, and expires on 

June 30, 2010. 

During the period of this third IHA, 

Neptune intends to commission its 

second shuttle and regasification vessel 

(SRV) and conduct limited port 

operations. There is also a chance that 

some maintenance and repairs may 

need to be conducted on the Port 

facility. The Neptune Port is located 

approximately 22 mi (35 km) northeast 

of Boston, Massachusetts, in Federal 

waters approximately 260 ft (79 m) in 

depth. The purpose of the Port is the 

importation of liquefied natural gas 

(LNG) into the New England region. 

Take of marine mammals may occur 

during port operations from thruster use 

during maneuvering of the SRVs while 

docking and undocking, occasional 

weathervaning (turning of a vessel at 

anchor from one direction to another 

under the influence of wind or currents) 

at the port, and during thruster use of 

dynamic positioning (DP) maintenance 

vessels should a major repair be 

necessary. Neptune has requested an 

authorization to take 12 marine mammal 

species by Level B harassment. They 

are: North Atlantic right whale; 

humpback whale; fin whale; sei whale; 

minke whale; long-finned pilot whale; 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin; harbor 

porpoise; common dolphin; Risso’s 

dolphin; bottlenose dolphin; and harbor 

seal. In the current IHA, NMFS also 

authorized take of killer whales and 

gray seals. NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that it would be appropriate 

to authorize take, by Level B harassment 

only, of these two species as well for 

port operations and maintenance. 

Description of the Specified Activity 

On March 23, 2007, Neptune received 

a license to own, construct, and operate 

a deepwater port from MARAD. The 

Port, which will be located in 

Massachusetts Bay, will consist of a 

submerged buoy system to dock 

specifically designed LNG carriers 

approximately 22 mi (35 km) northeast 

of Boston, Massachusetts, in Federal 

waters approximately 260 ft (79 m) in 

depth. The two buoys will be separated 

by a distance of approximately 2.1 mi 

(3.4 km). The locations of the Neptune 

Port and the associated pipeline are 

shown in Figure 2–1 in Neptune’s 

application (see ADDRESSES). 

Neptune anticipates completion of 

construction and commissioning of its 

first SRV in late April or early May 

2010. These activities will be completed 

under the current IHA. Between July 1, 

2010, and June 30, 2011, (the requested 

time period for this proposed IHA), 

Neptune plans to commission its second 

SRV and begin limited operations of the 

Port. Upon expiration of this third 

proposed IHA, Neptune has requested 

that NMFS promulgate regulations and 

subsequently issue annual Letters of 

Authorization to cover full port 

operations and any major repairs that 

may be necessary to the Port facility. 

Neptune will be capable of mooring 

LNG SRVs with a capacity of 

approximately 140,000 cubic meters 

(m3). Up to two SRVs will temporarily 

moor at the Port by means of a 

submerged unloading buoy system. Two 

separate buoys will allow natural gas to 

be delivered in a continuous flow, 

without interruption, by having a brief 

overlap between arriving and departing 

SRVs. The annual average throughput 

capacity will be around 500 million 

standard cubic feet per day (mmscfd) 

with an initial throughput of 400 

mmscfd, and a peak capacity of 

approximately 750 mmscfd. 

The SRVs will be equipped to store, 

transport, and vaporize LNG and to 

odorize, meter and send out natural gas 

by means of two 16–in (40.6–cm) 

flexible risers and one 24–in (61–cm) 

subsea flowline. These risers and 

flowline will lead to a 24–in (61–cm) 

gas transmission pipeline connecting 

the deepwater port to the existing 30– 

in (76.2–cm) Algonquin HublineSM

(HublineSM) located approximately 9 mi 

(14.5 km) west of the Neptune 

deepwater port location. The Port will 

have an expected operating life of 

approximately 25 years. Figure 1–1 of 

Neptune’s application shows an 

isometric view of the Port (see 

ADDRESSES). The following subsections 

describe the operational activities for 

the Port. 

Description of Port Operations 

During Neptune port operations, 

sound will be generated by the 

regasification of the LNG aboard the 

SRVs and the use of thrusters by vessels 

maneuvering and maintaining position 

at the port. Large construction-type DP 

vessels used for major repair of the 

subsea pipeline or unloading facility 

may be another potential sound source, 

although necessity for such a repair is 

unlikely. Of these potential operations 

and maintenance/repair sound sources, 

thruster use for DP is the most 

significant. The following text describes 

the activities that will occur at the port 

upon its commissioning. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

24908 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 

(1) Vessel Activity 

The SRVs will approach the port 

using the Boston Harbor Traffic 

Separation Scheme (TSS), entering the 

TSS within the Great South Channel 

(GSC) and remaining in the TSS until 

they reach the Boston Harbor 

Precautionary Area. At the Boston 

Lighted Horn Buoy B (at the center of 

the Boston Harbor Precautionary Area), 

the SRV will be met by a pilot vessel 

and a support vessel. A pilot will board 

the SRV, and the support vessel will 

accompany the SRV to the port. SRVs 

carrying LNG typically travel at speeds 

up to 19.5 knots (36 km/hr); however, 

Neptune SRVs will reduce speed to 10 

knots (18.5 km/hr) within the TSS yearround in the Off Race Point Seasonal 

Management Area (SMA) and to a 

maximum of 10 knots (18.5 km/hr) 

when traveling to and from the buoys 

once exiting the shipping lanes at the 

Boston Harbor Precautionary Area. In 

addition, Neptune is committed to 

reducing speed to 10 knots in the GSC 

SMA from April 1 to July 31. 

To supply a continuous flow of 

natural gas into the pipeline, about 50 

roundtrip SRV transits will take place 

each year on average (one transit every 

3.65 days). As an SRV approaches the 

port, vessel speed will gradually be 

reduced. Upon arrival at the port, one of 

the submerged unloading buoys will be 

located and retrieved from its 

submerged position by means of a 

winch and recovery line. The SRV is 

designed for operation in harsh 

environments and can connect to the 

unloading buoy in up to 11.5 ft (3.5 m) 

significant wave heights and remain 

operational in up to 36 ft (11 m) 

significant wave heights providing high 

operational availability. 

The vessel’s aft/forward thrusters will 

be used intermittently. Neptune SRVs 

will use both bow and stern thrusters 

when approaching the unloading buoy 

and when docking the buoy inside the 

Submerged Turret Loading (STL) 

compartment, as well as when releasing 

the buoy after the regasifying process is 

finished. The thrusters will be energized 

for up to 2 hours during the docking 

process and up to 1 hour during the 

undocking/release process. When 

energized, the thrusters will rotate at a 

constant RPM with the blades set at zero 

pitch. There will be little cavitation 

when the thruster propellers idle in this 

mode. The sound levels in this 

operating mode are expected to be 

approximately 8 decibels (dB) less than 

at 100 percent load, based on measured 

data from other vessels. 

When the thrusters are engaged, the 

pitch of the blades will be adjusted in 

short bursts for the amount of thrust 

needed. These short bursts will cause 

cavitation and elevated sound levels. 

The maximum sound level with two 

thrusters operating at 100 percent load 

will be 180 dB re 1 μPa at 1m. This is 

not the normal operating mode, but a 

worst-case scenario. Typically, thrusters 

are operated for only seconds at a time 

and not at continuous full loading. 

These thrusters will be engaged for no 

more than 20 minutes, in total, when 

docking at the buoy. The same applies 

for the undocking scenario. 

During normal conditions, the vessel 

will be allowed to weathervane on the 

single-point mooring system. However, 

aft thrusters may be used under certain 

conditions to maintain the vessel’s 

heading into the wind when competing 

tides operate to push the vessel 

broadside to the wind. Neptune has 

assumed a total of 200 hr/yr operating 

under these conditions. In these 

circumstances, the ambient sound will 

already be high because of the wind and 

associated wave sound. 

(2) Regasification System 

Once an SRV is connected to a buoy, 

the vaporization of LNG and send-out of 

natural gas can begin. Each SRV will be 

equipped with three vaporization units, 

each with the capacity to vaporize 250 

mmscfd. Under normal operation, two 

units will be in service. The third 

vaporization unit will be on standby 

mode, though all three units could 

operate simultaneously. 

(3) Maintenance and Repairs 

Routine maintenance activities 

typically are short in duration (several 

days or less) and require small vessels 

(less than 300 gross tons) to perform. 

Activities include attaching and 

detaching and/or cleaning the buoy pick 

up line to the STL buoy, performing 

surveys and inspections with a remotely 

operated vehicle, and cleaning or 

replacing parts (e.g., bulbs, batteries, 

etc.) on the floating navigation buoys. 

Every 7–10 years, Neptune will run an 

intelligent pig (a gauging/cleaning 

device) down the pipeline to assess its 

condition. This particular activity will 

require several larger, construction-type 

vessels and several weeks to complete. 

Unplanned repairs can be either 

relatively minor, or in some cases, 

major, requiring several large, 

construction-type vessels and a 

mitigation program similar to that 

employed during the construction phase 

of the project. Minor repairs are 

typically shorter in duration and could 

include fixing flange or valve leaks, 

replacing faulty pressure transducers, or 

repairing a stuck valve. These kinds of 

repairs require one diver support vessel 

with three or four anchors to hold its 

position. Minor repairs could take from 

a few days to 1–2 weeks depending on 

the nature of the problem. 

Major repairs are longer in duration 

and typically require large construction 

vessels similar to those used to install 

the pipeline and set the buoy and 

anchoring system. These vessels will 

typically mobilize from local ports or 

the Gulf of Mexico. Major repairs 

require upfront planning, equipment 

procurement, and mobilization of 

vessels and saturation divers. Examples 

of major repairs - although unlikely to 

occur - are damage to a riser or 

umbilical and their possible 

replacement, damage to the pipeline 

and manifolds, or anchor chain 

replacement. These types of repairs 

could take 1–4 weeks and possibly 

longer. 

Operations Sound 

The acoustic effects of using the 

thrusters for maneuvering at the 

unloading buoys were modeled by 

JASCO Research Limited (2005). The 

analysis assumed the use of four 

thrusters (two bow, two stern) at 100 

percent power during all four seasons. 

The one-third (1/3)-octave band source 

levels for the thrusters ranged from 

148.5 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m at 2,000 Hertz 

(Hz) to 174.5 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m at 10 

Hz. Figures 1–2 through 1–5 in 

Neptune’s application show the 

received sound level at 164–ft (50–m) 

depth at the south unloading buoy 

during each of the four seasons. 

The acoustic effects of operating the 

regasification system at the unloading 

buoys were also modeled by JASCO 

Research Limited (2005). In addition, 

supplemental analysis was performed to 

assess the potential underwater acoustic 

impacts of using the two aft thrusters 

after mooring for maintaining the 

heading of the vessel in situations when 

competing tides operate to push the 

vessel broadside to the wind. 

Additionally, Samsung performed an 

underwater noise study on the newly 

constructed SRV and an evaluation of 

these data was performed by JASCO 

Applied Sciences. Additional details of 

all the modeling analyses can be found 

in Appendices B and C of Neptune’s 

application (see ADDRESSES). The 

loudest source of sound during 

operations at the port will be the use of 

thrusters for dynamic positioning. 

Maintenance/Repair Sound 

Acoustic modeling originally 

performed to predict received levels of 

underwater sound that could result from 

the construction of Neptune also could 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 24909 

be applicable to major maintenance/ 

repair during operations (see 

Appendices B and C in Neptune’s 

application for a discussion of the 

acoustic modeling methodology 

employed). Activities considered to be 

potential sound sources during major 

maintenance/repair activities include 

excavation (jetting) of the flowline or 

main transmission pipeline routes and 

lowering of materials (pipe, anchors, 

and chains) to the sea floor. These 

analyses evaluated the potential impacts 

of construction of the flowline and 

pipeline using surrogate source levels 

for vessels that could be employed 

during Neptune’s construction. One 

surrogate vessel used for modeling 

purposes was the Castoro II (and four 

accompanying vessels). Figures 1–6 and 

1–7 in Neptune’s application illustrate 

the worst-case received sound levels 

that would be associated with major 

maintenance/repair activities along the 

flowline between the two unloading 

buoys and along the pipeline route at 

the 164–ft (50–m) depth during the 

spring season if a vessel similar to the 

Castoro II were used. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of the Specified Activity 

Massachusetts Bay (as well as the 

entire Atlantic Ocean) hosts a diverse 

assemblage of marine mammals, 

including: North Atlantic right whale; 

blue whale; fin whale; sei whale; minke 

whale; humpback whale; killer whale; 

long-finned pilot whale; sperm whale; 

Atlantic white-beaked dolphin; Atlantic 

white-sided dolphin; bottlenose 

dolphin; common dolphin; harbor 

porpoise; Risso’s dolphin; striped 

dolphin; gray seal; harbor seal; harp 

seal; and hooded seal. Table 3–1 in 

Neptune’s application outlines the 

marine mammal species that occur in 

Massachusetts Bay and the likelihood of 

occurrence of each species. Of the 

species listed here, the North Atlantic 

right, blue, fin, sei, humpback, and 

sperm whales are all listed as 

endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) and as depleted 

under the MMPA. The northern coastal 

stock of bottlenose dolphins is 

considered depleted under the MMPA. 

Certain stocks or populations of killer 

whales are listed as endangered under 

the ESA or depleted under the MMPA; 

however, none of those stocks or 

populations occurs in the proposed 

activity area. 

Of these species, 14 are expected to 

occur in the area of Neptune’s proposed 

operations. These species include: the 

North Atlantic right, humpback, fin, sei, 

minke, killer, and long-finned pilot 

whale; Atlantic white-sided, common, 

Risso’s, and bottlenose dolphins; harbor 

porpoise; and harbor and gray seals. 

Neptune used information from the 

Cetacean and Turtle Assessment 

Program (CETAP; 1982) and the U.S. 

Navy’s Marine Resource Assessment 

(MRA) for the Northeast Operating 

Areas (DoN, 2005) to estimate densities 

for the species in the area. Nonetheless, 

NMFS used the data on cetacean 

distribution within Massachusetts Bay, 

such as those published by the NCCOS 

(2006), to determine density estimates of 

several species of marine mammals in 

the vicinity of the project area. The 

explanation for those derivations and 

the actual density estimates are 

described later in this document (see the 

‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment’’ section). 

Blue and sperm whales are not 

commonly found in Massachusetts Bay. 

The sperm whale is generally a 

deepwater animal, and its distribution 

off the northeastern U.S. is concentrated 

around the 13,280–ft (4,048–m) depth 

contour, with sightings extending 

offshore beyond the 6,560–ft (2,000–m) 

depth contour. Sperm whales also can 

be seen in shallow water south of Cape 

Cod from May to November (Cetacean 

and Turtle Assessment Program, 1982). 

In the North Atlantic, blue whales are 

most commonly sighted in the waters 

off eastern Canada. Although they are 

rare in the shelf waters of the eastern 

U.S., occasional sightings of blue whales 

have been made off Cape Cod. Harp and 

hooded seals are seasonal visitors from 

much further north, seen mostly in the 

winter and early spring. Prior to 1990, 

harp and hooded seals were sighted 

only very occasionally in the Gulf of 

Maine, but recent sightings suggest 

increasing numbers of these species 

now visit these waters (Harris et al., 

2001, 2002). Juveniles of a third seal 

species, the ringed seal, are seen on 

occasion as far south as Cape Cod in the 

winter, but this species is considered to 

be quite rare in these waters 

(Provincetown Center for Coastal 

Studies, 2005). Due to the rarity of these 

species in the proposed project area and 

the remote chance they would be 

affected by Neptune’s proposed port 

operations, these species are not 

discussed further in this proposed IHA 

notice. 

In addition to the 16 cetacean species 

listed in Table 3–1 in Neptune’s 

application, 10 other cetacean species 

have been recorded for Massachusetts as 

rare vagrants or from strandings 

(Cardoza et al., 1999). The following six 

species of beaked whale are all pelagic 

and recorded mostly as strandings: the 

northern bottlenose whale; Cuvier’s 

beaked whale; Sowerby’s beaked whale; 

Blainville’s beaked whale; Gervais’ 

beaked whale; and True’s beaked whale. 

