28808 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices 

Sirjanco Trading LLC, Mahan Air 

General Trading LLC, Mehdi Bahrami, 

Sky Blue Bird Group, and/or Issam 

Shammout may, at any time, appeal 

their inclusion as a related person by 

filing a full written statement in support 

of the appeal with the Office of the 

Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Coast 

Guard ALJ Docketing Center, 40 South 

Gay Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202– 

4022. 

In accordance with the provisions of 

Section 766.24(d) of the EAR, BIS may 

seek renewal of this Order by filing a 

written request not later than 20 days 

before the expiration date. A renewal 

request may be opposed by Mahan 

Airways, Al Naser Airlines, Ali 

Abdullah Alhay, and/or Bahar Safwa 

General Trading as provided in Section 

766.24(d), by filing a written submission 

with the Assistant Secretary of 

Commerce for Export Enforcement, 

which must be received not later than 

seven days before the expiration date of 

the Order. 

A copy of this Order shall be provided 

to Mahan Airways, Al Naser Airlines, 

Ali Abdullah Alhay, and Bahar Safwa 

General Trading and each related 

person, and shall be published in the 

Federal Register. This Order is effective 

immediately and shall remain in effect 

for 180 days. 

Dated: June 14, 2018. 

Richard R. Majauskas, 

Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for 

Export Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13289 Filed 6–20–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XG270 

Pacific Island Fisheries; Western 

Pacific Stock Assessment Review; 

Public Meeting; Correction 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of a public meeting; 

correction. 

SUMMARY: NMFS and the Western 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 

(Council) have rescheduled a Western 

Pacific Stock Assessment Review 

(WPSAR) of a draft 2018 benchmark 

stock assessment for main Hawaiian 

Islands Kona crab. The meeting 

announced in the Federal Register on 

June 5, 2018, has been rescheduled for 

September 10–14, 2018. 

DATES: See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

for meeting dates. 

ADDRESSES: The location of the meeting 

has not changed. It will be at the 

Council office at 1164 Bishop St., Suite 

1400, Honolulu, HI 96813. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Seki, Director—NMFS Pacific 

Islands Fisheries Science Center 

(PIFSC), telephone: (808) 725–5360. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You may 

find background information about the 

stock assessment and WPSAR process, 

and details of the meeting agenda and 

special accommodations in the June 5, 

2018, Federal Register notice: https://

www.federalregister.gov/documents/ 

2018/06/05/2018-11977/pacific-islandfisheries-western-pacific-stockassessment-review-public-meeting. 

Correction 

In the Federal Register of June 5, 

2018, (83 FR 26010) in FR Doc. 2018– 

11977, on page 26011, in the first 

column, the dates under the heading 

‘‘Meeting Agenda for WPSAR Review’’ 

are corrected to read as follows: 

Day 1 Monday September 10, 2018 

Day 2 Tuesday September 11, 2018 

Day 3 Wednesday September 12, 2018 

Day 4 Thursday September 13, 2018 

Day 5 Friday September 14, 2018 

The meeting times and agenda items 

are not changed. 

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

Dated: June 15, 2018. 

Jennifer M. Wallace, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13276 Filed 6–20–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XF984 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Marine Site 

Characterization Surveys off of Rhode 

Island and Massachusetts 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; Issuance of an Incidental 

Harassment Authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

regulations implementing the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as 

amended, notification is hereby given 

that NMFS has issued an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) to 

Deepwater Wind New England, LLC 

(DWW), for authorization to take marine 

mammals incidental to marine site 

characterization surveys off the coast of 

Rhode Island and Massachusetts in the 

area of the Commercial Lease of 

Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy 

Development on the Outer Continental 

Shelf (OCS–A 0486) and along potential 

submarine cable routes to a landfall 

location in Rhode Island, Massachusetts 

or New York. 

DATES: This Authorization is valid for 

one year from the date of issuance. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jordan Carduner, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

Electronic copies of the applications 

and supporting documents, as well as a 

list of the references cited in this 

document, may be obtained by visiting 

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

national/marine-mammal-protection/ 

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

problems accessing these documents, 

please call the contact listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

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

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

the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated 

to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the 

incidental, but not intentional, taking of 

small numbers of marine mammals by 

U.S. citizens who engage in a specified 

activity (other than commercial fishing) 

within a specified geographical region if 

certain findings are made and either 

regulations are issued or, if the taking is 

limited to harassment, a notice of a 

proposed authorization is provided to 

the public for review. 

An authorization for incidental 

takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 

that the taking will have a negligible 

impact on the species or stock(s), will 

not have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of the species or 

stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 

relevant), and if the permissible 

methods of taking and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth. 

NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact 

resulting from the specified activity that 

cannot be reasonably expected to, and is 

not reasonably likely to, adversely affect 

the species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

The MMPA states that the term ‘‘take’’ 

means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices 28809 

or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or 

kill any marine mammal. 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) 

has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

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

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering (Level B 

harassment). 

Summary of Request 

On January 3, 2018, NMFS received a 

request from DWW for an IHA to take 

marine mammals incidental to marine 

site characterization surveys off the 

coast of Massachusetts and Rhode 

Island in the area of the Commercial 

Lease of Submerged Lands for 

Renewable Energy Development on the 

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS–A 0486) 

and along potential submarine cable 

routes to a landfall location in either 

Rhode Island, Massachusetts or New 

York. A revised application was 

received on April 18, 2018. NMFS 

deemed that request to be adequate and 

complete. DWW’s request is for take of 

14 marine mammal species by Level B 

harassment. Neither DWW nor NMFS 

expects serious injury or mortality to 

result from this activity and the activity 

is expected to last no more than one 

year, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. 

Description of the Proposed Activity 

Overview 

DWW proposes to conduct marine site 

characterization surveys, including 

high-resolution geophysical (HRG) and 

geotechnical surveys, in the area of the 

Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands 

for Renewable Energy Development on 

the Outer Continental Shelf #OCS–A 

0486 (Lease Area) and along potential 

submarine cable routes to landfall 

locations in either Rhode Island, 

Massachusetts or Long Island, New 

York. The purpose of the marine site 

characterization surveys are to obtain a 

baseline assessment of seabed/subsurface soil conditions in the Lease Area 

and cable route corridors to support the 

siting of potential future offshore wind 

projects. Underwater sound resulting 

from DWW’s proposed site 

characterization surveys has the 

potential to result in incidental take of 

marine mammals in the form of 

behavioral harassment. 

DWW’s survey activities would occur 

in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean within 

Federal waters. Surveys would occur 

within the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management (BOEM) Rhode Island– 

Massachusetts Wind Energy Area (RI– 

MA WEA) which is located east of Long 

Island, New York and south of Rhode 

Island and Massachusetts (see Figure 1 

in the IHA application). Water depths in 

the Lease Area range from 26 to 48 

meters (m) (85 to 157 feet (ft)). For the 

purpose of this IHA the Lease Area and 

submarine cable corridor are 

collectively termed the Project Area. 

Surveys would occur from 

approximately June 15, 2018 through 

December 31, 2018. The estimated 

duration of the geophysical survey is 

expected to be up to 200 days and the 

estimated duration of the geotechnical 

survey is expected to be up to 100 days. 

Geotechnical surveys would entail the 

use of core penetration testing, deep 

boring cores and vibracores. 

Geotechnical surveys are not expected 

to result in the take of marine mammals, 

as described in the Federal Register 

notice of the proposed IHA (83 FR 

19711; May 4, 2018) and are not 

analyzed further in this document. 

Geophysical surveys would entail the 

use of a multibeam depth sounder, 

shallow penetration sub-bottom profiler 

(chirp), medium penetration sub-bottom 

profiler (boomer and sparker or bubble 

gun), sidescan sonar and marine 

magnetometer. The deployment of 

geophysical survey equipment, 

including the equipment planned for 

use during DWW’s planned activity, 

produces sound in the marine 

environment that has the potential to 

result in harassment of marine 

mammals. 

A detailed description of the planned 

survey activities, including types of 

survey equipment planned for use, is 

provided in the Federal Register notice 

of the proposed IHA (83 FR 19711; May 

4, 2018). Since that time, no changes 

have been made to the planned 

activities. Therefore, a detailed 

description is not repeated here. We 

note, however, that one type of survey 

equipment was described incorrectly in 

the proposed IHA: The frequencies 

listed for the Edgetech 4125 sidescan 

sonar were incorrectly listed as 105 and 

410 kilohertz (kHz); correct frequencies 

for the Edgetech 4125 are 400/900 kHz 

or 600/1600 kHz. Please refer to the 

Federal Register notice of the proposed 

IHA (83 FR 19711; May 4, 2018) for a 

detailed description of the specific 

activity. 

Comments and Responses 

NMFS published a notice of proposed 

IHA in the Federal Register on May 4, 

2018 (83 FR 19711). During the 30-day 

public comment period, NMFS received 

comment letters from the Marine 

Mammal Commission (Commission) 

and from a group of non-governmental 

organizations (NGOs) including Natural 

Resources Defense Council, the National 

Wildlife Federation, the Conservation 

Law Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife, 

Southern Environmental Law Center, 

Surfrider Foundation, Sierra Club, and 

the International Fund for Animal 

Welfare. NMFS has posted the 

comments online at: 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-other-energyactivities-renewable. The following is a 

summary of the public comments 

received and NMFS’ responses. 

Comment 1: The Commission 

expressed concern that the method used 

to estimate the numbers of takes, which 

summed fractions of takes for each 

species across project days, does not 

account for and negates the intent of 

NMFS’ 24 hour reset policy and 

recommended that NMFS share the 

rounding criteria with the Commission 

in a timely manner. 

NMFS Response: NMFS appreciates 

the Commission’s ongoing concern in 

this matter. Calculating predicted takes 

is not an exact science, and there are 

arguments for taking different 

mathematical approaches in different 

situations and for making qualitative 

adjustments in other situations. We 

believe, however, that the methodology 

used for take calculation in this IHA 

remains appropriate and is not at odds 

with the 24 hour reset policy the 

Commission references. We look 

forward to continued discussion with 

the Commission on this matter and will 

share draft guidance on this issue as 

soon as possible with the Commission. 

Comment 2: The Commission 

recommended that, until behavioral 

thresholds are updated, NMFS require 

applicants to use the 120-decibel (dB) re 

1 micropascal (mPa), rather than 160-dB 

re 1mPa, threshold for acoustic, nonimpulsive sources (e.g., sub-bottom 

profilers/chirps, echosounders, and 

other sonars including side-scan and 

fish-finding). 

NMFS Response: Certain sub-bottom 

profiling systems are appropriately 

considered to be impulsive sources (e.g., 

boomers, sparkers); therefore, the 

threshold of 160-dB re 1mPa will 

continue to be used for those sources. 

Other source types referenced by the 

Commission (e.g., chirp sub-bottom 

profilers, echosounders, and other 

sonars including side-scan and fishfinding) produce signals that are not 

necessarily strictly impulsive; however, 

NMFS finds that the 160-dB root mean 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
28810 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices 

square (rms) threshold is most 

appropriate for use in evaluating 

potential behavioral impacts to marine 

mammals because the temporal 

characteristics (i.e., intermittency) of 

these sources are better captured by this 

threshold. The 120-dB threshold is 

associated with continuous sources and 

was derived based on studies examining 

behavioral responses to drilling and 

dredging. Continuous sounds are those 

whose sound pressure level remains 

above that of the ambient sound, with 

negligibly small fluctuations in level 

(NIOSH, 1998; ANSI, 2005). Examples 

of sounds that NMFS would categorize 

as continuous are those associated with 

drilling or vibratory pile driving 

activities. Intermittent sounds are 

defined as sounds with interrupted 

levels of low or no sound (NIOSH, 

1998). Thus, signals produced by these 

source types are not continuous but 

rather intermittent sounds. With regard 

to behavioral thresholds, we consider 

the temporal and spectral characteristics 

of signals produced by these source 

types to more closely resemble those of 

an impulse sound rather than a 

continuous sound. The threshold of 

160-dB re 1mPa is typically associated 

with impulsive sources, which are 

inherently intermittent. Therefore, the 

160-dB threshold (typically associated 

with impulsive sources) is more 

appropriate than the 120-dB threshold 

(typically associated with continuous 

sources) for estimating takes by 

behavioral harassment incidental to use 

of such sources. 

Comment 3: The Commission 

requested clarification regarding certain 

issues associated with NMFS’ notice 

that one-year renewals could be issued 

in certain limited circumstances and 

expressed concern that the process 

would bypass the public notice and 

comment requirements. The 

Commission also suggested that NMFS 

should discuss the possibility of 

renewals through a more general route, 

such as a rulemaking, instead of notice 

in a specific authorization. The 

Commission further recommended that 

if NMFS did not pursue a more general 

route, that the agency provide the 

Commission and the public with a legal 

analysis supporting our conclusion that 

this process is consistent with the 

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

the MMPA. 

NMFS Response: The process of 

issuing a renewal IHA does not bypass 

the public notice and comment 

requirements of the MMPA. The notice 

of the proposed IHA expressly notifies 

the public that under certain, limited 

conditions an applicant could seek a 

renewal IHA for an additional year. The 

notice describes the conditions under 

which such a renewal request could be 

considered and expressly seeks public 

comment in the event such a renewal is 

sought. Importantly, such renewals 

would be limited to circumstances 

where: The activities are identical or 

nearly identical to those analyzed in the 

proposed IHA; monitoring does not 

indicate impacts that were not 

previously analyzed and authorized; 

and, the mitigation and monitoring 

requirements remain the same, all of 

which allow the public to comment on 

the appropriateness and effects of a 

renewal at the same time the public 

provides comments on the initial IHA. 

NMFS has, however, modified the 

language for future proposed IHAs to 

clarify that all IHAs, including renewal 

IHAs, are valid for no more than one 

year and that the agency would consider 

only one renewal for a project at this 

time. In addition, notice of issuance or 

denial of a renewal IHA would be 

published in the Federal Register, as 

they are for all IHAs. The option for 

issuing renewal IHAs has been in 

NMFS’s incidental take regulations 

since 1996. We will provide any 

additional information to the 

Commission and consider posting a 

description of the renewal process on 

our website before any renewal is issued 

utilizing this process. 

Comment 4: The Commission 

recommended that NMFS increase the 

number of common dolphin takes and 

sperm whale takes, based on an 

assumption that the number proposed 

for authorization is insufficient for 

DWW’s proposed survey, and that 

NMFS authorize at least 20 Level B 

harassment takes of Risso’s dolphins, 

based on observations of Risso’s 

dolphins during HRG surveys 

conducted by Deepwater Wind in the 

RI–MA WEA in 2017 (AIS Inc., 2017). 

The Commission further recommended 

that NMFS better evaluate the numbers 

of Level A and B harassment takes it 

plans to propose. 

NMFS Response: NMFS considered 

the Commission’s recommendations 

with regard to take numbers authorized 

for common dolphins, sperm whales 

and Risso’s dolphins. The Commission 

noted that five sperm whales were 

observed during HRG surveys 

conducted by Deepwater Wind in the 

RI–MA WEA in 2017 and two were 

taken by Level B harassment, and 

expressed concern that the 2018 survey 

may be forced to shut down upon visual 

detection of sperm whales if the number 

of authorized takes of sperm whales is 

exceeded. However, results of the 

monitoring report from the 2017 IHA 

indicate that the majority of sperm 

whale detections during the 2017 survey 

were via passive acoustic monitoring 

(PAM), with only one confirmed visual 

detection which was outside the Level 

B zone at a distance of approximately 

1,400 m from the vessel; both ‘‘takes’’ 

reported in the monitoring report were 

not based on visual detections but were 

instead based on acoustic detections 

that were localized within the Level B 

harassment zone (AIS Inc., 2017). 

However, for the IHA issued for 2017 

surveys and for this IHA, NMFS does 

not consider animals detected 

acoustically but not confirmed visually 

by PSOs to have been taken by 

harassment. As the number of sperm 

whale takes in this IHA were based on 

the best available density data (e.g., 

Roberts et al. (2016)), and as shutdown 

of survey equipment based on PAM 

detection alone is not required for 

sperm whales in this IHA, we have 

concluded the number of sperm whale 

takes authorized is appropriate. The 

Commission noted that common 

dolphins were the most regularly 

observed marine mammal species 

during Deepwater Wind’s 2017 HRG 

surveys in the RI–MA WEA, with 2,677 

common dolphins observed (AIS Inc., 

2017) and expressed concern that the 

2018 survey may be forced to shut down 

upon visual detection of common 

dolphins if the number of authorized 

takes of common dolphins is exceeded. 

NMFS agrees that common dolphins are 

likely to be prevalent during DWW’s 

survey activities; however, we note that 

while 2,677 common dolphins were 

observed during 2017 surveys, 346 

common dolphins were taken by Level 

B harassment (AIS Inc., 2017). NMFS is 

authorizing nearly 3 times the number 

of takes of common dolphins in this 

IHA (910) compared to the number of 

takes of common dolphins that occurred 

during 2017 surveys (346). As the 

number of common dolphin takes in 

this IHA were based on the best 

available density data (e.g., Roberts et al. 

(2016)) and as this IHA authorizes 

nearly 3 times as many takes by Level 

B harassment of common dolphins 

compared to the number taken during 

Deepwater Wind’s HRG surveys in 2017 

(NMFS, 2017), we have concluded the 

number of common dolphin takes 

authorized is appropriate. The 

Commission noted that the monitoring 

report from the 2017 IHA issued to 

Deepwater Wind for HRG surveys in the 

RI–MA WEA indicated that eight Risso’s 

dolphins were observed at 400 m from 

the source during Deepwater Wind’s 

2017 surveys and that the vessel had to 

avoid the Risso’s dolphins to prevent 

unauthorized takes (AIS Inc., 2017). We 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices 28811 

agree with the Commission that, based 

on monitoring data from the 2017 IHA 

issued to Deepwater Wind for HRG 

surveys in the RI–MA WEA (AIS Inc., 

2017), the planned survey may 

encounter Risso’s dolphins, and, thus 

authorization for the take of Risso’s 

dolphins is warranted in this IHA. We 

have therefore authorized takes of 

Risso’s dolphins in this IHA (Table 6). 

NMFS carefully evaluates the number of 

Level A and Level B harassment takes 

it proposes to authorize, as illustrated 

by the Level of analysis incorporated in 

our notices of proposed IHAs, and we 

will continue to do so. 

Comment 5: The NGOs expressed 

concern regarding the marine mammal 

density estimates used to calculate take. 

Specifically, the commenters stated the 

estimates derived from models 

presented in Roberts et al. (2016) may 

underrepresent density and seasonal 

presence of large whales in the survey 

area, and recommended that NMFS 

consider additional data sources in 

density modeling in future analyses of 

estimated take, including initial data 

from state monitoring efforts, existing 

passive acoustic monitoring data, 

opportunistic marine mammal sightings 

data, and other data sources. 

NMFS Response: NMFS has 

determined that the data provided by 

Roberts et al. (2016) represents the best 

available information concerning 

marine mammal density in the survey 

area and has used it accordingly. NMFS 

has considered other available 

information, including that cited by the 

commenters, and determined that it 

does not contradict the information 

provided by Roberts et al. (2016). The 

information discussed by the 

commenters does not provide data in a 

format that is directly usable in an 

acoustic exposure analysis, and the 

commenters make no useful 

recommendation regarding how to do 

so. We will review the data sources 

recommended by the commenters and 

will consider their suitability for 

inclusion in future analyses, as 

requested by the commenters. 

Comment 6: Regarding mitigation 

measures, the NGOs recommended 

NMFS impose a restriction on site 

assessment and characterization 

activities that have the potential to 

harass the North Atlantic right whale 

from November 1st to May 14th. 

NMFS Response: In evaluating how 

mitigation may or may not be 

appropriate to ensure the least 

practicable adverse impact on species or 

stocks and their habitat, we carefully 

consider two primary factors: (1) The 

manner in which, and the degree to 

which, the successful implementation of 

the measure(s) is expected to reduce 

impacts to marine mammals, marine 

mammal species or stocks, and their 

habitat; and (2) the practicability of the 

measures for applicant implementation, 

which may consider such things as 

relative cost and impact on operations. 

DWW determined the planned 

duration of the survey based on their 

data acquisition needs, which are 

largely driven by the Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management’s (BOEM) data 

acquisition requirements prior to 

required submission of a construction 

and operations plan (COP). Any effort 

on the part of NMFS to restrict the 

months during which the survey could 

operate would likely have the effect of 

forcing the applicant to conduct 

additional months of surveys the 

following year, resulting in increased 

costs incurred by the applicant and 

additional time on the water with 

associated additional production of 

underwater noise which could have 

further potential impacts to marine 

mammals. Thus the time and area 

restrictions recommended by the 

commenters would not be practicable 

for the applicant to implement and 

would to some degree offset the benefit 

of the recommended measure. In 

addition, our analysis of the potential 

impacts of the survey on right whales 

does not indicate that such closures are 

warranted, as potential impacts to right 

whales from the survey activities would 

be limited to short-term behavioral 

responses; no marine mammal injury is 

expected as a result of the survey, nor 

is injury authorized in the IHA. We also 

note that the majority of the survey is 

already scheduled to occur outside the 

time frame recommended for closure by 

the commenters; the survey is planned 

to occur from June 15 through December 

31, while the commenters recommend a 

seasonal closure from November 1 

through May 14. Thus, in consideration 

of the limited potential benefits of time 

and area restrictions, in concert with the 

impracticability and increased cost on 

the part of the applicant that would 

result from such restrictions, NMFS has 

determined that time and area 

restrictions are not warranted in this 

case. Existing mitigation measures, 

including exclusion zones, ramp-up of 

survey equipment, and vessel strike 

avoidance measures, are sufficiently 

protective to ensure the least practicable 

adverse impact on species or stocks and 

their habitat. 

Comment 7: Regarding mitigation 

measures, the NGOs recommended that 

NMFS require that geophysical surveys 

commence, with ramp-up, during 

daylight hours only to maximize the 

probability that North Atlantic right 

whales are detected and confirmed clear 

of the exclusion zone, and that, if a right 

whale were detected in the exclusion 

zone during nighttime hours and the 

survey is shut down, developers should 

be required to wait until daylight hours 

for ramp-up to commence. 

NMFS Response: We acknowledge the 

limitations inherent in detection of 

marine mammals at night. However, 

similar to the discussion above 

regarding time and area closures, 

restricting the ability of the applicant to 

ramp-up surveys only during daylight 

hours would have the potential to result 

in lengthy shutdowns of the survey 

equipment, which could result in the 

applicant failing to collect the data they 

have determined is necessary, which 

could result in the need to conduct 

additional surveys the following year. 

This would result in significantly 

increased costs incurred by the 

applicant. Thus the restriction suggested 

by the commenters would not be 

practicable for the applicant to 

implement. In addition, as described 

above, potential impacts to marine 

mammals from the survey activities 

would be limited to short-term 

behavioral responses. Restricting 

surveys in the manner suggested by the 

commenters may reduce marine 

mammal exposures by some degree in 

the short term, but would not result in 

any significant reduction in either 

intensity or duration of noise exposure. 

No injury is expected to result even in 

the absence of mitigation, given the very 

small estimated Level A harassment 

zones. In the event that NMFS imposed 

the restriction suggested by the 

commenters, potentially resulting in a 

second season of surveys required for 

the applicant, vessels would be on the 

water introducing noise into the marine 

environment for an extended period of 

time. Therefore, in addition to 

practicability concerns for the applicant, 

the restrictions recommended by the 

commenters could result in the surveys 

spending increased time on the water, 

which may result in greater overall 

exposure to sound for marine mammals; 

thus the commenters have failed to 

demonstrate that such a requirement 

would result in a net benefit for affected 

marine mammals. Therefore, in 

consideration of potential effectiveness 

of the recommended measure and its 

practicability for the applicant, NMFS 

has determined that restricting survey 

start-ups to daylight hours is not 

warranted in this case. 