Vagrants include the beluga whale, a 

northern species with rare vagrants 

reported as far south as Long Island 

(Katona et al., 1993); the pantropical 

spotted dolphin and false killer whale, 

which are primarily tropical species 

with rare sightings in Massachusetts 

waters (Cardoza et al., 1999); and the 

pygmy sperm whale, which is generally 

an offshore species that occasionally 

wanders inshore. Due to the rarity of 

these species in the proposed project 

area and the remote chance they would 

be affected by Neptune’s proposed port 

operations, these species are not 

discussed further in this proposed IHA 

notice. 

Information on those species that may 

be impacted by this activity is provided 

in Neptune’s application and sections 

3.2.3 and 3.2.5 in the MARAD/USCG 

Final EIS on the Neptune LNG proposal 

(see ADDRESSES). Please refer to those 

documents for more information on 

these species. In addition, general 

information on these marine mammal 

species can also be found in the NMFS 

U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine 

Mammal Stock Report (Waring et al., 

2009), which is available at: http:// 

www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/tm/ 

tm213/. A brief summary on several 

commonly sighted marine mammal 

species distribution and abundance in 

the vicinity of the action area is 

provided below. 

Humpback Whale 

The highest abundance for humpback 

whales is distributed primarily along a 

relatively narrow corridor following the 

100–m (328 ft) isobath across the 

southern Gulf of Maine from the 

northwestern slope of Georges Bank, 

south to the GSC, and northward 

alongside Cape Cod to Stellwagen Bank 

and Jeffreys Ledge. The relative 

abundance of whales increases in the 

spring with the highest occurrence 

along the slope waters (between the 40- 

and 140–m, 131- and 459–ft, isobaths) 

off Cape Cod and Davis Bank, 

Stellwagen Basin and Tillies Basin and 

between the 50- and 200–m (164- and 

656–ft) isobaths along the inner slope of 

Georges Bank. High abundance was also 

estimated for the waters around Platts 

Bank. In the summer months, 

abundance increases markedly over the 

shallow waters (<50 m, or <164 ft) of 

Stellwagen Bank, the waters (100–200 

m, 328–656 ft) between Platts Bank and 

Jeffreys Ledge, the steep slopes (between 

the 30- and 160–m isobaths, 98- and 

525–ft isobaths) of Phelps and Davis 

Bank north of the GSC towards Cape 

Cod, and between the 50- and 100–m 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

24910 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 

(164- and 328–ft) isobath for almost the 

entire length of the steeply sloping 

northern edge of Georges Bank. This 

general distribution pattern persists in 

all seasons except winter when 

humpbacks remain at high abundance 

in only a few locations including 

Porpoise and Neddick Basins adjacent 

to Jeffreys Ledge, northern Stellwagen 

Bank and Tillies Basin, and the GSC. 

The best estimate of abundance for Gulf 

of Maine, formerly western North 

Atlantic, humpback whales is 847 

animals (Waring et al., 2009). Current 

data suggest that the Gulf of Maine 

humpback whale stock is steadily 

increasing in size, which is consistent 

with an estimated average trend of 3.1 

percent in the North Atlantic population 

overall for the period 1979–1993 

(Stevick et al., 2003, cited in Waring et 

al., 2009). 

Fin Whale 

Spatial patterns of habitat utilization 

by fin whales are very similar to those 

of humpback whales. Spring and 

summer high-use areas follow the 100– 

m (328 ft) isobath along the northern 

edge of Georges Bank (between the 50- 

and 200–m, 164- and 656–ft, isobaths), 

and northward from the GSC (between 

the 50- and 160–m, 164- and 525–ft, 

isobaths). Waters around Cashes Ledge, 

Platts Bank, and Jeffreys Ledge are all 

high-use areas in the summer months. 

Stellwagen Bank is a high-use area for 

fin whales in all seasons, with highest 

abundance occurring over the southern 

Stellwagen Bank in the summer months. 

In fact, the southern portion of 

Stellwagen Bank National Marine 

Sanctuary (SBNMS) is used more 

frequently than the northern portion in 

all months except winter, when high 

abundance is recorded over the northern 

tip of Stellwagen Bank. In addition to 

Stellwagen Bank, high abundance in 

winter is estimated for Jeffreys Ledge 

and the adjacent Porpoise Basin (100- to 

160–m, 328- to 525–ft, isobaths), as well 

as Georges Basin and northern Georges 

Bank. The best estimate of abundance 

for the western North Atlantic stock of 

fin whales is 2,269 (Waring et al., 2009). 

Currently, there are insufficient data to 

determine population trends for this 

species. 

Minke Whale 

Like other piscivorus baleen whales, 

highest abundance for minke whale is 

strongly associated with regions 

between the 50- and 100–m (164- and 

328–ft) isobaths, but with a slightly 

stronger preference for the shallower 

waters along the slopes of Davis Bank, 

Phelps Bank, GSC, and Georges Shoals 

on Georges Bank. Minke whales are 

sighted in SBNMS in all seasons, with 

highest abundance estimated for the 

shallow waters (approximately 40 m, 

131 ft) over southern Stellwagen Bank 

in the summer and fall months. Platts 

Bank, Cashes Ledge, Jeffreys Ledge, and 

the adjacent basins (Neddick, Porpoise, 

and Scantium) also support high 

relative abundance. Very low densities 

of minke whales remain throughout 

most of the southern Gulf of Maine in 

winter. The best estimate of abundance 

for the Canadian East Coast stock, which 

occurs from the western half of the 

Davis Strait to the Gulf of Mexico, of 

minke whales is 3,312 animals (Waring 

et al., 2009). Currently, there are 

insufficient data to determine 

population trends for this species. 

North Atlantic Right Whale 

North Atlantic right whales are 

generally distributed widely across the 

southern Gulf of Maine in spring with 

highest abundance located over the 

deeper waters (100- to 160–m, or 328- to 

525–ft, isobaths) on the northern edge of 

the GSC and deep waters (100–300 m, 

328–984 ft) parallel to the 100–m (328– 

ft) isobath of northern Georges Bank and 

Georges Basin. High abundance was also 

found in the shallowest waters (<30 m, 

<98 ft) of Cape Cod Bay (CCB), over 

Platts Bank and around Cashes Ledge. 

Lower relative abundance is estimated 

over deep-water basins including 

Wilkinson Basin, Rodgers Basin, and 

Franklin Basin. In the summer months, 

right whales move almost entirely away 

from the coast to deep waters over 

basins in the central Gulf of Maine 

(Wilkinson Basin, Cashes Basin between 

the 160- and 200–m, 525- and 656–ft, 

isobaths) and north of Georges Bank 

(Rogers, Crowell, and Georges Basins). 

Highest abundance is found north of the 

100–m (328–ft) isobath at the GSC and 

over the deep slope waters and basins 

along the northern edge of Georges 

Bank. The waters between Fippennies 

Ledge and Cashes Ledge are also 

estimated as high-use areas. In the fall 

months, right whales are sighted 

infrequently in the Gulf of Maine, with 

highest densities over Jeffreys Ledge and 

over deeper waters near Cashes Ledge 

and Wilkinson Basin. In winter, CCB, 

Scantum Basin, Jeffreys Ledge, and 

Cashes Ledge were the main high-use 

areas. Although SBNMS does not appear 

to support the highest abundance of 

right whales, sightings within SBNMS 

are reported for all four seasons, albeit 

at low relative abundance. Highest 

sighting within SBNMS occurs along the 

southern edge of the Bank. 

The western North Atlantic 

population size was estimated to be at 

least 345 individuals in 2005 based on 

a census of individual whales identified 

using photo-identification techniques 

(Waring et al., 2009). This value is a 

minimum and does not include animals 

that were alive prior to 2003 but not 

recorded in the individual sightings 

database as seen from December 1, 2003, 

to October 10, 2008. It also does not 

include calves known to be born during 

2005 or any other individual whale seen 

during 2005 but not yet entered into the 

catalog (Waring et al., 2009). 

Examination of the minimum alive 

population index calculated from the 

individual sightings database, as it 

existed on October 10, 2008, for the 

years 1990–2005 suggests a positive 

trend in numbers. These data reveal a 

significant increase in the number of 

catalogued whales alive during this 

period but with significant variation due 

to apparent losses exceeding gains 

during 1998–1999. Mean growth rate for 

the period 1990–2005 was 1.8 percent 

(Waring et al., 2009). 

Long-finned Pilot Whale 

The long-finned pilot whale is more 

generally found along the edge of the 

continental shelf (a depth of 100 to 

1,000 m, or 328 to 3,280 ft), choosing 

areas of high relief or submerged banks 

in cold or temperate shoreline waters. 

This species is split into two subspecies: 

the Northern and Southern subspecies. 

The Southern subspecies is circumpolar 

with northern limits of Brazil and South 

Africa. The Northern subspecies, which 

could be encountered during operation 

of the Neptune Port facility, ranges from 

North Carolina to Greenland (Reeves et 

al., 2002; Wilson and Ruff, 1999). In the 

western North Atlantic, long-finned 

pilot whales are pelagic, occurring in 

especially high densities in winter and 

spring over the continental slope, then 

moving inshore and onto the shelf in 

summer and autumn following squid 

and mackerel populations (Reeves et al., 

2002). They frequently travel into the 

central and northern Georges Bank, 

GSC, and Gulf of Maine areas during the 

summer and early fall (May and 

October; NOAA, 1993). According to the 

SAR, the best population estimate for 

the western North Atlantic stock of 

long-finned pilot whale is 31,139 

individuals (Waring et al., 2009). 

Currently, there are insufficient data to 

determine population trends for the 

long-finned pilot whale. 

Sei Whale 

The sei whale is the least likely of all 

the baleen whale species to occur near 

the Neptune Port. However, there were 

a couple of sightings in the general 

vicinity of the port facility during the 

construction phase (Neptune Marine 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 24911 

Mammal Monitoring Weekly Reports, 

2008). The Nova Scotia stock of sei 

whales ranges from the continental shelf 

waters of the northeastern U.S. and 

extends northeastward to south of 

Newfoundland. The southern portion of 

the species range during spring and 

summer includes the northern portions 

of the U.S. Atlantic Exclusive Economic 

Zone: the Gulf of Maine and Georges 

Bank. Spring is the period of greatest 

abundance in U.S. waters, with 

sightings concentrated along the eastern 

margin of Georges Bank and into the 

Northeast Channel area and along the 

southwestern edge of Georges Bank in 

the area of Hydrographer Canyon 

(CETAP, 1982). The best estimate of 

abundance for this stock is 386 animals 

(Waring et al., 2009). There are 

insufficient data to determine 

population trends for this species. 

Atlantic White-sided Dolphin 

In spring, summer and fall, Atlantic 

white-sided dolphins are widespread 

throughout the southern Gulf of Maine, 

with the high-use areas widely located 

on either side of the 100–m (328–ft) 

isobath along the northern edge of 

Georges Bank, and north from the GSC 

to Stellwagen Bank, Jeffreys Ledge, 

Platts Bank, and Cashes Ledge. In 

spring, high-use areas exist in the GSC, 

northern Georges Bank, the steeply 

sloping edge of Davis Bank, and Cape 

Cod, southern Stellwagen Bank, and the 

waters between Jeffreys Ledge and Platts 

Bank. In summer, there is a shift and 

expansion of habitat toward the east and 

northeast. High-use areas occur along 

most of the northern edge of Georges 

Bank between the 50- and 200–m (164- 

and 656–ft) isobaths and northward 

from the GSC along the slopes of Davis 

Bank and Cape Cod. High sightings are 

also recorded over Truxton Swell, 

Wilkinson Basin, Cashes Ledge and the 

bathymetrically complex area northeast 

of Platts Bank. High sightings of whitesided dolphin are recorded within 

SBNMS in all seasons, with highest 

density in summer and most 

widespread distributions in spring 

located mainly over the southern end of 

Stellwagen Bank. In winter, high 

sightings were recorded at the northern 

tip of Stellwagen Bank and Tillies 

Basin. 

A comparison of spatial distribution 

patterns for all baleen whales and all 

porpoises and dolphins combined 

showed that both groups have very 

similar spatial patterns of high- and 

low-use areas. The baleen whales, 

whether piscivorus or planktivorous, are 

more concentrated than the dolphins 

and porpoises. They utilize a corridor 

that extends broadly along the most 

linear and steeply sloping edges in the 

southern Gulf of Maine indicated 

broadly by the 100 m (328 ft) isobath. 

Stellwagen Bank and Jeffreys Ledge 

support a high abundance of baleen 

whales throughout the year. Species 

richness maps indicate that high-use 

areas for individual whales and dolphin 

species co-occurred, resulting in similar 

patterns of species richness primarily 

along the southern portion of the 100– 

m (328–ft) isobath extending northeast 

and northwest from the GSC. The 

southern edge of Stellwagen Bank and 

the waters around the northern tip of 

Cape Cod are also highlighted as 

supporting high cetacean species 

richness. Intermediate to high numbers 

of species are also calculated for the 

waters surrounding Jeffreys Ledge, the 

entire Stellwagen Bank, Platts Bank, 

Fippennies Ledge, and Cashes Ledge. 

The best estimate of abundance for the 

western North Atlantic stock of whitesided dolphins is 63,368 (Waring et al., 

2009). A trend analysis has not been 

conducted for this species. 

Killer Whale, Common Dolphin, 

Bottlenose Dolphin, Risso’s Dolphin, 

and Harbor Porpoise 

Although these five species are some 

of the most widely distributed small 

cetacean species in the world (Jefferson 

et al., 1993), they are not commonly 

seen in the vicinity of the project area 

in Massachusetts Bay (Wiley et al., 

1994; NCCOS, 2006; Northeast Gateway 

Marine Mammal Monitoring Weekly 

Reports, 2007; Neptune Marine Mammal 

Monitoring Weekly Reports, 2008). The 

total number of killer whales off the 

eastern U.S. coast is unknown, and 

present data are insufficient to calculate 

a minimum population estimate or to 

determine the population trends for this 

stock (Blaylock et al., 1995). The best 

estimate of abundance for the western 

North Atlantic stock of common 

dolphins is 120,743 animals, and a 

trend analysis has not been conducted 

for this species (Waring et al., 2007). 

There are several stocks of bottlenose 

dolphins found along the eastern U.S. 

from Maine to Florida. The stock that 

may occur in the area of the Neptune 

Port is the western North Atlantic 

coastal northern migratory stock of 

bottlenose dolphins. The best estimate 

of abundance for this stock is 7,489 

animals (Waring et al., 2009). There are 

insufficient data to determine the 

population trend for this stock. The best 

estimate of abundance for the western 

North Atlantic stock of Risso’s dolphins 

is 20,479 animals (Waring et al., 2009). 

There are insufficient data to determine 

the population trend for this stock. The 

best estimate of abundance for the Gulf 

of Maine/Bay of Fundy stock of harbor 

porpoise is 89,054 animals (Waring et 

al., 2009). A trend analysis has not been 

conducted for this species. 

Harbor and Gray Seals 

In the U.S. western North Atlantic, 

both harbor and gray seals are usually 

found from the coast of Maine south to 

southern New England and New York 

(Waring et al., 2007). 

Along the southern New England and 

New York coasts, harbor seals occur 

seasonally from September through late 

May (Schneider and Payne, 1983). In 

recent years, their seasonal interval 

along the southern New England to New 

Jersey coasts has increased (deHart, 

2002). In U.S. waters, harbor seal 

breeding and pupping normally occur in 

waters north of the New Hampshire/ 

Maine border, although breeding has 

occurred as far south as Cape Cod in the 

early part of the 20th century (Temte et 

al., 1991; Katona et al., 1993). The best 

estimate of abundance for the western 

North Atlantic stock of harbor seals is 

99,340 animals (Waring et al., 2009). 