However, in recognition of the 

concerns raised by the commenters, we 

have added a mitigation requirement to 

the IHA that shutdown of geophysical 

survey equipment is required upon 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
28812 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices 

confirmed PAM detection of a North 

Atlantic right whale at night, even in the 

absence of visual confirmation, except 

in cases where the acoustic detection 

can be localized and the right whale can 

be confirmed as being beyond the 500 

m exclusion zone (EZ); equipment may 

be re-started no sooner than 30 minutes 

after the last confirmed acoustic 

detection. 

Comment 8: The NGOs recommended 

that NMFS require a 500 m EZ for 

marine mammals (with the exception of 

dolphins that voluntarily approach the 

vessel). Additionally, the NGOs 

recommended that protected species 

observers (PSOs) monitor to an 

extended 1,000 m EZ for North Atlantic 

right whales. 

NMFS Response: Regarding the 

recommendation for a 1,000 m EZ 

specifically for North Atlantic right 

whales, we have determined that the 

500 m EZ, as required in the IHA, is 

sufficiently protective. We note that the 

500 m EZ exceeds the modeled distance 

to the Level B harassment isopleth (447 

m), thus for North Atlantic right whales 

detected by PSOs this EZ would be 

expected to effectively minimize 

potential instances of injury and 

harassment. 

Regarding the commenters’ 

recommendation to require a 500 m EZ 

for all marine mammals (except 

dolphins that approach the vessel) we 

have determined the EZs as currently 

required in the IHA (described in 

Mitigation Measures, below) are 

sufficient to ensure the least practicable 

adverse impact on species or stocks and 

their habitat. The EZs would prevent all 

potential instances of marine mammal 

injury (though in this instance, injury 

would not be an expected outcome even 

in the absence of mitigation due to very 

small predicted isopleths corresponding 

to the Level A harassment threshold 

(Table 5) and would further prevent 

some instances of behavioral 

harassment, as well as limiting the 

intensity and/or duration of behavioral 

harassment that does occur. As NMFS 

has determined the EZs currently 

required in the IHA to be sufficiently 

protective, we do not think expanded 

EZs, beyond what is required in the 

IHA, are warranted. 

Comment 9: The NGOs recommended 

that a combination of visual monitoring 

by PSOs and PAM should be required 

24 hours per day. 

NMFS Response: The PAM 

requirement has been included in the 

IHA because PAM was proposed by the 

applicant, and PAM is required in 

BOEM lease stipulations. We do not 

think the use of PAM is necessarily 

warranted for surveys using the sound 

sources proposed for use by DWW, due 

to relatively small areas that are 

expected to be ensonified to the Level 

A harassment threshold (Table 5). As we 

are not convinced that PAM is 

necessarily warranted for this type of 

survey, we do not think a requirement 

to expand the use of PAM to 24 hours 

a day during the survey is warranted. 

Expanding the PAM requirement to 24 

hours a day may also result in increased 

costs on the part of the applicant. When 

the potential benefits of a 24 hour PAM 

requirement are considered in concert 

with the potential increased costs on the 

part of the applicant that would result 

from such a requirement, we 

determined a requirement for 24 hour 

PAM operation is not warranted in this 

case. Given the effects to marine 

mammals from the types of surveys 

authorized in this IHA are expected to 

be limited to behavioral harassment 

even in the absence of mitigation, we 

have determined the current 

requirements for visual and acoustic 

monitoring are sufficient to ensure the 

EZs and Watch Zone are adequately 

monitored for this particular activity. 

Comment 10: The NGOs 

recommended that NMFS require a 10 

knot speed restriction on all projectrelated vessels transiting to/from the 

survey area from November 1 through 

April 30 in New York state waters and 

the adjacent Block Island Seasonal 

Management Area (SMA) for North 

Atlantic right whales, and from 

February 1 to May 14 in Rhode Island 

and Massachusetts state waters outside 

of the Block Island SMA, and that all 

project vessels operating within the 

survey area should be required to 

maintain a speed of 10 knots or less 

during the entire survey period. 

NMFS Response: NMFS has analyzed 

the potential for ship strike resulting 

from DWW’s activity and has 

determined that the mitigation measures 

specific to ship strike avoidance are 

sufficient to avoid the potential for ship 

strike. These include: A requirement 

that all vessel operators comply with 10 

knot (18.5 kilometer (km)/hour) or less 

speed restrictions in any SMA or 

Dynamic Management Area (DMA); a 

requirement that all vessel operators 

reduce vessel speed to 10 knots (18.5 

km/hour) or less when any large whale, 

any mother/calf pairs, pods, or large 

assemblages of non-delphinoid 

cetaceans are observed within 100 m of 

an underway vessel; a requirement that 

all survey vessels maintain a separation 

distance of 500 m or greater from any 

sighted North Atlantic right whale; a 

requirement that, if underway, vessels 

must steer a course away from any 

sighted North Atlantic right whale at 10 

knots or less until the 500 m minimum 

separation distance has been 

established; and a requirement that, if a 

North Atlantic right whale is sighted in 

a vessel’s path, or within 500 m of an 

underway vessel, the underway vessel 

must reduce speed and shift the engine 

to neutral. Additional measures to 

prevent the potential for ship strike are 

discussed in more detail below (see the 

Mitigation section). We have 

determined that the ship strike 

avoidance measures are sufficient to 

ensure the least practicable adverse 

impact on species or stocks and their 

habitat. We also note that vessel strike 

during surveys is extremely unlikely 

based on the low vessel speed; the 

survey vessel would maintain a speed of 

approximately 4 knots (7.4 km/hour) 

while transiting survey lines. 

Comment 11: The NGOs 

recommended that NMFS account for 

the potential for indirect ship strike risk 

resulting from habitat displacement in 

our analyses. 

NMFS Response: NMFS determined 

that habitat displacement was not an 

expected outcome of the specified 

activity, therefore an analysis of 

potential impacts to marine mammals 

from habitat displacement is not 

warranted in this case. 

Comment 12: The NGOs 

recommended that NMFS consider any 

existing siting and acoustic data and any 

new information that improves our 

understanding of marine mammal 

distribution and habitat use in the 

region in order to inform seasonal 

restrictions and mitigation measures in 

time for the November 2018 North 

Atlantic right whale migration period. 

NMFS Response: We base our 

analyses on the best available 

information to inform mitigation 

measures in incidental take 

authorizations, and will continue to do 

so. Beyond a broad recommendation, 

the commenters have not provided us 

with any specific recommendations 

regarding data sources to consider, but 

we welcome future input, outside the 

comment period for this particular IHA, 

from interested parties on data sources 

that may be of use in analyzing the 

potential presence and movement 

patterns of North Atlantic right whales. 

Comment 13: The NGOs 

recommended that NMFS encourage 

offshore wind developers to partner 

with scientists to collect data that would 

increase the understanding of the 

effectiveness of night vision and infrared technologies off Rhode Island, 

Massachusetts, and the broader region, 

with a view towards greater reliance on 

these technologies to commence surveys 

during nighttime hours in the future. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices 28813 

NMFS Response: NMFS agrees with 

the NGOs that improved data on relative 

effectiveness of night vision and infrared technologies would be beneficial 

and could help to inform future efforts 

at detection of marine mammals during 

nighttime activities. The commenters 

have not provided us with any specific 

recommendations to evaluate beyond a 

broad recommendation. However, we 

will encourage coordination and 

communication between offshore wind 

developers and researchers on 

effectiveness of night vision and infrared technologies, to the extent possible. 

In recognition of the commenters’ 

concerns, we have also added a 

requirement that the final report 

submitted to NMFS must include an 

assessment of the effectiveness of night 

vision equipment used during nighttime 

surveys, including comparisons of 

relative effectiveness among the 

different types of night vision 

equipment used. 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activity 

Sections 3 and 4 of DWW’s IHA 

application summarize available 

information regarding status and trends, 

distribution and habitat preferences, 

and behavior and life history, of the 

potentially affected species. Additional 

information regarding population trends 

and threats may be found in NMFS’ 

Stock Assessment Reports (SAR; 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-stock-assessment-reportsregion) and more general information 

about these species (e.g., physical and 

behavioral descriptions) may be found 

on NMFS’ website 

(www.fisheries.noaa.gov/speciesdirectory). All species that could 

potentially occur in the proposed survey 

area are included in Table 5 of the IHA 

application. However, the temporal and/ 

or spatial occurrence of several species 

listed in Table 5 of the IHA application 

is such that take of these species is not 

expected to occur, and they are not 

discussed further beyond the 

explanation provided here. Take of 

these species is not anticipated either 

because they have very low densities in 

the project area, are known to occur 

further offshore than the project area, or 

are considered very unlikely to occur in 

the project area during the proposed 

survey due to the species’ seasonal 

occurrence in the area. 

Table 2 lists all species with expected 

potential for occurrence in the survey 

area and with the potential to be taken 

as a result of the proposed survey and 

summarizes information related to the 

population or stock, including 

regulatory status under the MMPA and 

ESA and potential biological removal 

(PBR), where known. For taxonomy, we 

follow Committee on Taxonomy (2017). 

PBR is defined by the MMPA as the 

maximum number of animals, not 

including natural mortalities, that may 

be removed from a marine mammal 

stock while allowing that stock to reach 

or maintain its optimum sustainable 

population (as described in NMFS’ 

SARs). While no mortality is anticipated 

or authorized here, PBR is included here 

as a gross indicator of the status of the 

species and other threats. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals that 

make up a given stock or the total 

number estimated within a particular 

study or survey area. NMFS’ stock 

abundance estimates for most species 

represent the total estimate of 

individuals within the geographic area, 

if known, that comprises that stock. For 

some species, this geographic area may 

extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed 

stocks in this region are assessed in 

NMFS’ U.S. Atlantic SARs (e.g., Hayes 

et al., 2018). All values presented in 

Table 2 are the most recent available at 

the time of publication and are available 

in the 2017 draft Atlantic SARs (Hayes 

et al., 2018). 

TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMALS KNOWN TO OCCUR IN THE SURVEY AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY DEEPWATER WIND

NEW ENGLAND’S SURVEY ACTIVITIES

Common name Stock 

NMFS 

MMPA 

and 

ESA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV,Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

Predicted 

abundance 

(CV) 3

PBR 4

Occurrence and 

seasonality 

in the survey area 

Toothed whales (Odontoceti) 

Sperm whale (Physeter 

macrocephalus).

North Atlantic ............... E; Y 2,288 (0.28; 1,815; n/a) 5,353 (0.12) 3.6 Rare. 

Long-finned pilot whale 

(Globicephala melas).

W North Atlantic ........... -; Y 5,636 (0.63; 3,464; n/a) 5 18,977 (0.11) 35 Rare. 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin 

(Lagenorhynchus 

acutus).

W North Atlantic ........... -; N 48,819 (0.61; 30,403; n/ 

a).

37,180 (0.07) 304 Rare. 

Atlantic spotted dolphin 

(Stenella frontalis).

W North Atlantic ........... -; N 44,715 (0.43; 31,610; n/ 

a).

55,436 (0.32) 316 Rare. 

Bottlenose dolphin 

(Tursiops truncatus).

W North Atlantic, Offshore.-; N 77,532 (0.40; 56,053; 

2011).

5 97,476 (0.06) 561 Common year round. 

Common dolphin 6

(Delphinus delphis).

W North Atlantic ........... -; N 173,486 (0.55; 55,690; 

2011).

86,098 (0.12) 557 Common year round. 

Risso’s dolphin 

(Grampus griseus).

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

2011).

7,732 (0.09) 126 Rare. 

Harbor porpoise 

(Phocoena phocoena).