Between 1981 and 2001, the 

uncorrected counts of seals increased 

from 10,543 to 38,014, an annual rate of 

6.6 percent (Gilbert et al., 2005, cited in 

Waring et al., 2009). 

Although gray seals are often seen off 

the coast from New England to 

Labrador, within U.S. waters, only small 

numbers of gray seals have been 

observed pupping on several isolated 

islands along the Maine coast and in 

Nantucket-Vineyard Sound, 

Massachusetts (Katona et al., 1993; 

Rough, 1995). In the late 1990s, a yearround breeding population of 

approximately 400 gray seals was 

documented on outer Cape Cod and 

Muskeget Island (Waring et al., 2007). 

Depending on the model used, the 

minimum estimate for the Canadian 

gray seal population was estimated to 

range between 125,541 and 169,064 

animals (Trzcinski et al., 2005, cited in 

Waring et al., 2009); however, present 

data are insufficient to calculate the 

minimum population estimate for U.S. 

waters. Waring et al. (2009) note that 

gray seal abundance in the U.S. Atlantic 

is likely increasing, but the rate of 

increase is unknown. 

Brief Background on Marine Mammal 

Hearing 

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. Based on available 

behavioral data, audiograms derived 

using auditory evoked potential 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

24912 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 

techniques, anatomical modeling, and 

other data, Southall et al. (2007) 

designate ‘‘functional hearing groups’’ 

for marine mammals and estimate the 

lower and upper frequencies of 

functional hearing of the groups. The 

functional groups and the associated 

frequencies are indicated below (though 

animals are less sensitive to sounds at 

the outer edge of their functional range 

and most sensitive to sounds of 

frequencies within a smaller range 

somewhere in the middle of their 

functional hearing range): 

• Low frequency cetaceans (13 

species of mysticetes): functional 

hearing is estimated to occur between 

approximately 7 Hz and 22 kHz; 

• Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 

species of dolphins, six species of larger 

toothed whales, and 19 species of 

beaked and bottlenose whales): 

functional hearing is estimated to 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 is estimated to occur 

between approximately 200 Hz and 180 

kHz; and 

• Pinnipeds in Water: functional 

hearing is estimated to occur between 

approximately 75 Hz and 75 kHz, with 

the greatest sensitivity between 

approximately 700 Hz and 20 kHz. 

As mentioned previously in this 

document, 14 marine mammal species 

(12 cetacean and two pinniped species) 

are likely to occur in the Neptune Port 

area. Of the 12 cetacean species likely 

to occur in Neptune’s project area, five 

are classified as low frequency 

cetaceans (i.e., North Atlantic right, 

humpback, fin, minke, and sei whales), 

six are classified as mid-frequency 

cetaceans (i.e., killer and pilot whales 

and bottlenose, common, Risso’s, and 

Atlantic white-sided dolphins), and one 

is classified as a high-frequency 

cetacean (i.e., harbor porpoise) (Southall 

et al., 2007). 

Potential Effects of the Specified 

Activity on Marine Mammals 

Potential effects of Neptune’s 

proposed port operations and 

maintenance/repair activities would 

most likely be acoustic in nature. LNG 

port operations and maintenance/repair 

activities introduce sound into the 

marine environment. Potential acoustic 

effects on marine mammals relate to 

sound produced by thrusters during 

maneuvering of the SRVs while docking 

and undocking, occasional 

weathervaning at the port, and during 

thruster use of DP maintenance vessels 

should a major repair be necessary. The 

potential effects of sound from the 

proposed activities associated with the 

Neptune Port might include one or more 

of the following: tolerance; masking of 

natural sounds; behavioral disturbance; 

non-auditory physical effects; and, at 

least in theory, temporary or permanent 

hearing impairment (Richardson et al., 

1995). However, for reasons discussed 

later in this document, it is unlikely that 

there would be any cases of temporary, 

or especially permanent, hearing 

impairment resulting from these 

activities. As outlined in previous 

NMFS documents, the effects of noise 

on marine mammals are highly variable, 

and can be categorized as follows (based 

on Richardson et al., 1995): 

(1) The noise may be too weak to be 

heard at the location of the animal (i.e., 

lower than the prevailing ambient noise 

level, the hearing threshold of the 

animal at relevant frequencies, or both); 

(2) The noise may be audible but not 

strong enough to elicit any overt 

behavioral response; 

(3) The noise may elicit reactions of 

variable conspicuousness and variable 

relevance to the well being of the 

marine mammal; these can range from 

temporary alert responses to active 

avoidance reactions such as vacating an 

area at least until the noise event ceases 

but potentially for longer periods of 

time; 

(4) Upon repeated exposure, a marine 

mammal may exhibit diminishing 

responsiveness (habituation), or 

disturbance effects may persist; the 

latter is most likely with sounds that are 

highly variable in characteristics, 

infrequent, and unpredictable in 

occurrence, and associated with 

situations that a marine mammal 

perceives as a threat; 

(5) Any anthropogenic noise that is 

strong enough to be heard has the 

potential to reduce (mask) the ability of 

a marine mammal to hear natural 

sounds at similar frequencies, including 

calls from conspecifics, and underwater 

environmental sounds such as surf 

noise; 

(6) If mammals remain in an area 

because it is important for feeding, 

breeding, or some other biologically 

important purpose even though there is 

chronic exposure to noise, it is possible 

that there could be noise-induced 

physiological stress; this might in turn 

have negative effects on the well-being 

or reproduction of the animals involved; 

and 

(7) Very strong sounds have the 

potential to cause a temporary or 

permanent reduction in hearing 

sensitivity. In terrestrial mammals, and 

presumably marine mammals, received 

sound levels must far exceed the 

animal’s hearing threshold for there to 

be any temporary threshold shift (TTS) 

in its hearing ability. For transient 

sounds, the sound level necessary to 

cause TTS is inversely related to the 

duration of the sound. Received sound 

levels must be even higher for there to 

be risk of permanent hearing 

impairment. In addition, intense 

acoustic or explosive events may cause 

trauma to tissues associated with organs 

vital for hearing, sound production, 

respiration and other functions. This 

trauma may include minor to severe 

hemorrhage. 

Tolerance 

Numerous studies have shown that 

underwater sounds from industry 

activities are often readily detectable by 

marine mammals in the water at 

distances of many kilometers. 

Numerous studies have also shown that 

marine mammals at distances more than 

a few kilometers away often show no 

apparent response to industry activities 

of various types (Miller et al., 2005). 

This is often true even in cases when 

the sounds must be readily audible to 

the animals based on measured received 

levels and the hearing sensitivity of that 

mammal group. Although various 

baleen whales, toothed whales, and (less 

frequently) pinnipeds have been shown 

to react behaviorally to underwater 

sound such as airgun pulses or vessels 

under some conditions, at other times 

mammals of all three types have shown 

no overt reactions (e.g., Malme et al., 

1986; Richardson et al., 1995; Madsen 

and Mohl, 2000; Croll et al., 2001; 

Jacobs and Terhune, 2002; Madsen et 

al., 2002; Miller et al., 2005). In general, 

pinnipeds and small odontocetes seem 

to be more tolerant of exposure to some 

types of underwater sound than are 

baleen whales. Richardson et al. (1995) 

found that vessel noise does not seem to 

strongly affect pinnipeds that are 

already in the water. Richardson et al. 

(1995) went on to explain that seals on 

haul-outs sometimes respond strongly to 

the presence of vessels and at other 

times appear to show considerable 

tolerance of vessels, and (Brueggeman et 

al., 1992; cited in Richardson et al., 

1995) observed ringed seals hauled out 

on ice pans displaying short-term 

escape reactions when a ship 

approached within 0.25–0.5 mi (0.4–0.8 

km). 

Masking 

Masking is the obscuring of sounds of 

interest by other sounds, often at similar 

frequencies. Marine mammals are 

highly dependent on sound, and their 

ability to recognize sound signals amid 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 24913 

noise is important in communication, 

predator and prey detection, and, in the 

case of toothed whales, echolocation. 

Even in the absence of manmade 

sounds, the sea is usually noisy. 

Background ambient noise often 

interferes with or masks the ability of an 

animal to detect a sound signal even 

when that signal is above its absolute 

hearing threshold. Natural ambient 

noise includes contributions from wind, 

waves, precipitation, other animals, and 

(at frequencies above 30 kHz) thermal 

noise resulting from molecular agitation 

(Richardson et al., 1995). Background 

noise also can include sounds from 

human activities. Masking of natural 

sounds can result when human 

activities produce high levels of 

background noise. Conversely, if the 

background level of underwater noise is 

high (e.g., on a day with strong wind 

and high waves), an anthropogenic 

noise source will not be detectable as far 

away as would be possible under 

quieter conditions and will itself be 

masked. Ambient noise is highly 

variable on continental shelves 

(Thompson, 1965; Myrberg, 1978; 

Chapman et al., 1998; Desharnais et al., 

1999). This inevitably results in a high 

degree of variability in the range at 

which marine mammals can detect 

anthropogenic sounds. 

Although masking is a natural 

phenomenon to which marine mammals 

must adapt, the introduction of strong 

sounds into the sea at frequencies 

important to marine mammals increases 

the severity and frequency of occurrence 

of masking. For example, if a baleen 

whale is exposed to continuous lowfrequency noise from an industrial 

source, this will reduce the size of the 

area around that whale within which it 

can hear the calls of another whale. In 

general, little is known about the 

importance to marine mammals of 

detecting sounds from conspecifics, 

predators, prey, or other natural sources. 

In the absence of much information 

about the importance of detecting these 

natural sounds, it is not possible to 

predict the impacts if mammals are 

unable to hear these sounds as often, or 

from as far away, because of masking by 

industrial noise (Richardson et al., 

1995). In general, masking effects are 

expected to be less severe when sounds 

are transient than when they are 

continuous. 

Although some degree of masking is 

inevitable when high levels of manmade 

broadband sounds are introduced into 

the sea, marine mammals have evolved 

systems and behavior that function to 

reduce the impacts of masking. 

Structured signals, such as the 

echolocation click sequences of small 

toothed whales, may be readily detected 

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. Low-frequency industrial noise, 

such as shipping, has little or no 

masking effect on high frequency 

echolocation sounds. 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 noises by improving the 

effective signal-to-noise ratio. In the 

cases of high-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 are known 

to increase the source levels of their 

calls in the presence of elevated sound 

levels (Dahlheim, 1987; Au, 1993; 

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

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. Directional hearing has 

been demonstrated at frequencies as low 

as 0.5–2 kHz in several marine 

mammals, including killer whales 

(Richardson et al., 1995). This ability 

may be useful in reducing masking at 

these frequencies. In summary, high 

levels of noise 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 used in 

echolocation by toothed whales, several 

mechanisms are available that may 

allow them to reduce the effects of such 

masking. 

Disturbance 

Disturbance can induce a variety of 

effects, such as subtle changes in 

behavior, more conspicuous dramatic 

changes in activities, and displacement. 

Disturbance is one of the main concerns 

of the potential impacts of manmade 

noise on marine mammals. For many 

species and situations, there is no 

detailed information about reactions to 

noise. While there are no specific 

studies available on the reactions of 

marine mammals to sounds produced 

by a LNG facility, information from 

studies of marine mammal reactions to 

other types of continuous and transient 

anthropogenic sound (e.g., drillships) 

are described here as a proxy. 

Behavioral reactions of marine 

mammals to sound are difficult to 

predict because they are dependent on 

numerous factors, including species, 

state of maturity, experience, current 

activity, reproductive state, time of day, 

and weather. If a marine mammal does 

react to an underwater sound by 

changing its behavior or moving a small 

distance, the impacts of that change may 

not be important to the individual, the 

stock, or the species as a whole. 

However, if a sound source displaces 

marine mammals from an important 

feeding or breeding area for a prolonged 

period, impacts on the animals could be 

important. Based on the literature 

reviewed in Richardson et al. (1995), it 

is apparent that most small and 

medium-sized toothed whales exposed 

to prolonged or repeated underwater 

sounds are unlikely to be displaced 

unless the overall received level is at 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

24914 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 

least 140 dB re 1 μPa (rms). The limited 

available data indicate that the sperm 

whale is sometimes, though not always, 

more responsive than other toothed 

whales. Baleen whales probably have 

better hearing sensitivities at lower 

sound frequencies, and in several 

studies have been shown to react to 

continuous sounds at received sound 

levels of approximately 120 dB re 1 μPa 

(rms). Toothed whales appear to exhibit 

a greater variety of reactions to 

manmade underwater noise than do 

baleen whales. Toothed whale reactions 

can vary from approaching vessels (e.g., 

to bow ride) to strong avoidance, while 

baleen whale reactions range from 

neutral (little or no change in behavior) 

to strong avoidance. In general, 

pinnipeds seem more tolerant of, or at 

least habituate more quickly to, 

potentially disturbing underwater noise 

than do cetaceans. 

Baleen Whales - Baleen whales 

sometimes show behavioral changes in 

response to received broadband 

drillship noises of 120 dB (rms) or 

greater. On their summer range in the 

Beaufort Sea, bowhead whales (a 

species closely related to the right 

whale) reacted to drillship noises within 

4–8 km (2.5–5 mi) of the drillship at 

received levels 20 dB above ambient, or 

about 118 dB (Richardson et al., 1990). 

Reactions were stronger at the onset of 

the sound (Richardson et al., 1995). 

Migrating bowhead whales avoided an 

area with a radius of 10–20 km (6.2–12.4 

mi) around drillships and their 

associated support vessels, 

corresponding to a received noise level 

around 115 dB (Greene, 1987; Koski and 

Johnson, 1987; Hall et al., 1994; Davies, 

1997; Schick and Urban, 2000). For gray 

whales off California, the predicted 

reaction zone around a semisubmersible drill rig was less than 1 km 

(0.62 mi), at received levels of 

approximately 120 dB (Malme et al., 

1983, 1984). Humpback whales showed 

no obvious avoidance response to 

broadband drillship noises at a received 

level of 116 dB (Malme et al., 1985). 

Reactions of baleen whales to boat 

noises include changes in swimming 

direction and speed, blow rate, and the 

frequency and kinds of vocalizations 

(Richardson et al., 1995). Baleen whales, 

especially minke whales, occasionally 

approach stationary or slow-moving 

boats, but more commonly avoid boats. 

Avoidance is strongest when boats 

approach directly or when vessel noise 

changes abruptly (Watkins, 1986; Beach 

and Weinrich, 1989). Humpback whales 

responded to boats at distances of at 

least 0.5–1 km (0.31–0.62 mi), and 

avoidance and other reactions have been 

noted in several areas at distances of 

several kilometers (Jurasz and Jurasz, 

1979; Dean et al., 1985; Bauer, 1986; 

Bauer and Herman, 1986). 

During some activities and at some 

locations, humpbacks exhibit little or no 

reaction to boats (Watkins, 1986). Some 

baleen whales seem to show habituation 

to frequent boat traffic. Over 25 years of 

observations in Cape Cod waters, minke 

whales’ reactions to boats changed from 

frequent positive interactions (i.e., 

reactions of apparent curiosity or 

reactions that appeared to provide some 

reward to the animal) to a general lack 

of interest (i.e., ignored the stimuli), 

while humpback whales reactions 

changed from being often negative to 

being often positive, and fin whales 

reactions changed from being mostly 

negative (i.e., sudden changes from 

activity to inactivity or a display of 

agonistic responses) to being mostly 

uninterested (Watkins, 1986). 

North Atlantic right whales also 

display variable responses to boats. 

There may be an initial orientation away 

from a boat, followed by a lack of 

observable reaction (Atkins and Swartz, 

1989). A slowly moving boat can 

approach a right whale, but an abrupt 

change in course or engine speed 

usually elicits a reaction (Goodyear, 

1989; Mayo and Marx, 1990; Gaskin, 

1991). When approached by a boat, right 

whale mothers will interpose 

themselves between the vessel and calf 

and will maintain a low profile 

(Richardson et al., 1995). In a long-term 

study of baleen whale reactions to boats, 

while other baleen whale species 

appeared to habituate to boat presence 

over the 25–year period, right whales 

continued to show either uninterested 

or negative reactions to boats with no 

change over time (Watkins, 1986). 