Gulf of Maine/Bay of 

Fundy.

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

2011).

* 45,089 (0.12) 706 Common year round. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
28814 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices 

TABLE 1—MARINE MAMMALS KNOWN TO OCCUR IN THE SURVEY AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY DEEPWATER WIND

NEW ENGLAND’S SURVEY ACTIVITIES—Continued 

Common name Stock 

NMFS 

MMPA 

and 

ESA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Stock abundance 

(CV,Nmin, most recent 

abundance survey) 2

Predicted 

abundance 

(CV) 3

PBR 4

Occurrence and 

seasonality 

in the survey area 

Baleen whales (Mysticeti) 

North Atlantic right 

whale (Eubalaena 

glacialis).

W North Atlantic ........... E; Y 458 (0; 455; n/a) .......... * 535 (0.45) 1.4 Year round in continental shelf and 

slope waters, occur 

seasonally to forage. 

Humpback whale 7

(Megaptera 

novaeangliae).

Gulf of Maine ............... -; N 823 (0.42; 239; n/a) ..... * 1,637 (0.07) 3.7 Common year round. 

Fin whale 6

(Balaenoptera 

physalus).

W North Atlantic ........... E; Y 3,522 (0.27; 1,234; n/a) 4,633 (0.08) 2.5 Year round in continental shelf and 

slope waters, occur 

seasonally to forage. 

Sei whale 

(Balaenoptera borealis).

Nova Scotia .................. E; Y 357 (0.52; 236; n/a) ..... * 717 (0.30) 0.5 Year round in continental shelf and 

slope waters, occur 

seasonally to forage. 

Minke whale 6

(Balaenoptera 

acutorostrata).

Canadian East Coast ... -; N 20,741 (0.3; 1,425; n/a) * 2,112 (0.05) 162 Year round in continental shelf and 

slope waters, occur 

seasonally to forage. 

Earless seals (Phocidae) 

Gray seal 8 (Halichoerus 

grypus).

W North Atlantic ........... -; N 27,131 (0.10; 25,908; n/ 

a).

.......................... 1,554 Rare. 

Harbor seal (Phoca 

vitulina).

W North Atlantic ........... -; N 75,834 (0.15; 66,884; 

2012).

.......................... 2,006 Common year round. 

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

designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR (see footnote 3) or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2Stock abundance as reported in NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports (SAR) except where otherwise noted. SARs available online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not 

applicable. For certain stocks, abundance estimates are actual counts of animals and there is no associated CV. The most recent abundance 

survey that is reflected in the abundance estimate is presented; there may be more recent surveys that have not yet been incorporated into the 

estimate. All values presented here are from the 2017 draft Atlantic SARs. 3This information represents species- or guild-specific abundance predicted by recent habitat-based cetacean density models (Roberts et al., 

2016). These models provide the best available scientific information regarding predicted density patterns of cetaceans in the U.S. Atlantic 

Ocean, and we provide the corresponding abundance predictions as a point of reference. Total abundance estimates were produced by computing the mean density of all pixels in the modeled area and multiplying by its area. For those species marked with an asterisk, the available information supported development of either two or four seasonal models; each model has an associated abundance prediction. Here, we report 

the maximum predicted abundance. 4Potential biological removal, defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population size (OSP). 5Abundance estimates are in some cases reported for a guild or group of species when those species are difficult to differentiate at sea. Similarly, the habitat-based cetacean density models produced by Roberts et al. (2016) are based in part on available observational data which, in 

some cases, is limited to genus or guild in terms of taxonomic definition. Roberts et al. (2016) produced density models to genus level for 

Globicephala spp. and produced a density model for bottlenose dolphins that does not differentiate between offshore and coastal stocks. 6Abundance as reported in the 2007 Canadian Trans-North Atlantic Sighting Survey (TNASS), which provided full coverage of the Atlantic Canadian coast (Lawson and Gosselin, 2009). Abundance estimates from TNASS were corrected for perception and availability bias, when possible. In general, where the TNASS survey effort provided superior coverage of a stock’s range (as compared with NOAA shipboard survey effort), the resulting abundance estimate is considered more accurate than the current NMFS abundance estimate (derived from survey effort with 

inferior coverage of the stock range). NMFS stock abundance estimate for the common dolphin is 70,184. NMFS stock abundance estimate for 

the fin whale is 1,618. 7 2017 U.S. Atlantic draft SAR for the Gulf of Maine feeding population lists a current abundance estimate of 335 individuals; this estimate was 

revised from the previous estimate of 823 individuals. However, the newer estimate is based on a single aerial line-transect survey in the Gulf of 

Maine. The 2017 U.S. Atlantic draft SAR notes that that previous estimate was based on a minimum number alive calculation which is generally 

more accurate than one derived from line-transect survey (Hayes et al., 2017), and that the abundance estimate was revised solely because the 

previous estimate was greater than 8 years old. Therefore, the previous estimate of 823 is more accurate, and we note that even that estimate is 

defined on the basis of feeding location alone (i.e., Gulf of Maine). 8 NMFS stock abundance estimate applies to U.S. population only, actual stock abundance is approximately 505,000. 

Four marine mammal species that are 

listed under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) may be present in the survey area 

and are included in the take request: 

The North Atlantic right whale, fin 

whale, sei whale, and sperm whale. 

Though marine mammal species other 

than those listed in Table 1 are known 

to occur in the Northwest Atlantic 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices 28815 

Ocean, the temporal and/or spatial 

occurrence of several of these species is 

such that take of these species is not 

expected to occur, and they are 

therefore not discussed further beyond 

the explanation provided here. Take of 

these species is not anticipated either 

because they have very low densities in 

the project area (e.g., blue whale, 

Clymene dolphin, pantropical spotted 

dolphin, striped dolphin, spinner 

dolphin, killer whale, false killer whale, 

pygmy killer whale,), or, they are known 

to occur further offshore than the project 

area (e.g., beaked whales, short-finned 

pilot whale, rough toothed dolphin, 

Kogia spp.). 

For the majority of species potentially 

present in the specific geographic 

region, NMFS has designated only a 

single generic stock (e.g., ‘‘western 

North Atlantic’’) for management 

purposes. This includes the ‘‘Canadian 

east coast’’ stock of minke whales, 

which includes all minke whales found 

in U.S. waters. For humpback and sei 

whales, NMFS defines stocks on the 

basis of feeding locations, i.e., Gulf of 

Maine and Nova Scotia, respectively. 

However, our reference to humpback 

whales and sei whales in this document 

refers to any individuals of the species 

that are found in the specific geographic 

region. 

A detailed description of the species 

and stocks likely to be affected by 

DWW’s survey, including brief 

introductions to the species and 

relevant stocks as well as available 

information regarding population trends 

and threats, and information regarding 

local occurrence, were provided in the 

Federal Register notice of the proposed 

IHA (83 FR 19711; May 4, 2018); since 

that time, we are not aware of any 

changes in the status of these species 

and stocks; therefore, detailed 

descriptions are not repeated here. 

Please refer to that Federal Register 

notice for these descriptions. Please also 

refer to NMFS’ website 

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

accounts. 

Information concerning marine 

mammal hearing, including marine 

mammal functional hearing groups, was 

provided in the Federal Register notice 

of the proposed IHA (83 FR 19711; May 

4, 2018), therefore that information is 

not repeated here. Please refer to that 

Federal Register notice for this 

information. For further information 

about marine mammal functional 

hearing groups and associated frequency 

ranges, please see NMFS (2016) for a 

review of available information. Fifteen 

marine mammal species (thirteen 

cetacean and two pinniped (both 

phocid) species) have the reasonable 

potential to co-occur with the survey 

activities. Please refer to Table 1. Of the 

cetacean species that may be present, 

five are classified as low-frequency 

cetaceans (i.e., all mysticete species), 

seven are classified as mid-frequency 

cetaceans (i.e., all delphinid species and 

the sperm whale), and one is classified 

as a high-frequency cetacean (i.e., 

harbor porpoise). 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

The effects of underwater noise from 

DWW’s geophysical survey activities 

have the potential to result in behavioral 

harassment of marine mammals in the 

vicinity of the survey area. The Federal 

Register notice of the proposed IHA (83 

FR 19711; May 4, 2018) included a 

discussion of the effects of 

anthropogenic noise on marine 

mammals and their habitat, therefore 

that information is not repeated here; 

please refer to that Federal Register 

notice for that information. No instances 

of hearing threshold shifts, injury, 

serious injury, or mortality are expected 

as a result of the planned activities. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes 

authorized through the IHA, which will 

inform both NMFS’ consideration of 

‘‘small numbers’’ and the negligible 

impact determination. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, the MMPA defines 

‘‘harassment’’ as any act of pursuit, 

torment, or annoyance which (i) has the 

potential to injure a marine mammal or 

marine mammal stock in the wild (Level 

A harassment); or (ii) has the potential 

to disturb a marine mammal or marine 

mammal stock in the wild by causing 

disruption of behavioral patterns, 

including, but not limited to, migration, 

breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering (Level B harassment). 

Authorized takes are by Level B 

harassment, as use of the HRG 

equipment has the potential to result in 

disruption of behavioral patterns for 

individual marine mammals. NMFS has 

determined take by Level A harassment 

is not an expected outcome of the 

proposed activity and thus we do not 

authorize the take of any marine 

mammals by Level A harassment. This 

is discussed in greater detail below. As 

described previously, no mortality or 

serious injury is anticipated or 

authorized for this activity. Below we 

describe how the take is estimated for 

this project. 

Described in the most basic way, we 

estimate take by considering: (1) 

Acoustic thresholds above which NMFS 

believes the best available science 

indicates marine mammals will be 

behaviorally harassed or incur some 

degree of permanent hearing 

impairment; (2) the area or volume of 

water that will be ensonified above 

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

occurrence of marine mammals within 

these ensonified areas; and, (4) and the 

number of days of activities. Below, we 

describe these components in more 

detail and present the take estimate. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

NMFS uses acoustic thresholds that 

identify the received level of 

underwater sound above which exposed 

marine mammals would be reasonably 

expected to be behaviorally harassed 

(equated to Level B harassment) or to 

incur permanent threshold shift (PTS) of 

some degree (equated to Level A 

harassment). 

Level B Harassment—Though 

significantly driven by received level, 

the onset of behavioral disturbance from 

anthropogenic noise exposure is also 

informed to varying degrees by other 

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

frequency, predictability, duty cycle); 

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

the receiving animals (hearing, 

motivation, experience, demography, 

behavioral context); therefore can be 

difficult to predict (Southall et al., 2007, 

Ellison et al. 2012). NMFS uses a 

generalized acoustic threshold based on 

received level to estimate the onset of 

Level B (behavioral) harassment. NMFS 

predicts that marine mammals may be 

behaviorally harassed when exposed to 

underwater anthropogenic noise above 

received levels 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) for 

non-explosive impulsive (e.g., seismic 

HRG equipment) or intermittent (e.g., 

scientific sonar) sources. DWW’s 

activity includes the use of impulsive 

sources. Therefore, the 160 dB re 1 mPa 

(rms) criteria is applicable for analysis 

of Level B harassment. 

Level A Harassment—NMFS’ 

Technical Guidance for Assessing the 

Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on 

Marine Mammal Hearing (NMFS 2016) 

identifies dual criteria to assess auditory 

injury (Level A harassment) to five 

different marine mammal groups (based 

on hearing sensitivity) as a result of 

exposure to noise from two different 

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

identifies the received levels, or 

thresholds, above which individual 

marine mammals are predicted to 

experience changes in their hearing 

sensitivity for all underwater 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
28816 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices 

anthropogenic sound sources, reflects 

the best available science, and better 

predicts the potential for auditory injury 

than does NMFS’ historical criteria. 

These thresholds were developed by 

compiling and synthesizing the best 

available science and soliciting input 

multiple times from both the public and 

peer reviewers to inform the final 

product, and are provided in Table 2 

below. The references, analysis, and 

methodology used in the development 

of the thresholds are described in NMFS 

2016 Technical Guidance, which may 

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

acoustics/guidelines.htm. As described 

above, DWW’s activity includes the use 

of intermittent and impulsive sources. 

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

Hearing group 

PTS onset thresholds 

Impulsive * Non-impulsive 

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

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

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

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

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

should also be considered. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

that will feed into estimating the area 

ensonified above the acoustic 

thresholds. 

The survey would entail the use of 

HRG survey equipment. The distance to 

the isopleth corresponding to the 

threshold for Level B harassment was 

calculated for all HRG survey 

equipment with the potential to result 

in harassment of marine mammals using 

the spherical transmission loss (TL) 

equation: TL = 20log10. Results of 

modeling indicated that, of the HRG 

survey equipment planned for use that 

has the potential to result in harassment 

of marine mammals, the AA Dura-Spark 

would be expected to produce sound 

that would propagate the furthest in the 

water (Table 3); therefore, for the 

purposes of the take calculation, it was 

assumed the AA Dura-Spark would be 

active during the entirety of the survey. 

Thus the distance to the isopleth 

corresponding to the threshold for Level 

B harassment for the AA Dura-Spark 

(estimated at 447 m; Table 3) was used 

as the basis of the Level B take 

calculation for all marine mammals. 

TABLE 3—MODELED RADIAL DISTANCES FROM HRG SURVEY EQUIPMENT TO ISOPLETHS CORRESPONDING TO LEVEL B 

HARASSMENT THRESHOLD

HRG system 

Radial distance (m) 

to level B 

harassment 

threshold 

(160 dB re 1 μPa) 

TB Chirp ............................................................................................................................................................................... 70.79 

EdgeTech Chirp ................................................................................................................................................................... 6.31 

AA Boomer .......................................................................................................................................................................... 5.62 

AA S-Boom .......................................................................................................................................................................... 141.25 

Bubble Gun .......................................................................................................................................................................... 63.1 

800J Spark ........................................................................................................................................................................... 141.25 

AA Dura Spark ..................................................................................................................................................................... 446.69 

Predicted distances to Level A 

harassment isopleths, which vary based 

on marine mammal functional hearing 

groups (Table 4), were also calculated. 

The updated acoustic thresholds for 

impulsive sounds (such as HRG survey 

equipment) contained in the Technical 

Guidance (NMFS, 2016) were presented 

as dual metric acoustic thresholds using 

both cumulative sound exposure level 

(SELcum) and peak sound pressure level 

metrics. As dual metrics, NMFS 

considers onset of PTS (Level A 

harassment) to have occurred when 

either one of the two metrics is 

exceeded (i.e., metric resulting in the 

largest isopleth). 

The SELcum metric considers both 

level and duration of exposure, as well 

as auditory weighting functions by 

marine mammal hearing group. In 

recognition of the fact that calculating 

Level A harassment ensonified areas 

could be more technically challenging 

to predict due to the duration 

component and the use of weighting 

functions in the new SELcum thresholds, 

NMFS developed an optional User 

Spreadsheet that includes tools to help 

predict a simple isopleth that can be 

used in conjunction with marine 

mammal density or occurrence to 

facilitate the estimation of take 

numbers. DWW used the NMFS 

optional User Spreadsheet to calculate 

distances to Level A harassment 

isopleths based on SELcum. To calculate 

distances to the Level A harassment 

isopleths based on peak pressure, the 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices 28817 

spherical spreading loss model was 

used (similar to the method used to 

calculate Level B isopleths as described 

above). 

Modeling of distances to isopleths 

corresponding to Level A harassment 

was performed for all types of HRG 

equipment planned for use with the 

potential to result in harassment of 

marine mammals. Of the HRG 

equipment types modeled, the AA Dura 

Spark resulted in the largest distances to 

isopleths corresponding to Level A 

harassment for all marine mammal 

functional hearing groups; therefore, to 

be conservative, the isopleths modeled 

for the AA Dura Spark were used to 

estimate potential Level A take. Based 

on a conservative assumption that the 

AA Dura Spark would be operated at 

1,000 joules during the survey, a peak 

source level of 223 dB re 1mPa was used 

for modeling Level A harassment 

isopleths based on peak pressure 

(Crocker & Fratantonio, 2016). Inputs to 

the NMFS optional User Spreadsheet for 

the AA Dura Spark are shown in Table 

4. Modeled distances to isopleths 

corresponding to Level A harassment 

thresholds for the AA Dura Spark are 

shown in Table 5 (modeled distances to 

Level A harassment isopleths for all 

other types of HRG equipment planned 

for use are shown in Table 6 of the IHA 

application). As described above, NMFS 

considers onset of PTS (Level A 

harassment) to have occurred when 

either one of the two metrics is 

exceeded (i.e., metric resulting in the 

largest isopleth). In this case, modeled 

distances to isopleths corresponding to 

the Level A harassment threshold are 

greater based on the peak SPL metric 

than the SELcum metric for all marine 

mammal functional hearing groups 

(Table 5). 

TABLE 4—INPUTS TO THE NMFS OPTIONAL USER SPREADSHEET FOR THE AA DURA SPARK

Source Level (rms SPL) 1 ...................................................................................................................................................... 213 dB re 1μPa 

Source Level (peak) 1 ............................................................................................................................................................ 223 dB re 1μPa 

Weighting Factor Adjustment (kHz) 1 .................................................................................................................................... 3.2 

Source Velocity (meters/second) .......................................................................................................................................... 2.07 

Pulse Duration (seconds) ...................................................................................................................................................... 0.0021 

1/Repetition rate (seconds) ................................................................................................................................................... 2.42 

Duty Cycle ............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.00 

1 Derived from Crocker & Fratantonio (2016), based on operation at 1,000 joules. 

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

Functional hearing group (Level A harassment thresholds) 

Radial distance (m) 

to Level A 

harassment 

threshold 

(SELcum) 

Radial distance (m) 

to Level A 

harassment 

threshold 

(Peak SPLflat) 

Low frequency cetaceans ................................................................................................................

(Lpk,flat: 219 dB; LE,LF,24h: 183 dB) .................................................................................................. 1.3 1.6 

Mid frequency cetaceans .................................................................................................................

(Lpk,flat: 230 dB; LE,MF,24h: 185 dB) ................................................................................................. 0.0 0.5 

High frequency cetaceans ...............................................................................................................

(Lpk,flat: 202 dB; LE,HF,24h: 155 dB) ................................................................................................. 8.6 11.2 

Phocid Pinnipeds (Underwater) .......................................................................................................

(Lpk,flat: 218 dB; LE,HF,24h: 185 dB) ................................................................................................. 0.7 1.8 

Due to the small estimated distances 

to Level A harassment thresholds for all 

marine mammal functional hearing 

groups, based on both SELcum and peak 

SPL (Table 5), and in consideration of 

the mitigation measures (see the 

Mitigation section for more detail), 

NMFS has determined that the 

likelihood of Level A take of marine 

mammals occurring as a result of the 

planned survey is so low as to be 

discountable. 

We note that because of some of the 

assumptions included in the methods 

used, isopleths produced may be 

overestimates to some degree. Most of 

the acoustic sources planned for use in 

DWW’s survey (including the AA Dura 

Spark) do not radiate sound equally in 

all directions but were designed instead 

to focus acoustic energy directly toward 

the sea floor. Therefore, the acoustic 

energy produced by these sources is not 

received equally in all directions around 

the source but is instead concentrated 

along some narrower plane depending 

on the beamwidth of the source. 

However, the calculated distances to 

isopleths do not account for this 

directionality of the sound source and 

are therefore conservative. Two types of 

geophysical survey equipment planned 

for use in the planned survey are omnidirectional, however the modeled 

distances to isopleths corresponding to 

the Level B harassment threshold for 

these sources are smaller than that for 

the Dura Spark, and the Dura Spark was 

used to conservatively estimate take for 

the duration of the survey. For mobile 

sources, such as the planned survey, the 

User Spreadsheet predicts the closest 

distance at which a stationary animal 

would not incur PTS if the sound source 

traveled by the animal in a straight line 

at a constant speed. 

Marine Mammal Occurrence 

In this section we provide the 

information about the presence, density, 

or group dynamics of marine mammals 

that will inform the take calculations. 

The best available scientific 

information was considered in 

calculating marine mammal exposure 

estimates (the basis for estimating take). 

For cetacean species, densities 

calculated by Roberts et al. (2016) were 

used. The density data presented by 

Roberts et al. (2016) incorporates aerial 

and shipboard line-transect survey data 

from NMFS and from other 

organizations collected over the period 

1992–2014. Roberts et al. (2016) 

modeled density from 8 physiographic 

and 16 dynamic oceanographic and 

biological covariates, and controlled for 

the influence of sea state, group size, 

availability bias, and perception bias on 

the probability of making a sighting. 

NMFS considers the models produced 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
28818 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices 

by Roberts et al. (2016) to be the best 

available source of data regarding 

cetacean densities for this project. More 

information, including the model results 

and supplementary information for each 

model, is available online at: 

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

For the purposes of the take 

calculations, density data from Roberts 

et al. (2016) were mapped using a 

geographic information system (GIS), 

using density data for the months June 

through December. Mean density per 

month for each species within the 

survey area was calculated by selecting 

13 random raster cells selected from 100 

square kilometers (km2) raster cells that 

were inside, or adjacent to, the RI–MA 

WEA (see Figure 1 in the IHA 

application). Estimates provided by the 

models are based on a grid cell size of 

100 km2; therefore, model grid cell 

values were then divided by 100 to 

determine animals per km2. 

Systematic, offshore, at-sea survey 

data for pinnipeds are more limited than 

those for cetaceans. The best available 

information concerning pinniped 

densities in the planned survey area is 

the U.S. Navy’s Operating Area 

(OPAREA) Density Estimates (NODEs) 

(DoN, 2007). These density models 

utilized vessel-based and aerial survey 

data collected by NMFS from 1998– 

2005 during broad-scale abundance 

studies. Modeling methodology is 

detailed in DoN (2007). For the 

purposes of the take calculations, 

NODEs Density Estimates (DoN, 2007) 

as reported for the summer and fall 

seasons were used to estimate harbor 

seal and gray seal densities. 

Take Calculation and Estimation 

Here we describe how the information 

provided above is brought together to 

produce a quantitative take estimate. 

In order to estimate the number of 

marine mammals predicted to be 

exposed to sound levels that would 

result in harassment, radial distances to 

predicted isopleths corresponding to 

harassment thresholds are calculated, as 

described above. Those distances are 

then used to calculate the area(s) around 

the HRG survey equipment predicted to 

be ensonified to sound levels that 

exceed harassment thresholds. The area 

estimated to be ensonified to relevant 

thresholds in a single day of the survey 

is then calculated, based on areas 

predicted to be ensonified around the 

HRG survey equipment and the 

estimated trackline distance traveled per 

day by the survey vessel. DWW 

estimates a maximum daily track line 

distance of 110 km per day during HRG 

surveys. Based on the maximum 

estimated distance to the Level B 

harassment threshold of 447 m (Table 3) 

and the maximum estimated daily track 

line distance of 110 km, an area of 98.9 

km2 would be ensonified to the Level B 

harassment threshold per day during 

HRG surveys. 

The number of marine mammals 

expected to be incidentally taken per 

day is then calculated by estimating the 

number of each species predicted to 

occur within the daily ensonified area, 

using estimated marine mammal 

densities as described above. Estimated 

numbers of each species taken per day 

are then multiplied by the number of 

survey days (i.e., 200), and the product 

is then rounded, to generate an estimate 

of the total number of each species 

expected to be taken over the duration 

of the survey (Table 6). 