Biassoni et al. (2000) and Miller et al. 

(2000) reported behavioral observations 

for humpback whales exposed to a lowfrequency sonar stimulus (160- to 330– 

Hz frequency band; 42–s tonal signal 

repeated every 6 min; source levels 170 

to 200 dB) during playback experiments. 

Exposure to measured received levels 

ranging from 120 to 150 dB resulted in 

variability in humpback singing 

behavior. Croll et al. (2001) investigated 

responses of foraging fin and blue 

whales to the same low frequency active 

sonar stimulus off southern California. 

Playbacks and control intervals with no 

transmission were used to investigate 

behavior and distribution on time scales 

of several weeks and spatial scales of 

tens of kilometers. The general 

conclusion was that whales remained 

feeding within a region for which 12 to 

30 percent of exposures exceeded 140 

dB. 

Frankel and Clark (1998) conducted 

playback experiments with wintering 

humpback whales using a single speaker 

producing a low-frequency ‘‘Msequence’’ (sine wave with multiplephase reversals) signal in the 60 to 90 

Hz band with output of 172 dB at 1 m. 

For 11 playbacks, exposures were 

between 120 and 130 dB re 1 μPa (rms) 

and included sufficient information 

regarding individual responses. During 

eight of the trials, there were no 

measurable differences in tracks or 

bearings relative to control conditions, 

whereas on three occasions, whales 

either moved slightly away from (n = 1) 

or towards (n = 2) the playback speaker 

during exposure. The presence of the 

source vessel itself had a greater effect 

than did the M-sequence playback. 

Finally, Nowacek et al. (2004) used 

controlled exposures to demonstrate 

behavioral reactions of northern right 

whales to various non-pulse sounds. 

Playback stimuli included ship noise, 

social sounds of conspecifics, and a 

complex, 18–min ‘‘alert’’ sound 

consisting of repetitions of three 

different artificial signals. Ten whales 

were tagged with calibrated instruments 

that measured received sound 

characteristics and concurrent animal 

movements in three dimensions. Five 

out of six exposed whales reacted 

strongly to alert signals at measured 

received levels between 130 and 150 dB 

(i.e., ceased foraging and swam rapidly 

to the surface). Two of these individuals 

were not exposed to ship noise, and the 

other four were exposed to both stimuli. 

These whales reacted mildly to 

conspecific signals. Seven whales, 

including the four exposed to the alert 

stimulus, had no measurable response 

to either ship sounds or actual vessel 

noise. 

Odontocetes - In reviewing responses 

of cetaceans with best hearing in midfrequency ranges, which includes 

toothed whales, Southall et al. (2007) 

reported that combined field and 

laboratory data for mid-frequency 

cetaceans exposed to non-pulse sounds 

did not lead to a clear conclusion about 

received levels coincident with various 

behavioral responses. In some settings, 

individuals in the field showed 

profound (significant) behavioral 

responses to exposures from 90 to 120 

dB, while others failed to exhibit such 

responses for exposure to received 

levels from 120 to 150 dB. Contextual 

variables other than exposure received 

level, and probable species differences, 

are the likely reasons for this variability. 

Context, including the fact that captive 

subjects were often directly reinforced 

with food for tolerating noise exposure, 

may also explain why there was great 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 24915 

disparity in results from field and 

laboratory conditions-exposures in 

captive settings generally exceeded 170 

dB before inducing behavioral 

responses. 

Dolphins and other toothed whales 

may show considerable tolerance of 

floating and bottom-founded drill rigs 

and their support vessels. Kapel (1979) 

reported many pilot whales within 

visual range of drillships and their 

support vessels off West Greenland. 

Beluga whales have been observed 

swimming within 100–150 m (328–492 

ft) of an artificial island while drilling 

was underway (Fraker and Fraker, 1979, 

1981), and within 1,600 m (1 mi) of the 

drillship Explorer I while the vessel was 

engaged in active drilling (Fraker and 

Fraker, 1981). Some belugas in Bristol 

Bay and Beaufort Sea, Alaska, when 

exposed to playbacks of drilling sounds, 

altered course to swim around the 

source, increased swimming speed, or 

reversed direction of travel (Stewart et 

al., 1982; Richardson et al., 1995). 

Reactions of beluga whales to semisubmersible drillship noise were less 

pronounced than were reactions to 

motorboats with outboard engines. 

Captive belugas exposed to playbacks of 

recorded semi-submersible noise 

seemed quite tolerant of that sound 

(Thomas et al., 1990). 

Morton and Symonds (2002) used 

census data on killer whales in British 

Columbia to evaluate avoidance of nonpulse acoustic harassment devices 

(AHDs). Avoidance ranges were about 4 

km (2.5 mi). Also, there was a dramatic 

reduction in the number of days 

‘‘resident’’ killer whales were sighted 

during AHD-active periods compared to 

pre- and post-exposure periods and a 

nearby control site. 

Harbor porpoise off Vancouver Island, 

British Columbia, were found to be 

sensitive to the simulated sound of a 2– 

megawatt offshore wind turbine 

(Koschinski et al., 2003). The porpoises 

remained significantly further away 

from the sound source when it was 

active, and this effect was seen out to a 

distance of 60 m (197 ft). The device 

used in that study produced sounds in 

the frequency range of 30 to 800 Hz, 

with peak source levels of 128 dB re 1 

μPa at 1 m at the 80- and 160–Hz 

frequencies. 

Some species of small toothed 

cetaceans avoid boats when they are 

approached to within 0.5–1.5 km (0.31– 

0.93 mi), with occasional reports of 

avoidance at greater distances 

(Richardson et al., 1995). Some toothed 

whale species appear to be more 

responsive than others. Beaked whales 

and beluga whales seem especially 

responsive to boats. Dolphins may 

tolerate boats of all sizes, often 

approaching and riding the bow and 

stern waves (Shane et al., 1986). At 

other times, dolphin species that are 

known to be attracted to boats will 

avoid them. Such avoidance is often 

linked to previous boat-based 

harassment of the animals (Richardson 

et al., 1995). Coastal bottlenose dolphins 

that are the object of whale-watching 

activities have been observed to swim 

erratically (Acevedo, 1991), remain 

submerged for longer periods of time 

(Janik and Thompson, 1996; Nowacek et 

al., 2001), display less cohesiveness 

among group members (Cope et al., 

1999), whistle more frequently (Scarpaci 

et al., 2000), and rest less often 

(Constantine et al., 2004) when boats 

were nearby. Pantropical spotted 

dolphins and spinner dolphins in the 

eastern Tropical Pacific, where they 

have been targeted by the tuna fishing 

industry because of their association 

with these fish, display avoidance of 

survey vessels up to 11.1 km (6.9 mi; Au 

and Perryman, 1982; Hewitt, 1985), 

whereas spinner dolphins in the Gulf of 

Mexico were observed bow riding the 

survey vessel in all 14 sightings of this 

species during one survey (Wursig et al., 

1998). 

Harbor porpoises tend to avoid boats. 

In the Bay of Fundy, Polacheck and 

Thorpe (1990) found harbor porpoises to 

be more likely to be swimming away 

from the transect line of their survey 

vessel than swimming toward it and 

more likely to be heading away from the 

vessel when they were within 400 m 

(1,312 ft). Similarly, off the west coast 

of North America, Barlow (1988) 

observed harbor porpoises avoiding a 

survey vessel by moving rapidly out of 

its path within 1 km (0.62 mi) of that 

vessel. Beluga whales are generally 

quite responsive to vessels. Belugas in 

Lancaster Sound in the Canadian Arctic 

showed dramatic reactions in response 

to icebreaking ships, with received 

levels of sound ranging from 101 dB to 

136 dB re 1 ?Pa in the 20 to 1,000–Hz 

band at a depth of 20 m (66 ft; Finley 

et al., 1990). Responses included 

emitting distinctive pulsive calls that 

were suggestive of excitement or alarm 

and rapid movement in what seemed to 

be a flight response. Reactions occurred 

out to 80 km (50 mi) from the ship. 

Another study found belugas to use 

higher-frequency calls, a greater 

redundancy in their calls (more calls 

emitted in a series), and a lower calling 

rate in the presence of vessels (Lesage et 

al., 1999). The level of response of 

belugas to vessels is partly a function of 

habituation. Sperm whales generally 

show no overt reactions to vessels 

unless approached within several 

hundred meters (Watkins and Schevill, 

1975; Wursig et al., 1998; Magalhaes et 

al., 2002). Observed reactions include 

spending more (Richter et al., 2003) or 

less (Watkins and Schevill, 1975) time 

at the surface, increasing swimming 

speed, or changing heading 

(Papastavrou et al., 1989; Richter et al., 

2003) and diving abruptly (Wursig et al., 

1998). 

Pinnipeds - Pinnipeds generally seem 

to be less responsive to exposure to 

industrial sound than most cetaceans. 

Pinniped responses to underwater 

sound from some types of industrial 

activities such as seismic exploration 

appear to be temporary and localized 

(Harris et al., 2001; Reiser et al., 2009). 

Responses of pinnipeds to drilling 

noise have not been well studied. 

Richardson et al. (1995) summarizes the 

few available studies, which showed 

ringed and bearded seals in the Arctic 

to be rather tolerant of drilling noise. 

Seals were often seen near active 

drillships and approached, to within 50 

m (164 ft), a sound projector 

broadcasting low-frequency drilling 

sound. 

Southall et al. (2007) reviewed 

literature describing responses of 

pinnipeds to non-pulsed sound and 

reported that the limited data suggest 

exposures between approximately 90 

and 140 dB generally do not appear to 

induce strong behavioral responses in 

pinnipeds exposed to non-pulse sounds 

in water; no data exist regarding 

exposures at higher levels. It is 

important to note that among these 

studies, there are some apparent 

differences in responses between field 

and laboratory conditions. In contrast to 

the mid-frequency odontocetes, captive 

pinnipeds responded more strongly at 

lower levels than did animals in the 

field. Again, contextual issues are the 

likely cause of this difference. 

Jacobs and Terhune (2002) observed 

harbor seal reactions to AHDs (source 

level in this study was 172 dB) 

deployed around aquaculture sites. 

Seals were generally unresponsive to 

sounds from the AHDs. During two 

specific events, individuals came within 

43 and 44 m (141 and 144 ft) of active 

AHDs and failed to demonstrate any 

measurable behavioral response; 

estimated received levels based on the 

measures given were approximately 120 

to 130 dB. 

Costa et al. (2003) measured received 

noise levels from an Acoustic 

Thermometry of Ocean Climate (ATOC) 

program sound source off northern 

California using acoustic data loggers 

placed on translocated elephant seals. 

Subjects were captured on land, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

24916 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 

transported to sea, instrumented with 

archival acoustic tags, and released such 

that their transit would lead them near 

an active ATOC source (at 939–m depth 

[0.6 mi]; 75–Hz signal with 37.5- Hz 

bandwidth; 195 dB maximum source 

level, ramped up from 165 dB over 20 

min) on their return to a haul-out site. 

Received exposure levels of the ATOC 

source for experimental subjects 

averaged 128 dB (range 118 to 137) in 

the 60- to 90–Hz band. None of the 

instrumented animals terminated dives 

or radically altered behavior upon 

exposure, but some statistically 

significant changes in diving parameters 

were documented in nine individuals. 

Translocated northern elephant seals 

exposed to this particular non-pulse 

source began to demonstrate subtle 

behavioral changes at exposure to 

received levels of approximately 120 to 

140 dB. 

Kastelein et al. (2006) exposed nine 

captive harbor seals in an approximately 

25 30 m (82 98 ft) enclosure to nonpulse sounds used in underwater data 

communication systems (similar to 

acoustic modems). Test signals were 

frequency modulated tones, sweeps, and 

bands of noise with fundamental 

frequencies between 8 and 16 kHz; 128 

to 130 [3] dB source levels; 1- to 2–s 

duration [60–80 percent duty cycle]; or 

100 percent duty cycle. They recorded 

seal positions and the mean number of 

individual surfacing behaviors during 

control periods (no exposure), before 

exposure, and in 15–min experimental 

sessions (n = 7 exposures for each sound 

type). Seals generally swam away from 

each source at received levels of 

approximately 107 dB, avoiding it by 

approximately 5 m (16 ft), although they 

did not haul out of the water or change 

surfacing behavior. Seal reactions did 

not appear to wane over repeated 

exposure (i.e., there was no obvious 

habituation), and the colony of seals 

generally returned to baseline 

conditions following exposure. The 

seals were not reinforced with food for 

remaining in the sound field. 

Reactions of harbor seals to the 

simulated noise of a 2–megawatt wind 

power generator were measured by 

Koschinski et al. (2003). Harbor seals 

surfaced significantly further away from 

the sound source when it was active and 

did not approach the sound source as 

closely. The device used in that study 

produced sounds in the frequency range 

of 30 to 800 Hz, with peak source levels 

of 128 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m at the 80- and 

160–Hz frequencies. 

Ship and boat noise do not seem to 

have strong effects on seals in the water, 

but the data are limited. When in the 

water, seals appear to be much less 

apprehensive about approaching 

vessels. Some will approach a vessel out 

of apparent curiosity, including noisy 

vessels such as those operating seismic 

airgun arrays (Moulton and Lawson, 

2002). Gray seals have been known to 

approach and follow fishing vessels in 

an effort to steal catch or the bait from 

traps. In contrast, seals hauled out on 

land often are quite responsive to 

nearby vessels. Terhune (1985) reported 

that northwest Atlantic harbor seals 

were extremely vigilant when hauled 

out and were wary of approaching (but 

less so passing) boats. Suryan and 

Harvey (1999) reported that Pacific 

harbor seals commonly left the shore 

when powerboat operators approached 

to observe the seals. Those seals 

detected a powerboat at a mean distance 

of 264 m (866 ft), and seals left the haulout site when boats approached to 

within 144 m (472 ft). 

Hearing Impairment and Other 

Physiological Effects 

Temporary or permanent hearing 

impairment is a possibility when marine 

mammals are exposed to very strong 

sounds. Non-auditory physiological 

effects might also occur in marine 

mammals exposed to strong underwater 

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. It is possible that some 

marine mammal species (i.e., beaked 

whales) may be especially susceptible to 

injury and/or stranding when exposed 

to strong pulsed sounds, particularly at 

higher frequencies. Non-auditory 

physiological effects are not anticipated 

to occur as a result of port operations or 

maintenance, as none of the activities 

associated with the Neptune Port will 

generate sounds loud enough to cause 

such effects. The following subsections 

discuss in somewhat more detail the 

possibilities of TTS and permanent 

threshold shift (PTS). 

TTS - TTS is the mildest form of 

hearing impairment that can occur 

during exposure to a strong sound 

(Kryter, 1985). While experiencing TTS, 

the hearing threshold rises and a sound 

must be stronger in order to be heard. 

At least in terrestrial mammals, TTS can 

last from minutes or hours to (in cases 

of strong TTS) days. For sound 

exposures at or somewhat above the 

TTS threshold, hearing sensitivity in 

both terrestrial and marine mammals 

recovers rapidly after exposure to the 

noise ends. Few data on sound levels 

and durations necessary to elicit mild 

TTS have been obtained for marine 

mammals, and none of the published 

data concern TTS elicited by exposure 

to multiple pulses of sound. 

Human non-impulsive noise exposure 

guidelines are based on exposures of 

equal energy (the same sound exposure 

level [SEL]) producing equal amounts of 

hearing impairment regardless of how 

the sound energy is distributed in time 

(NIOSH, 1998). Until recently, previous 

marine mammal TTS studies have also 

generally supported this equal energy 

relationship (Southall et al., 2007). 