The applicant estimated a total of 11 

takes by Level A harassment of harbor 

porpoises, 5 takes by Level A 

harassment of harbor seals, and 7 takes 

by Level A harassment of gray seals 

would occur, in the absence of 

mitigation. However, as described 

above, due to the very small estimated 

distances to Level A harassment 

thresholds (Table 5), and in 

consideration of the mitigation 

measures, the likelihood of the planned 

survey resulting in take in the form of 

Level A harassment is considered so 

low as to be discountable; therefore, we 

do not authorize take of any marine 

mammals by Level A harassment. 

Although there are no exclusion zones 

(EZs) required for pinnipeds, the 

estimated distance to the isopleth 

corresponding to the Level A 

harassment threshold for pinnipeds is 

less than 2 m (Table 6); therefore, we 

determined the likelihood of an animal 

being taken within this proximity of the 

survey equipment to be so low as to be 

discountable. Authorized take numbers 

are shown in Table 6. 

TABLE 6—TOTAL NUMBERS OF POTENTIAL INCIDENTAL TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS AUTHORIZED AND TAKES AS A

PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION

Species Density 

(#/100 km2) 

Level A takes 

authorized 

Estimated 

Level B takes 

Level B takes 

authorized 

Total 

authorized 

takes 

Total 

authorized 

takes as a 

percentage of 

population 1

North Atlantic right whale ......................... 0.01706 0 3 3 3 0.6 

Humpback whale ..................................... 0.14439 0 29 29 29 1.8 

Fin whale 2 ............................................... 0.21353 0 42 42 42 1.2 

Sei whale 3 ............................................... 0.005 0 1 2 2 0.3 

Minke whale 2 ........................................... 0.04745 0 9 9 9 <0.1 

Sperm whale ............................................ 0.00665 0 1 1 1 <0.1 

Long-finned pilot whale 3 .......................... 0.15364 0 30 32 32 0.2 

Bottlenose dolphin ................................... 1.60936 0 318 318 318 0.3 

Atlantic Spotted dolphin 3 ......................... 0.00886 0 2 50 50 0.1 

Common dolphin 2 .................................... 4.59986 0 910 910 910 0.5 

Atlantic white-sided dolphin ..................... 1.8036 0 357 357 357 1.0 

Risso’s dolphin 4 ....................................... 0 0 0 30 30 0.4 

Harbor porpoise 5 ..................................... 2.53125 0 501 501 501 1.1 

Harbor seal .............................................. 6.49533 0 1,285 1,285 1,285 1.7 

Gray seal 4 ............................................... 14.1160 0 2,792 2,792 2,792 10.3 

1Estimates of total takes as a percentage of population are based on marine mammal abundance estimates provided by Roberts et al. (2016), 

when available, except where noted otherwise, to maintain consistency with density estimates which are derived from data provided by Roberts 

et al. (2016). In cases where abundances are not provided by Roberts et al. (2016), total takes as a percentage of population are based on 

abundance estimates in the NMFS Atlantic SARs (Hayes et al., 2018). 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices 28819 

2Estimates of total takes as a percentage of population are based on marine mammal abundance estimates as reported in the 2007 TNASS 

(Lawson and Gosselin, 2009) (Table 2). Abundance estimates from TNASS were corrected for perception and availability bias, when possible. In 

general, where the TNASS survey effort provided superior coverage of a stock’s range (as compared with NOAA shipboard survey effort), the resulting abundance estimate is considered more accurate than abundance estimates based on NMFS surveys. 3The number of authorized takes (Level B harassment only) for these species has been increased from the estimated take to mean group 

size. Source for sei whale group size estimate is: Schilling et al. (1992). Source for long-finned pilot whale group size estimate is: Augusto et al. 

(2017). Source for Atlantic spotted dolphin group size estimate is: Jefferson et al. (2008). Source for Risso’s dolphin group size estimate is: Baird 

and Stacey (1991). 4Take estimate for these species has been revised from the proposed IHA. See text below for further information. 

5The density estimate in the IHA application is incorrectly shown as 0.0225781 animals/km2. The correct density estimate is reflected in Table 

6. 

Species with Take Estimates Less than 

Mean Group Size: Using the approach 

described above to estimate take, the 

take estimates for the sei whale, longfinned pilot whale, Risso’s dolphin and 

Atlantic spotted dolphin were less than 

the average group sizes estimated for 

these species (Table 6). However, 

information on the social structures and 

life histories of these species indicates 

these species are often encountered in 

groups. The results of take calculations 

support the likelihood that the survey is 

expected to encounter and to 

incidentally take these species, and we 

believe it is likely that these species 

may be encountered in groups. 

Therefore it is reasonable to 

conservatively assume that one group of 

each of these species will be taken 

during the planned survey. We 

authorize the take of the average group 

size for these species and stocks to 

account for the possibility that the 

planned survey encounters a group of 

any of these species or stocks (Table 6). 

Note that the take estimate for the sperm 

whale was not increased to average 

group size because, based on water 

depths in the survey area (26 to 48 m 

(52 to 92 ft)), it is very unlikely that 

groups of sperm whales, which tend to 

occur at greater depths, would be 

encountered by the survey. 

We note that the IHA authorizes take 

of Risso’s dolphins, though 

authorization for the take of Risso’s 

dolphins was not proposed in the 

Federal Register notice of the proposed 

IHA (83 FR 19711; May 4, 2018). 

Though density estimates for Risso’s 

dolphins in the survey area indicate 

they would not be expected in the 

survey area, based on public comments 

and a review of monitoring data from a 

previous IHA issued for a similar 

activity in 2017 (NMFS, 2017) we have 

determined that take authorization for 

Risso’s dolphins is warranted. The 

monitoring report from the IHA issued 

to Deepwater Wind in 2017 for HRG 

surveys in the RI–MA WEA indicates 

that a single group of Risso’s dolphins 

was observed by PSOs (though not taken 

by Level A or Level B harassment) 

during that survey (AIS Inc., 2017). As 

the activities authorized through this 

IHA are similar to those conducted by 

DWW in 2017 (i.e., HRG surveys 

conducted within the RI–MA WEA) 

NMFS has determined the planned 

survey may encounter Risso’s dolphins 

and thus it is appropriate to authorize 

the take of Risso’s dolphins. As take 

modeling based on density estimates 

(e.g., Roberts et. al (2016)) indicated no 

Risso’s dolphins would be taken by the 

survey, but we have determined take 

authorization for Risso’s dolphins is 

warranted and Risso’s dolphins may be 

encountered in groups, we have 

authorized the take of a group of Risso’s 

dolphins, based on mean group size for 

the species (Table 6). We also note that 

the take estimate for gray seals has been 

revised from the number proposed for 

authorization. In the Federal Register 

notice of the proposed IHA (83 FR 

19711; May 4, 2018), the take number 

proposed for gray seals was based on an 

incorrect density estimate. The average 

density of gray seals in the survey area 

was reported as 0.0941067 per km2; 

however the correct density is 0.14116 

per km2. The correct density has been 

used to re-calculate the authorized 

number of gray seal takes (Table 6). 

Mitigation 

In order to issue an IHA under 

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

NMFS must set forth the permissible 

methods of taking pursuant to such 

activity, and other means of effecting 

the least practicable impact on such 

species or stock and its habitat, paying 

particular attention to rookeries, mating 

grounds, and areas of similar 

significance, and on the availability of 

such species or stock for taking for 

certain subsistence uses (latter not 

applicable for this action). NMFS 

regulations require applicants for 

incidental take authorizations to include 

information about the availability and 

feasibility (economic and technological) 

of equipment, methods, and manner of 

conducting such activity or other means 

of effecting the least practicable adverse 

impact upon the affected species or 

stocks and their habitat (50 CFR 

216.104(a)(11)). 

In evaluating how mitigation may or 

may not be appropriate to ensure the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

species or stocks and their habitat, as 

well as subsistence uses where 

applicable, we carefully consider two 

primary factors: 

(1) The manner in which, and the 

degree to which, the successful 

implementation of the measure(s) is 

expected to reduce impacts to marine 

mammals, marine mammal species or 

stocks, and their habitat. This considers 

the nature of the potential adverse 

impact being mitigated (likelihood, 

scope, range). It further considers the 

likelihood that the measure will be 

effective if implemented (probability of 

accomplishing the mitigating result if 

implemented as planned) the likelihood 

of effective implementation (probability 

implemented as planned); and 

(2) The practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as relative 

cost and impact on operations. 

Mitigation Measures 

Based on the applicant’s request, 

which includes requirements relating to 

the BOEM lease stipulations associated 

with ESA-listed marine mammals, and 

specific information regarding the zones 

ensonified above NMFS thresholds, 

NMFS is requiring the following 

mitigation measures during the marine 

site characterization surveys. 

Marine Mammal Exclusion and Watch 

Zone 

Marine mammal exclusion zones (EZ) 

will be established around the HRG 

survey equipment and monitored by 

protected species observers (PSO) 

during HRG surveys as follows: 

• 500 m EZ for North Atlantic right 

whales; 

• 200 m EZ for all other ESA-listed 

cetaceans (including fin whale, sei 

whale and sperm whale); and 

• 25 m EZ for harbor porpoises. 

The applicant proposed a 500 m EZ 

for North Atlantic right whales and 200 

m EZ for all other marine mammals; 

however, for non-ESA-listed marine 

mammals, based on estimated distances 

to isopleths corresponding with Level A 

harassment thresholds (Table 5), we 

determined EZs for species other than 

those described above were not 

warranted. If HRG survey equipment is 

shut down (as described below) due to 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
28820 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices 

a marine mammal being observed 

within or approaching the relevant EZs, 

ramp up of survey equipment may not 

commence until the animal(s) has been 

observed exiting the relevant EZ, or 

until an additional time period has 

elapsed with no further sighting of the 

animal (e.g., 15 minutes for harbor 

porpoises and 30 minutes for all large 

whale species). In addition to the EZs 

described above, PSOs will visually 

monitor and record the presence of all 

marine mammals within a 500 m Watch 

Zone. Marine mammals observed by 

PSOs within 447 m of geophysical 

survey equipment will be documented 

as taken by Level B harassment. 

Visual Monitoring 

As per the BOEM lease, visual and 

acoustic monitoring of the established 

exclusion and monitoring zones will be 

performed by qualified and NMFSapproved PSOs. It will be the 

responsibility of the Lead PSO on duty 

to communicate the presence of marine 

mammals as well as to communicate the 

action(s) that are necessary to ensure 

mitigation and monitoring requirements 

are implemented as appropriate. PSOs 

will be equipped with binoculars and 

would estimate distances to marine 

mammals located in proximity to the 

vessel and/or exclusion zone using 

range finders. Reticulated binoculars 

will also be available to PSOs for use as 

appropriate based on conditions and 

visibility to support the siting and 

monitoring of marine species. Position 

data will be recorded using hand-held 

or vessel GPS units for each sighting. 

Observations will take place from the 

highest available vantage point on the 

survey vessel. During surveys 

conducted at night, night-vision 

equipment with infrared light-emitting 

diodes spotlights and/or infrared video 

monitoring will be available for PSO 

use, and passive acoustic monitoring 

(described below) will be used. 

Pre-Clearance of the Exclusion Zone 

Prior to initiating HRG survey 

activities, DWW will implement a 30- 

minute pre-clearance period. During 

this period, the PSOs will ensure that no 

North Atlantic right whales are observed 

within 500 m of geophysical survey 

equipment, and that no other marine 

mammal species are observed within 

200 m of geophysical survey equipment. 

Surveys may not begin until these zones 

have been clear of the relevant marine 

mammal species for 30 minutes. This 

pre-clearance requirement would 

include small delphinoids that 

approach the vessel (e.g., bow ride). 

PSOs would also continue to monitor 

the zone for 30 minutes after survey 

equipment is shut down or survey 

activity has concluded. 

Passive Acoustic Monitoring 

As proposed by the applicant and 

required by BOEM lease stipulations, 

PAM will be used to support monitoring 

during night time operations to provide 

for optimal acquisition of species 

detections at night. The PAM system 

will consist of an array of hydrophones 

with both broadband (sampling midrange frequencies of 2 kHz to 200 kHz) 

and at least one low-frequency 

hydrophone (sampling range 

frequencies of 75 hertz (Hz) to 30 kHz). 

The PAM operator(s) will monitor 

acoustic signals in real time both aurally 

(using headphones) and visually (via 

sound analysis software). PAM 

operators will communicate nighttime 

detections to the lead PSO on duty who 

will ensure the implementation of the 

appropriate mitigation measure. 

Shutdown of geophysical survey 

equipment is required upon confirmed 

PAM detection of a North Atlantic right 

whale at night, even in the absence of 

visual confirmation, except in cases 

where the acoustic detection can be 

localized and the right whale can be 

confirmed as being beyond the 500 m 

EZ; equipment may be re-started no 

sooner than 30 minutes after the last 

confirmed acoustic detection. However, 

aside from the required shutdown for 

right whales as described above, PAM 

detection alone would not trigger a 

requirement for any mitigation action to 

be taken upon acoustic detection of 

marine mammals, per BOEM 

requirements. 

Ramp-Up of Survey Equipment 

As proposed by the applicant, where 

technically feasible, a ramp-up 

procedure will be used for geophysical 

survey equipment capable of adjusting 

energy levels at the start or re-start of 

survey activities. The ramp-up 

procedure will be used at the beginning 

of HRG survey activities in order to 

provide additional protection to marine 

mammals near the survey area by 

allowing them to detect the presence of 

the survey and vacate the area prior to 

the commencement of survey 

equipment use at full energy. Ramp-up 

of the survey equipment will not begin 

until the relevant EZs have been cleared 

by the PSOs, as described above. 

Systems will be initiated at their lowest 

power output and will be incrementally 

increased to full power. If any marine 

mammals are detected within the EZ 

prior to or during the ramp-up, HRG 

equipment will be shut down (as 

described below). 

Shutdown Procedures 

If a marine mammal is observed 

within or approaching the relevant EZ 

(as described above) an immediate 

shutdown of the survey equipment is 

required. Subsequent restart of the 

survey equipment may only occur after 

the animal(s) has either been observed 

exiting the relevant EZ or until an 

additional time period has elapsed with 

no further sighting of the animal (e.g., 

15 minutes for harbor porpoises and 30 

minutes for North Atlantic right, fin, sei 

and sperm whales). 

In addition, shutdown of geophysical 

survey equipment is required upon 

confirmed PAM detection of a North 

Atlantic right whale at night, even in the 

absence of visual confirmation, except 

in cases where the acoustic detection 

can be localized and the right whale can 

be confirmed as being beyond the 500 

m EZ; equipment may be re-started no 

sooner than 30 minutes after the last 

confirmed acoustic detection. 

As required in the BOEM lease, if the 

HRG equipment shuts down for reasons 

other than mitigation (i.e., mechanical 

or electronic failure) resulting in the 

cessation of the survey equipment for a 

period greater than 20 minutes, a 30 

minute pre-clearance period (as 

described above) will precede the restart 

of the HRG survey equipment. If the 

pause is less than 20 minutes, the 

equipment may be restarted as soon as 

practicable at its full operational level 

only if visual surveys were continued 

diligently throughout the silent period 

and the EZs remained clear of marine 

mammals during that entire period. If 

visual surveys were not continued 

diligently during the pause of 20 

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

will precede the re-start of the HRG 

survey equipment. Following a 

shutdown, HRG survey equipment may 

be restarted following pre-clearance of 

the zones as described above. 

If a species for which authorization 

has not been granted, or, a species for 

which authorization has been granted 

but the authorized number of takes have 

been met, approaches or is observed 

within an EZ or within the area 

encompassing the Level B harassment 

isopleth (450 m), shutdown will occur. 

Vessel Strike Avoidance 

Vessel strike avoidance measures will 

include, but are not limited to, the 

following, as required in the BOEM 

lease, except under circumstances when 

complying with these requirements 

would put the safety of the vessel or 

crew at risk: 

• All vessel operators and crew will 

maintain vigilant watch for cetaceans 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices 28821 

and pinnipeds, and slow down or stop 

their vessel to avoid striking these 

protected species; 

• All survey vessels greater than or 

equal to 65 ft (19.8 m) in overall length 

will comply with 10 knot (18.5 km/hr) 

or less speed restriction in any SMA per 

the NOAA ship strike reduction rule (73 

FR 60173; October 10, 2008); 

• All vessel operators will reduce 

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

less when any large whale, any mother/ 

calf pairs, or large assemblages of nondelphinoid cetaceans are observed near 

(within 100 m (330 ft)) an underway 

vessel; 

• All survey vessels will maintain a 

separation distance of 500 m (1640 ft) or 

greater from any sighted North Atlantic 

right whale; 

• If underway, vessels must steer a 

course away from any sighted North 

Atlantic right whale at 10 knots (18.5 

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

minimum separation distance has been 

established. If a North Atlantic right 

whale is sighted in a vessel’s path, or 

within 500 m (330 ft) to an underway 

vessel, the underway vessel must reduce 

speed and shift the engine to neutral. 

Engines will not be engaged until the 

North Atlantic right whale has moved 

outside of the vessel’s path and beyond 

500 m. If stationary, the vessel must not 

engage engines until the North Atlantic 

right whale has moved beyond 500 m; 

• All vessels will maintain a 

separation distance of 100 m (330 ft) or 

greater from any sighted non-delphinoid 

cetacean. If sighted, the vessel 

underway must reduce speed and shift 

the engine to neutral, and must not 

engage the engines until the nondelphinoid cetacean has moved outside 

of the vessel’s path and beyond 100 m. 

If a survey vessel is stationary, the 

vessel will not engage engines until the 

non-delphinoid cetacean has moved out 

of the vessel’s path and beyond 100 m; 

• All vessels will maintain a 

separation distance of 50 m (164 ft) or 

greater from any sighted delphinoid 

cetacean. Any vessel underway remain 

parallel to a sighted delphinoid 

cetacean’s course whenever possible, 

and avoid excessive speed or abrupt 

changes in direction. Any vessel 

underway reduces vessel speed to 10 

knots (18.5 km/hr) or less when pods 

(including mother/calf pairs) or large 

assemblages of delphinoid cetaceans are 

observed. Vessels may not adjust course 

and speed until the delphinoid 

cetaceans have moved beyond 50 m 

and/or the abeam of the underway 

vessel; 

• All vessels will maintain a 

separation distance of 50 m (164 ft) or 

greater from any sighted pinniped; and 

• All vessels underway will not 

divert or alter course in order to 

approach any whale, delphinoid 

cetacean, or pinniped. Any vessel 

underway will avoid excessive speed or 

abrupt changes in direction to avoid 

injury to the sighted cetacean or 

pinniped. 

DWW will ensure that vessel 

operators and crew maintain a vigilant 

watch for cetaceans and pinnipeds by 

slowing down or stopping the vessel to 

avoid striking marine mammals. Projectspecific training will be conducted for 

all vessel crew prior to the start of the 

site characterization survey activities. 

Confirmation of the training and 

understanding of the requirements will 

be documented on a training course log 

sheet. Signing the log sheet will certify 

that the crew members understand and 

will comply with the necessary 

requirements throughout the survey 

activities. 

Seasonal Operating Requirements 

The northern section of the survey 

area partially overlaps with a portion of 

a North Atlantic right whale SMA 

which occurs east of Long Island, New 

York, and south of Massachusetts and 

Rhode Island. This SMA is active from 

November 1 through April 30 of each 

year. Survey vessels that are >65 ft in 

length would be required to adhere to 

the mandatory vessel speed restrictions 

(<10 kn) when operating within the 

SMA during times when the SMA is 

active. In addition, between watch 

shifts, members of the monitoring team 

would consult NMFS’ North Atlantic 

right whale reporting systems for the 

presence of North Atlantic right whales 

throughout survey operations. Members 

of the monitoring team would monitor 

the NMFS North Atlantic right whale 

reporting systems for the establishment 

of a Dynamic Management Area (DMA). 

If NMFS should establish a DMA in the 

survey area, within 24 hours of the 

establishment of the DMA DWW would 

coordinate with NMFS to shut down 

and/or alter the survey activities as 

needed to avoid right whales to the 

extent possible. 

The mitigation measures are designed 

to avoid the already low potential for 

injury in addition to some Level B 

harassment, and to minimize the 

potential for vessel strikes. There are no 

known marine mammal rookeries or 

mating grounds in the survey area that 

would otherwise potentially warrant 

increased mitigation measures for 

marine mammals or their habitat (or 

both). The planned survey would occur 

in an area that has been identified as a 

biologically important area for migration 

for North Atlantic right whales. 

However, given the small spatial extent 

of the survey area relative to the 

substantially larger spatial extent of the 

right whale migratory area, the survey is 

not expected to appreciably reduce 

migratory habitat nor to negatively 

impact the migration of North Atlantic 

right whales, thus mitigation to address 

the survey’s occurrence in North 

Atlantic right whale migratory habitat is 

not warranted. The survey area would 

partially overlap spatially with a 

biologically important feeding area for 

fin whales. However, the fin whale 

feeding area is sufficiently large (2,933 

km2), and the acoustic footprint of the 

planned survey is sufficiently small 

(<100 km2 estimated to be ensonified to 

the Level B harassment threshold per 

day), that the survey is not expected to 

appreciably reduce fin whale feeding 

habitat nor to negatively impact the 

feeding of fin whales, thus mitigation to 

address the survey’s occurrence in fin 

whale feeding habitat is not warranted. 

Further, we believe the mitigation 

measures are practicable for the 

applicant to implement. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, NMFS 

has determined that the mitigation 

measures provide the means of effecting 

the least practicable impact on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance. 

Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104 (a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present in the survey area. Effective 

reporting is critical both to compliance 

as well as ensuring that the most value 

is obtained from the required 

monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

• Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density); 

• Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
28822 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

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

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

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

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

feeding areas); 

• Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors; 

• How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) Long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks; 

• Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat); and 

• Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

Monitoring Measures 

As described above, visual monitoring 

of the EZs and monitoring zone will be 

performed by qualified and NMFSapproved PSOs. PSO Qualifications will 

include completion of a PSO training 

course and documented field experience 

conducting similar surveys. As 

proposed by the applicant and required 

by BOEM, an observer team comprising 

a minimum of four NMFS-approved 

PSOs and a minimum of two certified 

PAM operator(s), operating in shifts, 

will be employed by DWW during the 

planned surveys. PSOs and PAM 

operators will work in shifts such that 

no one monitor will work more than 4 

consecutive hours without a 2 hour 

break or longer than 12 hours during 

any 24 hour period. During daylight 

hours the PSOs will rotate in shifts of 

one on and three off, while during 

nighttime operations PSOs will work in 

pairs. The PAM operators will also be 

on call as necessary during daytime 

operations should visual observations 

become impaired. Each PSO will 

monitor 360 degrees of the field of 

vision. 

Also as described above, PSOs will be 

equipped with binoculars and have the 

ability to estimate distances to marine 

mammals located in proximity to the 

vessel and/or exclusion zone using 

range finders. Reticulated binoculars 

will also be available to PSOs for use as 

appropriate based on conditions and 

visibility to support the sighting and 

monitoring of marine species. During 

night operations, PAM and night-vision 

equipment with infrared light-emitting 

diode spotlights and/or infrared video 

monitoring will be used to increase the 

ability to detect marine mammals. 

Position data will be recorded using 

hand-held or vessel global positioning 

system (GPS) units for each sighting. 

Observations will take place from the 

highest available vantage point on the 

survey vessel. General 360-degree 

scanning will occur during the 

monitoring periods, and target scanning 

by the PSO will occur when alerted of 

a marine mammal presence. 

Data on all PAM/PSO observations 

will be recorded, including dates, times, 

and locations of survey operations; time 

of observation, location and weather; 

details of marine mammal sightings 

(e.g., species, numbers, behavior); and 

details of any observed taking (e.g., 

behavioral disturbances or injury/ 

mortality). 