Three newer studies, two by Mooney et 

al. (2009a,b) on a single bottlenose 

dolphin either exposed to playbacks of 

U.S. Navy mid-frequency active sonar or 

octave-band noise (4–8 kHz) and one by 

Kastak et al. (2007) on a single 

California sea lion exposed to airborne 

octave-band noise (centered at 2.5 kHz), 

concluded that for all noise exposure 

situations the equal energy relationship 

may not be the best indicator to predict 

TTS onset levels. Generally, with sound 

exposures of equal energy, those that 

were quieter (lower sound pressure 

level [SPL]) with longer duration were 

found to induce TTS onset more than 

those of louder (higher SPL) and shorter 

duration. Given the available data, the 

received level of a single seismic pulse 

(with no frequency weighting) might 

need to be approximately 186 dB re 1 

μPa2.s (i.e., 186 dB sound exposure level 

[SEL]) in order to produce brief, mild 

TTS. NMFS considers TTS to be a form 

of Level B harassment, which 

temporarily causes a shift in an animal’s 

hearing, and the animal is able to 

recover. Data on TTS from continuous 

sound (such as that produced by 

Neptune’s proposed Port activities) are 

limited, so the available data from 

seismic activities are used as a proxy. 

Exposure to several strong seismic 

pulses that each have received levels 

near 175–180 dB SEL might result in 

slight TTS in a small odontocete, 

assuming the TTS threshold is (to a first 

approximation) a function of the total 

received pulse energy. Given that the 

SPL is approximately 10–15 dB higher 

than the SEL value for the same pulse, 

an odontocete would need to be 

exposed to a sound level of 190 dB re 

1 μPa (rms) in order to incur TTS. 

TTS was measured in a single, captive 

bottlenose dolphin after exposure to a 

continuous tone with maximum SPLs at 

frequencies ranging from 4 to 11 kHz 

that were gradually increased in 

intensity to 179 dB re 1 μPa and in 

duration to 55 minutes (Nachtigall et al., 

2003). No threshold shifts were 

measured at SPLs of 165 or 171 dB re 

1 μPa. However, at 179 dB re 1 μPa, 

TTSs greater than 10 dB were measured 

during different trials with exposures 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 24917 

ranging from 47 to 54 minutes. Hearing 

sensitivity apparently recovered within 

45 minutes after noise exposure. 

For baleen whales, there are no data, 

direct or indirect, on levels or properties 

of sound that are required to induce 

TTS. The frequencies to which baleen 

whales are most sensitive are lower than 

those to which odontocetes are most 

sensitive, and natural background noise 

levels at those low frequencies tend to 

be higher. Marine mammals can hear 

sounds at varying frequency levels. 

However, sounds that are produced in 

the frequency range at which an animal 

hears the best do not need to be as loud 

as sounds in less functional frequencies 

to be detected by the animal. As a result, 

auditory thresholds of baleen whales 

within their frequency band of best 

hearing are believed to be higher (less 

sensitive) than are those of odontocetes 

at their best frequencies (Clark and 

Ellison, 2004), meaning that baleen 

whales require sounds to be louder (i.e., 

higher dB levels) than odontocetes in 

the frequency ranges at which each 

group hears the best. From this, it is 

suspected that received levels causing 

TTS onset may also be higher in baleen 

whales. Since current NMFS practice 

assumes the same thresholds for the 

onset of hearing impairment in both 

odontocetes and mysticetes, the 

threshold is likely conservative for 

mysticetes. 

In free-ranging pinnipeds, TTS 

thresholds associated with exposure to 

brief pulses (single or multiple) of 

underwater sound have not been 

measured. However, systematic TTS 

studies on captive pinnipeds have been 

conducted (Bowles et al., 1999; Kastak 

et al., 1999, 2005, 2007; Schusterman et 

al., 2000; Finneran et al., 2003; Southall 

et al., 2007). Kastak et al. (1999) 

reported TTS of approximately 4–5 dB 

in three species of pinnipeds (harbor 

seal, Californian sea lion, and northern 

elephant seal) after underwater 

exposure for approximately 20 minutes 

to noise with frequencies ranging from 

100 Hz to 2,000 Hz at received levels 

60–75 dB above hearing threshold. This 

approach allowed similar effective 

exposure conditions to each of the 

subjects, but resulted in variable 

absolute exposure values depending on 

subject and test frequency. Recovery to 

near baseline levels was reported within 

24 hours of noise exposure (Kastak et 

al., 1999). Kastak et al. (2005) followed 

up on their previous work using higher 

sensitive levels and longer exposure 

times (up to 50–min) and corroborated 

their previous findings. The sound 

exposures necessary to cause slight 

threshold shifts were also determined 

for two California sea lions and a 

juvenile elephant seal exposed to 

underwater sound for similar duration. 

The sound level necessary to cause TTS 

in pinnipeds depends on exposure 

duration, as in other mammals; with 

longer exposure, the level necessary to 

elicit TTS is reduced (Schusterman et 

al., 2000; Kastak et al., 2005, 2007). For 

very short exposures (e.g., to a single 

sound pulse), the level necessary to 

cause TTS is very high (Finneran et al., 

2003). For pinnipeds exposed to in-air 

sounds, auditory fatigue has been 

measured in response to single pulses 

and to non-pulse noise (Southall et al., 

2007), although high exposure levels 

were required to induce TTS-onset 

(SEL: 129 dB re: 20 μPa2.s; Bowles et 

al., unpub. data). 

NMFS (1995, 2000) concluded that 

cetaceans and pinnipeds should not be 

exposed to pulsed underwater noise at 

received levels exceeding, respectively, 

180 and 190 dB re 1 μPa (rms). The 

established 180- and 190–dB re 1 μPa 

(rms) criteria are not considered to be 

the levels above which TTS might 

occur. Rather, they are the received 

levels above which, in the view of a 

panel of bioacoustics specialists 

convened by NMFS before TTS 

measurements for marine mammals 

started to become available, one could 

not be certain that there would be no 

injurious effects, auditory or otherwise, 

to marine mammals. Since the modeled 

broadband source level for 100 percent 

thruster use during port operations is 

180 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m (rms), it is highly 

unlikely that marine mammals would be 

exposed to sound levels at the 180- or 

190–dB thresholds. 

PTS - When PTS occurs, there is 

physical damage to the sound receptors 

in the ear. In some cases, there can be 

total or partial deafness, whereas in 

other cases, the animal has an impaired 

ability to hear sounds in specific 

frequency ranges. 

There is no specific evidence that 

exposure to underwater industrial 

sound can cause PTS in any marine 

mammal (see Southall et al., 2007). 

However, given the possibility that 

mammals might incur TTS, there has 

been further speculation about the 

possibility that some individuals 

occurring very close to such activities 

might incur PTS. Richardson et al. 

(1995) hypothesized that PTS caused by 

prolonged exposure to continuous 

anthropogenic sound is unlikely to 

occur in marine mammals, at least for 

sounds with source levels up to 

approximately 200 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m 

(rms). Single or occasional occurrences 

of mild TTS are not indicative of 

permanent auditory damage in 

terrestrial mammals. Relationships 

between TTS and PTS thresholds have 

not been studied in marine mammals 

but are assumed to be similar to those 

in humans and other terrestrial 

mammals. PTS might occur at a 

received sound level at least several 

decibels above that inducing mild TTS. 

It is highly unlikely that marine 

mammals could receive sounds strong 

enough (and over a sufficient duration) 

to cause PTS (or even TTS) during the 

proposed port operations and 

maintenance/repair activities. The 

modeled broadband source level for 100 

percent thruster use during port 

operations is 180 dB re 1 μPa at 1 m 

(rms). This does not reach the threshold 

of 190 dB currently used for pinnipeds. 

The threshold for cetaceans is 180 dB; 

therefore, cetaceans would have to be 

immediately adjacent to the vessel for 

even the possibility of hearing 

impairment to occur. Based on this and 

mitigation measures proposed for 

inclusion in the IHA (described later in 

this document in the ‘‘Proposed 

Mitigation’’ section), it is highly unlikely 

that any type of hearing impairment 

would occur as a result of Neptune’s 

proposed activities. 

Additionally, the potential effects to 

marine mammals described in this 

section of the document do not take into 

consideration the proposed monitoring 

and mitigation measures described later 

in this document (see the ‘‘Proposed 

Mitigation’’ and ‘‘Proposed Monitoring 

and Reporting’’ sections). 

Anticipated Effects on Habitat 

The primary potential impacts to 

marine mammals and other marine 

species are associated with elevated 

sound levels produced by the Port 

operations and maintenance/repair 

activities. However, other potential 

impacts from physical disturbance are 

also possible. 

Potential Impacts from Repairs 

Major repairs to the Neptune port and 

pipeline may affect marine mammal 

habitat in several ways: cause 

disturbance of the seafloor; increase 

turbidity slightly; and generate 

additional underwater sound in the 

area. Sediment transport modeling 

conducted by Neptune on construction 

procedures indicated that initial 

turbidity from installation of the 

pipeline could reach 100 milligrams per 

liter (mg/L), but will subside to 20 mg/ 

L after 4 hours. Turbidity associated 

with the flowline and hot-tap will be 

considerably less and also will settle 

within hours of the work being 

completed. Therefore, any increase in 

turbidity from a major repair during 

operations is anticipated to be 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

24918 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 

insignificant. Repair activities will not 

create long-term habitat changes, and 

marine mammals displaced by the 

disturbance to the seafloor are expected 

to return soon after the repair is 

completed. 

During repair of the Neptune port and 

the pipeline, underwater sound levels 

will be temporarily elevated. These 

underwater sound levels will cause 

some species to temporarily disperse 

from or avoid repair areas, but they are 

expected to return shortly after the 

repair is completed. 

Based on the foregoing, repair 

activities will not create long-term 

habitat changes, and marine mammals 

displaced by the disturbance to the 

seafloor are expected to return soon 

after repair activities cease. Marine 

mammals also could be indirectly 

affected if benthic prey species were 

displaced or destroyed by repair 

activities. However, affected species are 

expected to recover soon after the 

completion of repairs and will represent 

only a small portion of food available to 

marine mammals in the area. 

Potential Impacts from Operation 

Operation of the Port will result in 

long-term, continued disturbance of the 

seafloor, regular withdrawal of seawater, 

and generation of underwater sound. 

Seafloor Disturbance: The structures 

associated with the Port (flowline and 

pipeline, unloading buoys and chains, 

suction anchors) will be permanent 

modifications to the seafloor. Up to 63.7 

acres (0.25 km2) of additional seafloor 

will be subject to disturbance due to 

chain and flexible riser sweep while the 

buoys are occupied by SRVs. 

Ballast and Cooling Water 

Withdrawal: Withdrawal of ballast and 

cooling water at the Port as the SRV 

unloads cargo (approximately 2.39 

million gallons per day) could 

potentially entrain zooplankton and 

ichthyoplankton that serve as prey for 

whale species. This estimate includes 

the combined seawater intake while two 

SRVs are moored at the Port 

(approximately 9 hr every 6 days). The 

estimated zooplankton abundance in the 

vicinity of the seawater intake ranges 

from 25.6–105 individuals per gallon 

(Libby et al., 2004). This means that the 

daily intake will remove approximately 

61.2–251 million individual 

zooplankton per day, the equivalent of 

approximately 3.47–14.2 kg (7.65–31.4 

lbs). Since zooplankton are short-lived 

species (e.g., most copepods live from 1 

wk to several months), these amounts 

will be indistinguishable from natural 

variability. 

In the long-term, approximately 64.6 

acres (0.26 km2) of seafloor will be 

permanently disturbed to accommodate 

the Port (including the associated 

pipeline). The area disturbed because of 

long-term chain and riser sweep 

includes 63.7 acres (0.25 km2) of soft 

sediment. This area will be similar in 

calm seas and in hurricane conditions. 

The chain weight will restrict the 

movement of the buoy or the vessel 

moored on the buoy. An additional 0.9 

acre (0.004 km2) of soft sediments will 

be converted to hard substrate. The total 

affected area will be small compared to 

the soft sediments available in the 

proposed project area. Long-term 

disturbance from installation of the Port 

will comprise approximately 0.3 percent 

of the estimated 24,000 acres (97 km2) 

of similar bottom habitat surrounding 

the project area (northeast sector of 

Massachusetts Bay). 

It is likely that displaced organisms 

will not return to the area of continual 

chain and riser sweep. A shift in benthic 

faunal community is expected in areas 

where soft sediment is converted to 

hard substrate (Algonquin Gas 

Transmission LLC, 2005). This impact 

will be beneficial for species that prefer 

hard-bottom structure and adverse for 

species that prefer soft sediment. 

Overall, because of the relatively small 

areas that will be affected compared to 

the overall size of Massachusetts Bay, 

impacts on soft-bottom communities are 

expected to be minimal. 

Daily removal of seawater will reduce 

the food resources available for 

planktivorous organisms. The marine 

mammal species in the area have fairly 

broad diets and are not dependent on 

any single species for survival. Because 

of the relatively low biomass that will 

be entrained by the Port, the broad diet, 

and broad availability of organisms in 

the proposed project area, indirect 

impacts on the food web that result from 

entrainment of planktonic fish and 

shellfish eggs and larvae are expected to 

be minor and therefore should have 

minimal impact on affected marine 

mammal species or stocks. 

Potential Impacts from Sound 

Generation 

The groups of important fish, which 

include those that constitute prey for 

some of the marine mammals found in 

the project area, that occur in the 

vicinity of the Neptune Port are 

comprised of species showing 

considerable diversity in hearing 

sensitivity, anatomical features related 

to sound detection (e.g., swim bladder, 

connections between swim bladder and 

ear), habitat preference, and life history. 

Neptune’s application contains a 

discussion on sound production, sound 

detection, and variability of fish hearing 

sensitivities. Please refer to the 

application (see ADDRESSES) for the full 

discussion. A few summary paragraphs 

are provided here for reference. 

Fishes produce sounds that are 

associated with behaviors that include 

territoriality, mate search, courtship, 

and aggression. It has also been 

speculated that sound production may 

provide the means for long distance 

communication and communication 

under poor underwater visibility 

conditions (Zelick et al., 1999), although 

the fact that fish communicate at lowfrequency sound levels where the 

masking effects of ambient noise are 

naturally highest suggests that very long 

distance communication would rarely 

be possible. Fishes have evolved a 

diversity of sound generating organs and 

acoustic signals of various temporal and 

spectral contents. Fish sounds vary in 

structure, depending on the mechanism 

used to produce them (Hawkins, 1993). 

Generally, fish sounds are 

predominantly composed of low 

frequencies (less than 3 kHz). 

Since objects in the water scatter 

sound, fish are able to detect these 

objects through monitoring the ambient 

noise. Therefore, fish are probably able 

to detect prey, predators, conspecifics, 

and physical features by listening to the 

environmental sounds (Hawkins, 1981). 

There are two sensory systems that 

enable fish to monitor the vibrationbased information of their surroundings. 

The two sensory systems, the inner ear 

and the lateral line, constitute the 

acoustico-lateralis system. 

Although the hearing sensitivities of 

very few fish species have been studied 

to date, it is becoming obvious that the 

intra- and inter-specific variability is 

considerable (Coombs, 1981). Nedwell 

et al. (2004) compiled and published 

available fish audiogram information. A 

noninvasive electrophysiological 

recording method known as auditory 

brainstem response (ABR) is now 

commonly used in the production of 

fish audiograms (Yan, 2004). Generally, 

most fish have their best hearing (lowest 

auditory thresholds) in the lowfrequency range (i.e., less than 1 kHz). 

Even though some fish are able to detect 

sounds in the ultrasonic frequency 

range, the thresholds at these higher 

frequencies tend to be considerably 

higher than those at the lower end of the 

auditory frequency range. This 

generalization applies to the fish species 

occurring in the Neptune Port area. 

Table 9–1 in Neptune’s application (see 

ADDRESSES) outlines the measured 

auditory sensitivities of fish that are 

most relevant to the Neptune Port area. 

Literature relating to the impacts of 

sound on marine fish species can be 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 24919 

divided into the following categories: (1) 

pathological effects; (2) physiological 

effects; and (3) behavioral effects. 

Pathological effects include lethal and 

sub-lethal physical damage to fish; 

physiological effects include primary 

and secondary stress responses; and 

behavioral effects include changes in 

exhibited behaviors of fish. Behavioral 

changes might be a direct reaction to a 

detected sound or a result of the 

anthropogenic sound masking natural 

sounds that the fish normally detect and 

to which they respond. The three types 

of effects are often interrelated in 

complex ways. For example, some 

physiological and behavioral effects 

could potentially lead to the ultimate 

pathological effect of mortality. Hastings 

and Popper (2005) reviewed what is 

known about the effects of sound on 

fishes and identified studies needed to 

address areas of uncertainty relative to 

measurement of sound and the 

responses of fishes. Popper et al. (2003/ 

2004) also published a paper that 

reviews the effects of anthropogenic 

sound on the behavior and physiology 

of fishes. 

The following discussions of the three 

primary types of potential effects on fish 

from exposure to sound consider 

continuous sound sources since such 

sounds will be generated by operation 

and repair activities associated with the 

Neptune Project. Note that most 

research reported in the literature 

focuses on the effects of seismic airguns 

which produce pulsed sounds. A full 

discussion is provided in Neptune’s 

application (see ADDRESSES), and a 

summary is provided here. 

Potential effects of exposure to 

continuous sound on marine fish 

include TTS, physical damage to the ear 

region, physiological stress responses, 

and behavioral responses such as startle 

response, alarm response, avoidance, 

and perhaps lack of response due to 

masking of acoustic cues. Most of these 

effects appear to be either temporary or 

intermittent and therefore probably do 

not significantly impact the fish at a 

population level. The studies that 

resulted in physical damage to the fish 

ears used noise exposure levels and 

durations that were far more extreme 

than would be encountered under 

conditions similar to those expected at 

the Neptune Port. 

The known effects of underwater 

noise on fish have been reviewed. The 

noise levels that are necessary to cause 

temporary hearing loss and damage to 

hearing are higher and last longer than 

noise that will be produced at Neptune. 

The situation for disturbance responses 

is less clear. Fish do react to underwater 

noise from vessels and move out of the 

way, move to deeper depths, or change 

their schooling behavior. The received 

levels at which fish react are not known 

and apparently are somewhat variable 

depending upon circumstances and 

species of fish. In order to assess the 

possible effects of underwater project 

noise, it is best to examine project noise 

in relation to continuous noises 

routinely produced by other projects 

and activities such as shipping, fishing, 

etc. 

The two long-term sources of 

continuous noise associated with the 

project are the ship transits between the 

Boston shipping lanes and the 

unloading buoys and the regasification 

process at the carriers when moored to 

the unloading buoys. Noise levels 

associated with these two activities are 

relatively low and unlikely to have any 

effect on prey species in the area. One 

other activity expected to produce short 

periods of continuous noise is the 

carrier maneuvering bouts at the Port. 

Although this activity is louder, it is 

still less than the noise levels associated 

with large ships at cruising speed. The 

carrier maneuvering using the ship’s 

thrusters would produce short periods 

of louder noise for 10 to 30 minutes 

every 4 to 8 days. On average, these 

thruster noises would be heard about 20 

hours per year. Even in the unlikely 

event that these two activities caused 

disturbance to marine fish, the short 

periods of time involved serve to 

minimize the effects. 

In conclusion, NMFS has 

preliminarily determined that Neptune’s 

proposed port operations and 

maintenance/repair activities are not 

expected to have any habitat-related 

effects that could cause significant or 

long-term consequences for individual 

marine mammals or on the food sources 

that they utilize. 

Proposed Mitigation 

In order to issue an incidental take 

authorization (ITA) under Sections 

101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA, 

NMFS must, where applicable, set forth 

the permissible methods of taking 

pursuant to such activity, and other 

means of effecting the least practicable 

impact on such species or stock and its 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance, and on the 

availability of such species or stock for 

taking for certain subsistence uses 

(where relevant). 

Mitigation Measures Proposed in 

Neptune’s IHA Application 

Neptune submitted a ‘‘Marine 

Mammal Detection, Monitoring, and 

Response Plan for the Operations Phase’’ 

(the Plan) as part of its MMPA 

application (Appendix D of the 

application; see ADDRESSES). The 

measures, which include safety zones 

and vessel speed reductions, are fully 

described in the Plan and summarized 

here. Any maintenance and/or repairs 

needed will be scheduled in advance 

during the May 1 to November 30 

seasonal window, whenever possible, so 

that disturbance to North Atlantic right 

whales will be largely avoided. If the 

repair cannot be scheduled during this 

time frame, additional mitigation 

measures are proposed. 

(1) Mitigation Measures for Major 

Repairs (May 1 to November 30) 

(A) During repairs, if a marine 

mammal is detected within 0.5 mi (0.8 

km) of the repair vessel, the vessel 

superintendent or on-deck supervisor 

will be notified immediately. The 

vessel’s crew will be put on a 

heightened state of alert. The marine 

mammal will be monitored constantly 

to determine if it is moving toward the 

repair area. 

(B) Repair vessels will cease any 

movement in the area if a marine 

mammal other than a right whale is 

sighted within or approaching to a 

distance of 100 yd (91 m) from the 

operating repair vessel. Repair vessels 

will cease any movement in the 

construction area if a right whale is 

sighted within or approaching to a 

distance of 500 yd (457 m) from the 

operating vessel. Vessels transiting the 

repair area, such as pipe haul barge tugs, 

will also be required to maintain these 

separation distances. 

(C) Repair vessels will cease all sound 

emitting activities if a marine mammal 

other than a right whale is sighted 

within or approaching to a distance of 

100 yd (91 m) or if a right whale is 

sighted within or approaching to a 

distance of 500 yd (457 m), from the 

operating repair vessel. The backcalculated source level, based on the 

most conservative cylindrical model of 

acoustic energy spreading, is estimated 

to be 139 dB re 1 μPa. 

(D) Repair activities may resume after 

the marine mammal is positively 

reconfirmed outside the established 

zones (either 500 yd (457 m) or 100 yd 

(91 m), depending upon species). 

(E) While under way, all repair 

vessels will remain 500 yd (457 m) away 

from right whales and 100 yd (91 m) 

away from all other marine mammals to 

the extent physically feasible given 

navigational constraints. 

(F) All repair vessels 300 gross tons or 

greater will maintain a speed of 10 knots 

(18.5 km/hr) or less. Vessels less than 

300 gross tons carrying supplies or crew 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

24920 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 

between the shore and the repair site 

will contact the Mandatory Ship 

Reporting System (MSRS), the USCG, or 

the marine mammal observers (MMOs) 

at the repair site before leaving shore for 

reports of recent right whale sightings or 

active Dynamic Management Areas 

(DMAs) and, consistent with navigation 

safety, restrict speeds to 10 knots (18.5 

km/hr) or less within 5 mi (8 km) of any 

recent sighting location and within any 

existing DMA. 

(G) Vessels transiting through the 

Cape Cod Canal and CCB between 

January 1 and May 15 will reduce 

speeds to 10 knots (18.5 km/hr) or less, 

follow the recommended routes charted 

by NOAA to reduce interactions 

between right whales and shipping 

traffic, and avoid aggregations of right 

whales in the eastern portion of CCB. 

(2) Additional Port and Pipeline Major 

Repair Measures (December 1 to April 

30) 

If unplanned/emergency repair 

activities cannot be conducted between 

May 1 and November 30, Neptune has 

proposed to implement the following 

additional mitigation measures: 

(A) If on-board MMOs do not have at 

least 0.5–mi (0.8–km) visibility, they 

shall call for a shutdown of repair 

activities. If dive operations are in 

progress, then they shall be halted and 

brought on board until visibility is 

adequate to see a 0.5–mi (0.8–km) range. 

At the time of shutdown, the use of 

thrusters must be minimized. If there 

are potential safety problems due to the 

shutdown, the captain will decide what 

operations can safely be shut down and 

will document such activities. 

(B) Prior to leaving the dock to begin 

transit, the barge will contact one of the 

MMOs on watch to receive an update of 

sightings within the visual observation 

area. If the MMO has observed a North 

Atlantic right whale within 30 minutes 

of the transit start, the vessel will hold 

for 30 minutes and again get a clearance 

to leave from the MMOs on board. 

MMOs will assess whale activity and 

visual observation ability at the time of 

the transit request to clear the barge for 

release. 

(C) A half-day training course will be 

provided to designated crew members 

assigned to the transit barges and other 

support vessels. These designated crew 

members will be required to keep watch 

on the bridge and immediately notify 

the navigator of any whale sightings. All 

watch crew will sign into a bridge log 

book upon start and end of watch. 

Transit route, destination, sea 

conditions, and any protected species 

sightings/mitigation actions during 

watch will be recorded in the log book. 

Any whale sightings within 3,281 ft 

(1,000 m) of the vessel will result in a 

high alert and slow speed of 4 knots (7.4 

km/hr) or less. A sighting within 2,461 

ft (750 m) will result in idle speed and/ 

or ceasing all movement. 

(D) The material barges and tugs used 

for repair work shall transit from the 

operations dock to the work sites during 

daylight hours, when possible, provided 

the safety of the vessels is not 

compromised. Should transit at night be 

required, the maximum speed of the tug 

will be 5 knots (9.3 km/hr). 

(E) Consistent with navigation safety, 

all repair vessels must maintain a speed 

of 10 knots (18.5 km/hr) or less during 

daylight hours. All vessels will operate 

at 5 knots or less at all times within 3.1 

mi (5 km) of the repair area. 

(3) Speed Restrictions in Seasonal 

Management Areas (SMAs) 

Repair vessels and SRVs will transit at 

10 knots (18.5 km/hr) or less in the 

following seasons and areas, which 

either correspond to or are more 

restrictive than the times and areas in 

NMFS’ final rule (73 FR 60173, October 

10, 2008) to implement speed 

restrictions to reduce the likelihood and 

severity of ship strikes of right whales: 

• CCB SMA from January 1 through 

May 15, which includes all waters in 

CCB, extending to all shorelines of the 

Bay, with a northern boundary of 42° 

12’ N. latitude; 

• Off Race Point SMA year round, 

which is bounded by straight lines 

connecting the following coordinates in 

the order stated: 42° 30’ N. 69° 45’ W.; 

thence to 42° 30’ N. 70° 30’ W.; thence 

to 42° 12’ N. 70° 30’ W.; thence to 42° 

12’ N. 70° 12’ W.; thence to 42° 04’ 

56.5’’ N. 70° 12’ W.; thence along mean 

high water line and inshore limits of 

COLREGS limit to a latitude of 41° 40’ 

N.; thence due east to 41° 41’ N. 69° 45’ 

W.; thence back to starting point; and 

• GSC SMA from April 1 through July 

31, which is bounded by straight lines 

connecting the following coordinates in 

the order stated: 

42° 30’ N. 69° 45’ W. 

41° 40’ N. 69° 45’ W. 

41° 00’ N. 69° 05’ W. 

42° 09’ N. 67° 08’ 24’’ W. 

42° 30’ N. 67° 27’ W. 

42° 30’ N. 69° 45’ W. 

(4) Additional Mitigation Measures 

(A) In approaching and departing 

from the Neptune Port, SRVs shall use 

the Boston Traffic Separation Scheme 

(TSS) starting and ending at the 

entrance to the GSC. Upon entering the 

TSS, the SRV shall go into a ‘‘heightened 

awareness’’ mode of operation, which is 

outlined in great detail in the Plan (see 

Neptune’s application). 

(B) In the event that a whale is 

visually observed within 0.6 mi (1 km) 

of the Port or a confirmed acoustic 

detection is reported on either of the 

two auto-detection buoys (ABs; more 

information on the acoustic devices is 

contained in the ‘‘Proposed Monitoring 

and Reporting’’ section later in this 

document) closest to the Port, departing 

SRVs shall delay their departure from 

the Port, unless extraordinary 

circumstances, defined in the Plan, 

require that the departure is not 

delayed. The departure delay shall 

continue until either the observed whale 

has been visually (during daylight 

hours) confirmed as more than 0.6 mi (1 

km) from the Port or 30 minutes have 

passed without another confirmed 

detection either acoustically within the 

acoustic detection range of the two ABs 

closest to the Port or visually within 0.6 

mi (1 km) from Neptune. 

(C) SRVs that are approaching or 

departing from the Port and are within 

the Area to be Avoided (ATBA) 

surrounding Neptune shall remain at 

least 0.6 mi (1 km) away from any 

visually detected right whales and at 

least 100 yards (91 meters) away from 

all other visually detected whales unless 

extraordinary circumstances, as defined 

in Section 1.2 of the Plan in Neptune’s 

application, require that the vessel stay 

its course. The ATBA is defined in 33 

CFR 150.940. It is the largest area of the 

Port marked on nautical charts and it is 

enforceable by the USCG in accordance 

with the 150.900 regulations. The Vessel 

Master shall designate at least one 

lookout to be exclusively and 

continuously monitoring for the 

presence of marine mammals at all 

times while the SRV is approaching or 

departing Neptune. 

(D) Neptune will ensure that other 

vessels providing support to Neptune 

operations during regasification 

activities that are approaching or 

departing from the Port and are within 

the ATBA shall be operated so as to 

remain at least 0.6 mi (1 km) away from 

any visually detected right whales and 

at least 100 yd (91 m) from all other 

visually detected whales. 

Additional Mitigation Measures 

Proposed by NMFS 

In addition to the mitigation measures 

proposed in Neptune’s IHA application, 

NMFS proposes the following measures 

be included in the IHA, if issued, in 

order to ensure the least practicable 

impact on the affected species or stocks: 

(1) Neptune must immediately 

suspend any repair and maintenance or 

operations activities if a dead or injured 

marine mammal is found in the vicinity 

of the project area, and the death or 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 24921 

injury of the animal could be 

attributable to the LNG facility 

activities. Neptune must contact NMFS 

and the Northeast Stranding and 

Disentanglement Program. Activities 

will not resume until review and 

approval has been given by NMFS. 

(2) MMOs will direct a moving vessel 

to slow to idle if a baleen whale is seen 

less than 0.6 mi (1 km) from the vessel. 

(3) Use of lights during repair or 

maintenance activities shall be limited 

to areas where work is actually 

occurring, and all other lights must be 

extinguished. Lights must be 

downshielded to illuminate the deck 

and shall not intentionally illuminate 

surrounding waters, so as not to attract 

whales or their prey to the area. 

Mitigation Conclusions 

NMFS has carefully evaluated the 

applicant’s proposed mitigation 

measures and considered a range of 

other measures in the context of 

ensuring that NMFS prescribes 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. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, as well 

as other measures considered 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 and Reporting 

In order to issue an ITA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must, where 

applicable, 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 

ITAs must include the suggested means 

of accomplishing the necessary 

monitoring and reporting that will result 

in increased knowledge of the species 

and of the level of taking or impacts on 

populations of marine mammals that are 

expected to be present in the proposed 

action area. 

Neptune proposed both visual and 

acoustic monitoring programs in the 

Plan contained in the IHA application. 

Summaries of those plans, as well as the 

proposed reporting, are contained next. 

Passive Acoustic Monitoring 

Neptune LNG will deploy and 

maintain a passive acoustic detection 

network along a portion of the TSS and 

in the vicinity of Neptune. This network 

will consisting of autonomous recording 

units (ARUs) and near-real-time ABs. To 

develop, implement, collect, and 

analyze the acoustic data obtained from 

deployment of the ARUs and ABs, as 

well as to prepare reports and maintain 

the passive acoustic detection network, 

Neptune LNG has engaged the Cornell 

University Bioacoustic Research 

Program (BRP) in Ithaca, New York, and 

the Woods Hole Oceanographic 

Institution (WHOI) in Woods Hole, 

Massachusetts. 