Reporting Measures 

Within 90 days after completion of 

survey activities, a final technical report 

will be provided to NMFS that fully 

documents the methods and monitoring 

protocols, summarizes the data recorded 

during monitoring, summarizes the 

number of marine mammals estimated 

to have been taken during survey 

activities (by species, when known), 

summarizes the mitigation actions taken 

during surveys (including what type of 

mitigation and the species and number 

of animals that prompted the mitigation 

action, when known), and provides an 

interpretation of the results and 

effectiveness of all mitigation and 

monitoring. Any recommendations 

made by NMFS must be addressed in 

the final report prior to acceptance by 

NMFS. 

In addition to the final technical 

report, DWW will provide the reports 

described below as necessary during 

survey activities. In the unanticipated 

event that DWW’s survey activities lead 

to an injury (Level A harassment) or 

mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear 

interaction, and/or entanglement) of a 

marine mammal, DWW would 

immediately cease the specified 

activities and report the incident to the 

Chief of the Permits and Conservation 

Division, Office of Protected Resources 

and the NMFS Greater Atlantic 

Stranding Coordinator. The report 

would include the following 

information: 

• Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the incident; 

• Name and type of vessel involved; 

• Vessel’s speed during and leading 

up to the incident; 

• Description of the incident; 

• Status of all sound source use in the 

24 hours preceding the incident; 

• Water depth; 

• Environmental conditions (e.g., 

wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea 

state, cloud cover, and visibility); 

• Description of all marine mammal 

observations in the 24 hours preceding 

the incident; 

• Species identification or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

• Fate of the animal(s); and 

• Photographs or video footage of the 

animal(s) (if equipment is available). 

Activities would not resume until 

NMFS is able to review the 

circumstances of the event. NMFS 

would work with DWW to minimize 

reoccurrence of such an event in the 

future. DWW would not resume 

activities until notified by NMFS. 

In the event that DWW discovers an 

injured or dead marine mammal and 

determines that the cause of the injury 

or death is unknown and the death is 

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

moderate state of decomposition), DWW 

would immediately report the incident 

to the Chief of the Permits and 

Conservation Division, Office of 

Protected Resources and the NMFS 

Greater Atlantic Stranding Coordinator. 

The report would include the same 

information identified in the paragraph 

above. Activities would be able to 

continue while NMFS reviews the 

circumstances of the incident. NMFS 

would work with DWW to determine if 

modifications in the activities are 

appropriate. 

In the event that DWW discovers an 

injured or dead marine mammal and 

determines that the injury or death is 

not associated with or related to the 

activities authorized in the IHA (e.g., 

previously wounded animal, carcass 

with moderate to advanced 

decomposition, or scavenger damage), 

DWW would report the incident to the 

Chief of the Permits and Conservation 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

and the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional 

Stranding Coordinator, within 24 hours 

of the discovery. DWW would provide 

photographs or video footage (if 

available) or other documentation of the 

stranded animal sighting to NMFS. 

DWW may continue its operations 

under such a case. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices 28823 

A negligible impact finding is based on 

the lack of likely adverse effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival 

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

estimate of the number of takes alone is 

not enough information on which to 

base an impact determination. In 

addition to considering estimates of the 

number of marine mammals that might 

be ‘‘taken’’ through harassment, NMFS 

considers other factors, such as the 

likely nature of any responses (e.g., 

intensity, duration), the context of any 

responses (e.g., critical reproductive 

time or location, migration), as well as 

effects on habitat, and the likely 

effectiveness of the mitigation. We also 

assess the number, intensity, and 

context of estimated takes by evaluating 

this information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’s implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the environmental baseline 

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

of the species, population size and 

growth rate where known, ongoing 

sources of human-caused mortality, or 

ambient noise levels). 

To avoid repetition, our analysis 

applies to all the species listed in Table 

6, given that NMFS expects the 

anticipated effects of the planned survey 

to be similar in nature. 

NMFS does not anticipate that injury 

or mortality would occur as a result of 

DWW’s planned survey, even in the 

absence of mitigation. Thus the IHA 

does not authorize any injury or 

mortality. As discussed in the Potential 

Effects section, non-auditory physical 

effects and vessel strike are not expected 

to occur. 

We expect that all potential takes 

would be in the form of short-term Level 

B behavioral harassment in the form of 

temporary avoidance of the area or 

decreased foraging (if such activity were 

occurring), reactions that are considered 

to be of low severity and with no lasting 

biological consequences (e.g., Southall 

et al., 2007). Potential impacts to marine 

mammal habitat were discussed in the 

Federal Register notice of the proposed 

IHA (83 FR 19711; May 4, 2018) (see 

Potential Effects of the Specified 

Activity on Marine Mammals and their 

Habitat). Marine mammal habitat may 

be impacted by elevated sound levels, 

but these impacts would be temporary. 

In addition to being temporary and short 

in overall duration, the acoustic 

footprint of the planned survey is small 

relative to the overall distribution of the 

animals in the area and their use of the 

area. Feeding behavior is not likely to be 

significantly impacted. Prey species are 

mobile and are broadly distributed 

throughout the project area; therefore, 

marine mammals that may be 

temporarily displaced during survey 

activities are expected to be able to 

resume foraging once they have moved 

away from areas with disturbing levels 

of underwater noise. Because of the 

temporary nature of the disturbance and 

the availability of similar habitat and 

resources in the surrounding area, the 

impacts to marine mammals and the 

food sources that they utilize are not 

expected to cause significant or longterm consequences for individual 

marine mammals or their populations. 

There are no rookeries or mating 

grounds known to be biologically 

important to marine mammals within 

the planned survey area. As described 

above, the survey area would overlap 

spatially and temporally with a 

biologically important feeding area for 

fin whales. The important fin whale 

feeding area occurs from March through 

October and stretches from an area 

south of Montauk Point to south of 

Martha’s Vineyard. However, the fin 

whale feeding area is sufficiently large 

(2,933 km2), and the acoustic footprint 

of the planned survey is sufficiently 

small (<100 km2 estimated to be 

ensonified to the Level B harassment 

threshold per day), that fin whale 

feeding habitat would not be reduced 

appreciably. Any fin whales temporarily 

displaced from the survey area would be 

expected to have sufficient remaining 

feeding habitat available to them, and 

would not be prevented from feeding in 

other areas within the biologically 

important feeding habitat. In addition, 

any displacement of fin whales from the 

survey area would be expected to be 

temporary in nature. Therefore, we do 

not expect fin whale feeding to be 

negatively impacted by the planned 

survey. There are no feeding areas 

known to be biologically important to 

marine mammals within the project area 

with the exception of the 

aforementioned feeding area for fin 

whales. There is no designated critical 

habitat for any ESA-listed marine 

mammals in the survey area. 

The survey area is within a 

biologically important migratory area for 

North Atlantic right whales (effective 

March-April and November-December) 

that extends from Massachusetts to 

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

south coast of Massachusetts and Rhode 

Island, this biologically important 

migratory area extends from the coast to 

beyond the shelf break. Due to the fact 

that that the survey is temporary and 

short in overall duration, and the fact 

that the spatial acoustic footprint of the 

planned survey is very small relative to 

the spatial extent of the available 

migratory habitat in the area, right 

whale migration is not expected to be 

impacted by the planned survey. 

The mitigation measures are expected 

to reduce the number and/or severity of 

takes by (1) giving animals the 

opportunity to move away from the 

sound source before HRG survey 

equipment reaches full energy; (2) 

preventing animals from being exposed 

to sound levels that may otherwise 

result in injury. Additional vessel strike 

avoidance requirements will further 

mitigate potential impacts to marine 

mammals during vessel transit to and 

within the survey area. 

NMFS concludes that exposures to 

marine mammal species and stocks due 

to DWW’s survey would result in only 

short-term (temporary and short in 

duration) effects to individuals exposed. 

Marine mammals may temporarily 

avoid the immediate area, but are not 

expected to permanently abandon the 

area. Major shifts in habitat use, 

distribution, or foraging success are not 

expected. NMFS does not anticipate the 

authorized take estimates to impact 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our determination that the impacts 

resulting from this activity are not 

expected to adversely affect the species 

or stock through effects on annual rates 

of recruitment or survival: 

• No mortality, serious injury, or 

Level A harassment is anticipated or 

authorized; 

• The anticipated impacts of the 

activity on marine mammals would be 

temporary behavioral changes due to 

avoidance of the area around the survey 

vessel; 

• The availability of alternate areas of 

similar habitat value for marine 

mammals to temporarily vacate the 

survey area during the planned survey 

to avoid exposure to sounds from the 

activity; 

• The project area does not contain 

areas of significance for mating or 

calving; 

• Effects on species that serve as prey 

species for marine mammals from the 

survey would be temporary and would 

not be expected to reduce the 

availability of prey or to affect marine 

mammal feeding; 

• The mitigation measures, including 

visual and acoustic monitoring, 

exclusion zones, and shutdown 

measures, are expected to minimize 

potential impacts to marine mammals. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1
28824 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2018 / Notices 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

monitoring and mitigation measures, 

NMFS finds that the total marine 

mammal take from the specified activity 

will have a negligible impact on all 

affected marine mammal species or 

stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of incidental take may be authorized 

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

for specified activities other than 

military readiness activities. The MMPA 

does not define small numbers and so, 

in practice, where estimated numbers 

are available, NMFS compares the 

number of individuals taken to the most 

appropriate estimation of abundance of 

the relevant species or stock in our 

determination of whether an 

authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. 

The numbers of marine mammals that 

we authorize to be taken, for all species 

and stocks, would be considered small 

relative to the relevant stocks or 

populations (less than 11 percent of 

each species and stock). See Table 6. 

Based on the analysis contained herein 

of the proposed activity (including the 

mitigation and monitoring measures) 

and the anticipated take of marine 

mammals, NMFS finds that small 

numbers of marine mammals will be 

taken relative to the population size of 

the affected species or stocks. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of the affected marine mammal stocks or 

species implicated by this action. 

Therefore, NMFS has determined that 

the total taking of affected species or 

stocks would not have an unmitigable 

adverse impact on the availability of 

such species or stocks for taking for 

subsistence purposes. 

Endangered Species Act 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

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

seq.) requires that each Federal agency 

insure that any action it authorizes, 

funds, or carries out is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

any endangered or threatened species or 

result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of designated critical 

habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for 

the issuance of IHAs, NMFS consults 

internally, in this case with the NMFS 

Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries 

Office (GARFO), whenever we propose 

to authorize take for endangered or 

threatened species. 

The NMFS Office of Protected 

Resources is authorizing the incidental 

take of four species of marine mammals 

which are listed under the ESA: The 

North Atlantic right, fin, sei, and sperm 

whale. BOEM consulted with NMFS 

GARFO under section 7 of the ESA on 

commercial wind lease issuance and 

site assessment activities on the Atlantic 

Outer Continental Shelf in 

Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York 

and New Jersey Wind Energy Areas. The 

NMFS GARFO issued a Biological 

Opinion concluding that these activities 

may adversely affect but are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of the North Atlantic right, fin, 

and sperm whale. The Biological 

Opinion can be found online at: 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-other-energyactivities-renewable. Upon request from 

the NMFS Office of Protected Resources, 

the NMFS GARFO will issue an 

amended incidental take statement 

associated with this Biological Opinion 

to include the takes of the ESA-listed 

marine mammal species authorized 

through this IHA. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

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

NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 

216–6A, NMFS must review our 

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

incidental harassment authorization) 

with respect to potential impacts on the 

human environment. Accordingly, 

NMFS prepared an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) and analyzed the 

potential impacts to marine mammals 

that would result from the project, as 

well as from a similar project proposed 

by Garden State Offshore Energy (a 

subsidiary of Deepwater Wind) off the 

coast of Delaware. A Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) was signed 

on June 13, 2018. A copy of the EA and 

FONSI is available online at: 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-other