During June 2008, an array of 19 

passive seafloor ARUs was deployed by 

BRP for Neptune. The layout of the 

array centered on the terminal site and 

was used to monitor the noise 

environment in Massachusetts Bay in 

the vicinity of Neptune during 

construction of the port and associated 

pipeline lateral. The ARUs were not 

designed to provide real-time or nearreal-time information about vocalizing 

whales. Rather archival noise data 

collected from the ARU array were used 

for the purpose of understanding the 

seasonal occurrences and overall 

distributions of whales (primarily North 

Atlantic right whales) within 

approximately 10 nm (18.5 km) of the 

Neptune Port. Neptune LNG will 

maintain these ARUs in the same 

configuration for a period of five years 

during full operation of Neptune in 

order to monitor the actual acoustic 

output of port operations and to alert 

NOAA to any unanticipated adverse 

effects of port operations, such as large 

scale abandonment by marine mammals 

of the area. To further assist in 

evaluations of the Neptune’s acoustic 

output, source levels associated with DP 

of SRVs at the buoys will be estimated 

using empirical measurements collected 

from the passive detection network. 

In addition to the ARUs, Neptune 

LNG has deployed 10 ABs within the 

Separation Zone of the TSS for the 

operational life of the Port. The purpose 

of the AB array is to detect the presence 

of vocalizing North Atlantic right 

whales. Each AB has an average 

detection range of 5 nm (9.3 km) of the 

AB, although detection ranges will vary 

based on ambient underwater 

conditions. The AB system will be the 

primary detection mechanism that alerts 

the SRV Master to the occurrence of 

right whales in the TSS and triggers 

heightened SRV awareness. The 

configurations of the ARU array and AB 

network (see Figure 3 in the Plan in 

Neptune’s application) were based upon 

the configurations developed and 

recommended by NOAA personnel. 

Each AB deployed in the TSS will 

continuously screen the low-frequency 

acoustic environment (less than 1,000 

Hz) for right whale contact calls 

occurring within an approximately 

5–nm (9.3–km) radius from each buoy 

(the ABs’ detection range) and rank 

detections on a scale from 1 to 10. Each 

AB shall transmit all detection data for 

detections of rank greater than or equal 

to 6 via Iridium satellite link to the BRP 

server website every 20 minutes. This 

20–minute transmission schedule was 

determined by consideration of a 

combination of factors including the 

tendency of right whale calls to occur in 

clusters (leading to a sampling logic of 

listening for other calls rather than 

transmitting immediately upon 

detection of a possible call) and the 

amount of battery power required to 

complete a satellite transmission. 

Additional details on the protocol can 

be found in Neptune’s application. 

Additionally, Neptune shall provide 

empirically measured source level data 

for all sources of noise associated with 

LNG port maintenance and repair 

activities. Measurements should be 

carefully coordinated with noiseproducing activities and should be 

collected from the passive acoustic 

monitoring network. 

Visual Monitoring 

During maintenance- and repairrelated activities, Neptune LNG shall 

employ two qualified MMOs on each 

vessel that has a DP system. All MMOs 

must receive training and be approved 

in advance by NOAA after a review of 

their qualifications. Qualifications for 

these MMOs shall include direct field 

experience on a marine mammal 

observation vessel and/or aerial surveys 

in the Atlantic Ocean/Gulf of Mexico. 

The MMOs (one primary and one 

secondary) are responsible for visually 

locating marine mammals at the ocean’s 

surface and, to the extent possible, 

identifying the species. The primary 

MMO shall act as the identification 

specialist, and the secondary MMO will 

serve as data recorder and will assist 

with identification. Both MMOs shall 

have responsibility for monitoring for 

the presence of marine mammals. 

The MMOs shall monitor the area 

where maintenance and repair work is 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

24922 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 

conducted beginning at daybreak using 

the naked eye, hand-held binoculars, 

and/or power binoculars (e.g, Big Eyes). 

The MMOs shall scan the ocean surface 

by eye for a minimum of 40 minutes 

every hour. All sightings must be 

recorded on marine mammal field 

sighting logs. 

While an SRV is navigating within the 

designated TSS, three people have 

lookout duties on or near the bridge of 

the ship including the SRV Master, the 

Officer-of-the-Watch, and the Helmsman 

on watch. In addition to standard watch 

procedures, while the SRV is within the 

ATBA and/or while actively engaging in 

the use of thrusters an additional 

lookout shall be designated to 

exclusively and continuously monitor 

for marine mammals. Once the SRV is 

moored and regasification activities 

have begun, the vessel is no longer 

considered in ‘‘heightened awareness’’ 

status. However, when regasification 

activities conclude and the SRV 

prepares to depart from Neptune, the 

Master shall once again ensure that the 

responsibilities as defined in the Plan 

are carried out. All sightings of marine 

mammals by the designated lookout, 

individuals posted to navigational 

lookout duties, and/or any other crew 

member while the SRV is within the 

TSS, in transit to the ATBA, within the 

ATBA, and/or when actively engaging 

in the use of thrusters shall be 

immediately reported to the Officer-ofthe-Watch who shall then alert the 

Master. 

Reporting Measures 

Since the Neptune Port is within the 

Mandatory Ship Reporting Area 

(MSRA), all SRVs transiting to and from 

Neptune shall report their activities to 

the mandatory reporting section of the 

USCG to remain apprised of North 

Atlantic right whale movements within 

the area. All vessels entering and exiting 

the MSRA shall report their activities to 

WHALESNORTH. Vessel operators shall 

contact the USCG by standard 

procedures promulgated through the 

Notice to Mariner system. 

For any repair work associated with 

the pipeline lateral or other port 

components, Neptune LNG shall notify 

the appropriate NOAA personnel as 

soon as practicable after it is determined 

that repair work must be conducted. 

During maintenance and repair of the 

pipeline lateral or other port 

components, weekly status reports must 

be provided to NOAA. The weekly 

report must include data collected for 

each distinct marine mammal species 

observed in the project area during the 

period of the repair activity. The weekly 

reports shall include the following: 

• The location, time, and nature of 

the pipeline lateral repair activities; 

• Whether the DP system was 

operated and, if so, the number of 

thrusters used and the time and 

duration of DP operation; 

• Marine mammals observed in the 

area (number, species, age group, and 

initial behavior); 

• The distance of observed marine 

mammals from the repair activities; 

• Observed marine mammal 

behaviors during the sighting; 

• Whether any mitigation measures 

were implemented; 

• Weather conditions (sea state, wind 

speed, wind direction, ambient 

temperature, precipitation, and percent 

cloud cover, etc.); 

• Condition of the marine mammal 

observation (visibility and glare); and 

• Details of passive acoustic 

detections and any action taken in 

response to those detections. 

For minor repairs and maintenance 

activities, the following protocols will 

be followed: 

• All vessel crew members will be 

trained in marine mammal 

identification and avoidance 

procedures; 

• Repair vessels will notify 

designated NOAA personnel when and 

where the repair/maintenance work is to 

take place along with a tentative 

schedule and description of the work; 

• Vessel crews will record/document 

any marine mammal sightings during 

the work period; and 

• At the conclusion of the repair/ 

maintenance work, a report will be 

delivered to designated NOAA 

personnel describing any marine 

mammal sightings, the type of work 

taking place when the sighting occurred, 

and any avoidance actions taken during 

the repair/maintenance work. 

During all phases of project 

construction, sightings of any injured or 

dead marine mammals will be reported 

immediately to the USCG and NMFS, 

regardless of whether the injury or death 

is caused by project activities. Sightings 

of injured or dead marine mammals not 

associated with project activities can be 

reported to the USCG on VHF Channel 

16 or to NMFS Stranding and 

Entanglement Hotline. In addition, if the 

injury or death was caused by a project 

vessel (e.g., SRV, support vessel, or 

construction vessel), USCG must be 

notified immediately, and a full report 

must be provided to NMFS, Northeast 

Regional Office. The report must 

include the following information: (1) 

the time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the incident; (2) the name 

and type of vessel involved; (3) the 

vessel’s speed during the incident; (4) a 

description of the incident; (5) water 

depth; (6) environmental conditions 

(e.g., wind speed and direction, sea 

state, cloud cover, and visibility); (7) the 

species identification or description of 

the animal; (8) the fate of the animal; 

and (9) photographs or video footage of 

the animal (if equipment is available). 

An annual report on marine mammal 

monitoring and mitigation will be 

submitted to NMFS Office of Protected 

Resources and NMFS Northeast 

Regional Office within 90 days after the 

expiration of the IHA. The weekly 

reports and the annual report should 

include data collected for each distinct 

marine mammal species observed in the 

project area in the Massachusetts Bay 

during the period of LNG facility 

construction and operations. 

Description of marine mammal 

behavior, overall numbers of 

individuals observed, frequency of 

observation, and any behavioral changes 

and the context of the changes relative 

to construction and operation activities 

shall also be included in the annual 

report. Additional information that will 

be recorded during construction and 

contained in the reports include: date 

and time of marine mammal detections 

(visually or acoustically), weather 

conditions, species identification, 

approximate distance from the source, 

activity of the vessel or at the 

construction site when a marine 

mammal is sighted, and whether 

thrusters were in use and, if so, how 

many at the time of the sighting. 

General Conclusions Drawn from 

Previous Monitoring Reports 

Throughout the construction period, 

Neptune submitted weekly reports on 

marine mammal sightings in the area. 

While it is difficult to draw biological 

conclusions from these reports, NMFS 

can make some general conclusions. 

Data gathered by MMOs is generally 

useful to indicate the presence or 

absence of marine mammals (often to a 

species level) within the safety zones 

(and sometimes without) and to 

document the implementation of 

mitigation measures. Though it is by no 

means conclusory, it is worth noting 

that no instances of obvious behavioral 

disturbance as a result of Neptune’s 

activities were observed by the MMOs. 

Of course, these observations only cover 

the animals that were at the surface and 

within the distance that the MMOs 

could see. Based on the number of 

sightings contained in the weekly 

reports, it appears that NMFS’ estimated 

take levels are accurate. As operation of 

the Port has not yet commenced, there 

are no reports describing the results of 

the visual monitoring program for this 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 24923 

phase of the project. However, it is 

anticipated that visual observations will 

be able to continue as they were during 

construction. 

As described previously in this 

document, Neptune was required to 

maintain an acoustic array to monitor 

calling North Atlantic right whales 

(humpback and fin whale calls were 

also able to be detected). Cornell BRP 

analyzed the data and submitted a 

report covering the initial construction 

phase of the project, which occurred in 

2008. While acoustic data can only be 

collected if the animals are actively 

calling, the report indicates that 

humpback and fin whales were heard 

calling on at least some of the ARUs on 

all construction days, and right whale 

calls were heard only 28 percent of the 

time during active construction days. 

The passive acoustic arrays will remain 

deployed during the time frame of this 

proposed IHA in order to obtain 

information during the operational 

phase of the Port facility. 

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]. Only take by Level B 

harassment is anticipated as a result of 

Neptune’s operational and repair/ 

maintenance activities. Anticipated take 

of marine mammals is associated with 

thruster sound during maneuvering of 

the SRVs while docking and undocking, 

occasional weathervaning at the Port, 

and during thruster use of DP 

maintenance vessels should a major 

repair be necessary. The regasification 

process itself is an activity that does not 

rise to the level of taking, as the 

modeled source level for this activity is 

110 dB (rms). Certain species may have 

a behavioral reaction to the sound 

emitted during the activities. Hearing 

impairment is not anticipated. 

Additionally, vessel strikes are not 

anticipated, especially because of the 

speed restriction measures that are 

proposed that were described earlier in 

this document. 

For continuous sounds, such as those 

produced by Neptune’s proposed 

activities, NMFS uses a received level of 

120–dB (rms) to indicate the onset of 

Level B harassment. The basis for 

Neptune’s ‘‘take’’ estimate is the number 

of marine mammals that potentially 

could be exposed to sound levels in 

excess of 120 dB. This has been 

determined by applying the modeled 

zone of influence (ZOI; e.g., the area 

ensonified by the 120–dB contour) to 

the seasonal use (density) of the area by 

marine mammals and correcting for 

seasonal duration of sound-generating 

activities and estimated duration of 

individual activities when the 

maximum sound-generating activities 

are intermittent to occasional. Nearly all 

of the required information is readily 

available in the MARAD/USCG Final 

EIS, with the exception of marine 

mammal density estimates for the 

project area. In the case of data gaps, a 

conservative approach was used to 

ensure that the potential number of 

takes is not underestimated, as 

described next. 

Neptune contractors have conducted 

modeling of various vessels for several 

years to determine the 120–dB ZOI. 

Prior to submitting its most recent IHA 

application, Neptune contracted JASCO 

to conduct new sound source 

measurement tests on the SRV while 

using the thrusters at full power. The 

reports are contained in Appendix C of 

Neptune’s application (see ADDRESSES). 

The vessels used in the most recent tests 

conducted in 2009 use vessels that are 

closer in similarity to the ones that will 

be used at the Neptune Port facility. The 

results indicate that the 120–dB radius 

from thruster use is estimated to be 1.6 

nm (3 km), creating a maximum ZOI of 

8.5 nm2 (29 km2). This zone is smaller 

than the one that was used to estimate 

the level of take in the previous IHA. 

However, the vessels used in the 2009 

tests more closely resemble the vessels 

that will be used by Neptune. 

NMFS recognizes that baleen whale 

species other than North Atlantic right 

whales have been sighted in the project 

area from May to November. However, 

the occurrence and abundance of fin, 

humpback, and minke whales is not 

well documented within the project 

area. Nonetheless, NMFS used the data 

on cetacean distribution within 

Massachusetts Bay, such as those 

published by the NCCOS (2006), to 

determine potential takes of marine 

mammals in the vicinity of the project 

area. Neptune presented density 

estimates using the CETAP (1982) and 

U.S. Navy MRA (2005) data. The 

NCCOS (2006) uses information from 

these sources; however, it also includes 

information from some other studies. 

Therefore, NMFS used density 

information for the species that are 

included in the NCCOS (2006) report. 

These species include: North Atlantic 

right, fin, humpback, minke, pilot, and 

sei whales and Atlantic white-sided 

dolphins. 

The NCCOS study used cetacean 

sightings from two sources: (1) the 

North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium 

(NARWC) sightings database held at the 

University of Rhode Island (Kenney, 

2001); and (2) the Manomet Bird 

Observatory (MBO) database, held at the 

NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science 

Center (NEFSC). The NARWC data 

contained survey efforts and sightings 

data from ship and aerial surveys and 

opportunistic sources between 1970 and 

2005. The main data contributors 

included: the CETAP, the Canadian 

Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the 

Provincetown Center for Coastal 

Studies, International Fund for Animal 

Welfare, NEFSC, New England 

Aquarium, WHOI, and the University of 

Rhode Island. A total of 406,293 mi 

(653,725 km) of survey track and 34,589 

cetacean observations were 

provisionally selected for the NCCOS 

study in order to minimize bias from 

uneven allocation of survey effort in 

both time and space. The sightings-perunit-effort (SPUE) was calculated for all 

cetacean species by month covering the 

southern Gulf of Maine study area, 

which also includes the project area 

(NCCOS, 2006). 

The MBO’s Cetacean and Seabird 

Assessment Program (CSAP) was 

contracted from 1980 to 1988 by NEFSC 

to provide an assessment of the relative 

abundance and distribution of 

cetaceans, seabirds, and marine turtles 

in the shelf waters of the northeastern 

U.S. (MBO, 1987). The CSAP program 

was designed to be completely 

compatible with NEFSC databases so 

that marine mammal data could be 

compared directly with fisheries data 

throughout the time series during which 

both types of information were gathered. 

A total of 8,383 mi (5,210 km) of survey 

distance and 636 cetacean observations 

from the MBO data were included in the 

NCCOS analysis. Combined valid 

survey effort for the NCCOS studies 

included 913,840 mi (567,955 km) of 

survey track for small cetaceans 

(dolphins and porpoises) and 1,060,226 

mi (658,935 km) for large cetaceans 

(whales) in the southern Gulf of Maine. 

The NCCOS study then combined these 

two data sets by extracting cetacean 

sighting records, updating database field 

names to match the NARWC database, 

creating geometry to represent survey 

tracklines and applying a set of data 

selection criteria designed to minimize 

uncertainty and bias in the data used. 

Based on the comprehensiveness and 

total coverage of the NCCOS cetacean 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

24924 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 

distribution and abundance study, 

NMFS calculated the estimated take 

number of marine mammals based on 

the most recent NCCOS report 

published in December, 2006. A 

summary of seasonal cetacean 

distribution and abundance in the 

project area is provided previously in 

this document, in the ‘‘Description of 

Marine Mammals in the Area of the 

Specified Activity’’ section. For a 

detailed description and calculation of 

the cetacean abundance data and SPUE, 

refer to the NCCOS study (NCCOS, 

2006). SPUE for all four seasons were 

analyzed, and the highest value SPUE 

for the season with the highest 

abundance of each species was used to 

determine relative abundance. Based on 

the data, the relative abundance of 

North Atlantic right, fin, humpback, 

minke, sei, and pilot whales and 

Atlantic white-sided dolphins, as 

calculated by SPUE in number of 

animals per square kilometer, is 0.0082, 

0.0097, 0.0265, 0.0059, 0.0084, 0.0407, 

and 0.1314 n/km, respectively. Table 1 

in this document outlines the density, 

abundance, take estimates, and percent 

of population for the 14 species for 

which NMFS is proposing to authorize 

Level B harassment. 

In calculating the area density of these 

species from these linear density data, 

NMFS used 0.4 km (0.25 mi), which is 

a quarter the distance of the radius for 

visual monitoring, as a conservative 

hypothetical strip width (W). Thus the 

area density (D) of these species in the 

project area can be obtained by the 

following formula: 

D = SPUE/2W. 

Based on the calculation, the 

estimated take numbers by Level B 

harassment for the 1–year IHA period 

for North Atlantic right, fin, humpback, 

minke, sei, and pilot whales and 

Atlantic white-sided dolphins, within 

the 120–dB ZOI of the LNG Port facility 

area of approximately 8.5 nm2 (29 km2) 

maximum ZOI, corrected for 50 percent 

underwater, are 23, 27, 72, 16, 6, 111, 

and 357, respectively. This estimate is 

based on an estimated 50 SRV trips for 

the period July 1, 2010, through June 30, 

2011, that will produce sounds of 120 

dB or greater. 

Based on the same calculation method 

described above for Port operations, the 

estimated take numbers by Level B 

harassment for North Atlantic right, fin, 

humpback, minke, sei, and pilot whales 

and Atlantic white-sided dolphins for 

the 1–year IHA period incidental to Port 

maintenance and repair activities, 

corrected for 50 percent underwater, are 

6, 7, 20, 5, 6, 31, and 100, respectively. 

These numbers are based on 14 days of 

repair and maintenance activities 

occurring between July 1, 2010, and 

June 30, 2011. It is unlikely that this 

much repair and maintenance work 

would be required this soon after 

completion of the construction phase of 

the facility. 

The total estimated take of these 

species as a result of both operations 

and repair and maintenance activities of 

the Neptune Port facility between July 1, 

2010, and June 30, 2011, is: 29 North 

Atlantic right whales; 34 fin whales; 92 

humpback whales; 21 minke whales; 12 

sei whales; 142 long-finned pilot 

whales; and 457 Atlantic white-sided 

dolphins. These numbers represent a 

maximum of 8.4, 1.5, 10.9, 0.6, 3.1, 0.5, 

and 0.7 percent of the populations for 

these species or stocks in the western 

North Atlantic, respectively. It is likely 

that individual animals will be ‘‘taken’’ 

by harassment multiple times (since 

certain individuals may occur in the 

area more than once while other 

individuals of the population or stock 

may not enter the proposed project 

area). Additionally, the highest value 

SPUE for the season with the highest 

abundance of each species was used to 

determine relative abundance. 

Moreover, it is not expected that 

Neptune will have 50 SRV transits and 

LNG deliveries in the first year of 

operations. Therefore, these percentages 

are the upper boundary of the animal 

population that could be affected. Thus, 

the actual number of individual animals 

being exposed or taken is expected to be 

far less. 

In addition, bottlenose dolphins, 

common dolphins, Risso’s dolphins, 

killer whales, harbor porpoises, harbor 

seals, and gray seals could also be taken 

by Level B harassment as a result of the 

deepwater LNG port project. Since these 

species are less likely to occur in the 

area, and there are no density estimates 

specific to this particular area, NMFS 

based the take estimates on typical 

group size. Therefore, NMFS estimates 

that up to approximately 10 bottlenose 

dolphins, 20 common dolphins, 20 

Risso’s dolphins, 20 killer whales, 5 

harbor porpoises, 15 harbor seals, and 

15 gray seals could be exposed to 

continuous noise at or above 120 dB re 

1 ?Pa rms incidental to operations and 

repair and maintenance activities during 

the one year period of the IHA, 

respectively. 

Since Massachusetts Bay represents 

only a small fraction of the western 

North Atlantic basin where these 

animals occur NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that only small numbers of 

the affected marine mammal species or 

stocks would be potentially affected by 

the Neptune LNG deepwater project. 

The take estimates presented in this 

section of the document do not take into 

consideration the mitigation and 

monitoring measures that are proposed 

for inclusion in the IHA (if issued). 

TABLE 1. DENSITY ESTIMATES, POPULATION ABUNDANCE ESTIMATES, TOTAL PROPOSED TAKE (WHEN COMBINE TAKES FROM

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE/REPAIR ACTIVITIES), AND PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION THAT MAY BE TAKEN FOR THE

POTENTIAL AFFECTED SPECIES. 

Species Density (n/km2) Abundance1

Total Proposed 

Take (operation 

& maintenance) 

Percentage of 

Stock or Population 

North Atlantic right whale 0.0082 345 29 8.4 

Fin whale 0.0097 2,269 34 1.5 

Humpback whale 0.0265 847 92 10.9 

Minke whale 0.0059 3,312 21 0.6 

Sei whale 0.0084 386 12 3.1 

Long-finned pilot whale 0.0407 31,139 142 0.5 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin 0.1314 63,368 457 0.7 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 24925 

TABLE 1. DENSITY ESTIMATES, POPULATION ABUNDANCE ESTIMATES, TOTAL PROPOSED TAKE (WHEN COMBINE TAKES FROM

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE/REPAIR ACTIVITIES), AND PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION THAT MAY BE TAKEN FOR THE

POTENTIAL AFFECTED SPECIES.—Continued 

Species Density (n/km2) Abundance1

Total Proposed 

Take (operation 

& maintenance) 

Percentage of 

Stock or Population 

Bottlenose dolphin NA 7,489 10 0.1 

Common dolphin NA 120,743 20 0.02 

Risso’s dolphin NA 20,479 20 0.1 

Killer whale NA NA 20 NA 

Harbor porpoise NA 89,054 5 0.01 

Harbor seal NA 99,340 15 0.02 

Gray seal NA 125,541–169,064 15 0.01 

1 Abundance estimates taken from NMFS Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico SAR; NA=Not Available 

Negligible Impact and Small Numbers 

Analysis and Preliminary 

Determination 

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.’’ 

In making a negligible impact 

determination, NMFS considers a 

variety of factors, including but not 

limited to: (1) the number of anticipated 

mortalities; (2) the number and nature of 

anticipated injuries; (3) the number, 

nature, intensity, and duration of Level 

B harassment; and (4) the context in 

which the takes occur. 

No injuries or mortalities are 

anticipated to occur as a result of 

Neptune’s proposed port operation and 

maintenance and repair activities, and 

none are proposed to be authorized by 

NMFS. Additionally, animals in the area 

are not anticipated to incur any hearing 

impairment (i.e., TTS or PTS), as the 

modeling results for the SRV indicate a 

source level of 180 dB (rms). 

While some of the species occur in 

the proposed project area year-round, 

some species only occur in the area 

during certain seasons. Sei whales are 

only anticipated in the area during the 

spring. Therefore, if shipments and/or 

maintenance/repair activities occur in 

other seasons, the likelihood of sei 

whales being affected is quite low. 

Additionally, any repairs that can be 

scheduled in advance will be scheduled 

to avoid the peak time that North 

Atlantic right whales occur in the area, 

which usually is during the early spring. 

North Atlantic right, humpback, and 

minke whales are not expected in the 

project area in the winter. During the 

winter, a large portion of the North 

Atlantic right whale population occurs 

in the southeastern U.S. calving grounds 

(i.e., South Carolina, Georgia, and 

northern Florida). The fact that certain 

activities will occur during times when 

certain species are not commonly found 

in the area will help reduce the amount 

of Level B harassment for these species. 

Many animals perform vital functions, 

such as feeding, resting, traveling, and 

socializing, on a diel cycle (24–hr 

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). 

Consequently, a behavioral response 

lasting less than one day and not 

recurring on subsequent days is not 

considered particularly severe unless it 

could directly affect reproduction or 

survival (Southall et al., 2007). 

Operational activities are not 

anticipated to occur at the Port on 

consecutive days. Once Neptune is at 

full operations, SRV shipments would 

occur every 4–8 days, with thruster use 

needed for a couple of hours. Therefore, 

Neptune will not be creating increased 

sound levels in the marine environment 

for several days at a time. 

Of the 14 marine mammal species 

likely to occur in the area, four are listed 

as endangered under the ESA: North 

Atlantic right, humpback, fin, and sei 

whales. All of these species, as well as 

the northern coastal stock of bottlenose 

dolphin, are also considered depleted 

under the MMPA. As stated previously 

in this document, the affected 

humpback and North Atlantic right 

whale populations have been increasing 

in recent years. However, there is 

insufficient data to determine 

population trends for the other depleted 

species in the proposed project area. 

There is currently no designated critical 

habitat or known reproductive areas for 

any of these species in or near the 

proposed project area. However, there 

are several well known North Atlantic 

right whale feeding grounds in the CCB 

and GSC. As mentioned previously, to 

the greatest extent practicable, all 

maintenance/repair work will be 

scheduled during the May 1 to 

November 30 time frame to avoid peak 

right whale feeding in these areas, 

which occur close to the Neptune Port. 

No mortality or injury is expected to 

occur and due to the nature, degree, and 

context of the Level B harassment 

anticipated, the activity is not expected 

to impact rates of recruitment or 

survival. 

The population estimates for the 

species that may be taken by harassment 

from the most recent U.S. Atlantic SAR 

were provided earlier in this document 

(see the ‘‘Description of Marine 

Mammals in the Area of the Specified 

Activity’’ section). From the most 

conservative estimates of both marine 

mammal densities in the project area 

and the size of the 120–dB ZOI, the 

maximum calculated number of 

individual marine mammals for each 

species that could potentially be 

harassed annually is small relative to 

the overall population sizes (10.9 

percent for humpback whales and 8.4 

percent for North Atlantic right whales 

and no more than 3.1 percent of any 

other species). 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

24926 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 87 / Thursday, May 6, 2010 / Notices 

mitigation and monitoring measures, 

NMFS preliminarily finds that 

operation, including repair and 

maintenance activities, of the Neptune 

Port will result in the incidental take of 

small numbers of marine mammals, by 

Level B harassment only, and that the 

total taking from Neptune’s proposed 

activiites will have a negligible impact 

on the affected species or stocks. 

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) 

On January 12, 2007, NMFS 

concluded consultation with MARAD 

and USCG under section 7 of the ESA 

on the proposed construction and 

operation of the Neptune LNG facility 

and issued a Biological Opinion. The 

finding of that consultation was that the 

construction and operation of the 

Neptune LNG terminal may adversely 

affect, but is not likely to jeopardize, the 

continued existence of northern right, 

humpback, and fin whales, and is not 

likely to adversely affect sperm, sei, or 

blue whales and Kemp’s ridley, 

loggerhead, green, or leatherback sea 

turtles. 

On March 2, 2010, MARAD and 

USCG sent a letter to NMFS requesting 

reinitiation of the section 7 

consultation. MARAD and USCG 

determined that certain routine planned 

operations and maintenance activities, 

inspections, surveys, and unplanned 

repair work on the Neptune Deepwater 

Port pipelines and flowlines, as well as 

any other Neptune Deepwater Port 

component (including buoys, risers/ 

umbilicals, mooring systems, and subsea manifolds), may constitute a 

modification not previously considered 

in the 2007 Biological Opinion. 

Construction of the Port facility will be 

completed by summer 2010, and, 

therefore, is no longer part of the 

proposed action. This consultation will 

be concluded prior to a determination 

on the issuance of this IHA. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

MARAD and the USCG released a 

Final EIS/Environmental Impact Report 

(EIR) for the proposed Neptune LNG 

Deepwater Port (see ADDRESSES). A 

notice of availability was published by 

MARAD on November 2, 2006 (71 FR 

64606). The Final EIS/EIR provides 

detailed information on the proposed 

project facilities, construction methods, 

and analysis of potential impacts on 

marine mammals. 

NMFS was a cooperating agency in 

the preparation of the Draft and Final 

EISs based on a Memorandum of 

Understanding related to the Licensing 

of Deepwater Ports entered into by the 

U.S. Department of Commerce along 

with 10 other government agencies. On 

June 3, 2008, NMFS adopted the USCG 

and MARAD FEIS and issued a separate 

Record of Decision for issuance of 

authorizations pursuant to sections 

101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for 

the construction and operation of the 

Neptune LNG Port facility. 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes to 

authorize the take of marine mammals 

incidental to port commissioning and 

operations, including repair and 

maintenance activities at the Neptune 

Deepwater Port, provided the previously 

mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting requirements are incorporated. 

Dated: April 30, 2010. 

Helen M. Golde, 

Deputy Director, Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10715 Filed 5–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Meetings 

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, May 12, 

2010; 2 p.m.–4 p.m. 

PLACE: Hearing Room 420, Bethesda 

Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 

Bethesda, Maryland. 

STATUS: Closed to the Public. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Compliance Status Report: 

The Commission staff will brief the 

Commission on the status of compliance 

matters. 

For a recorded message containing the 

latest agenda information, call (301) 

504–7948. 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, 4330 East West 

Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 

504–7923. 

Dated: May 3, 2010. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10833 Filed 5–4–10; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Meetings 

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, May 12, 

2010, 9 a.m.–11 a.m. 

PLACE: Hearing Room 420, Bethesda 

Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 

Bethesda, Maryland. 

STATUS: Commission Meeting—Open to 

the Public. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

1. Pending Decisional Matter: Infant 

Bath Seats—Final Rule: 

A live webcast of the Meeting can be 

viewed at http://www.cpsc.gov/webcast/ 

index.html. For a recorded message 

containing the latest agenda 

information, call (301) 504–7948. 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, 4330 East West 

Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814 (301) 

504–7923. 

Dated: May 3, 2010. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10834 Filed 5–4–10; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

Federal Advisory Committee; Defense 

Intelligence Agency Advisory Board; 

Closed Meeting 

AGENCY: Defense Intelligence Agency, 

DoD. 

ACTION: Meeting notice. 

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act of 

1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), 

the Government in the Sunshine Act of 

1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 

41 CFR 102–3.150 the Department of 

Defense announces that Defense 

Intelligence Agency Advisory Board, 

and its subcommittees, will meet on 

June 15 and 16, 2010. The meeting is 

closed to the public. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on June 

15, 2010 (from 1:30 p.m. to 5:15 p.m.) 

and on June 16, 2010 (from 9 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m.). 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

Bolling Air Force Base. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Mark Harrison, (703) 647–5102, 

Alternate Designated Federal Official, 

DIA Office for Congressional and Public 

Affairs, Pentagon, 1A874, Washington, 

DC 20340. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES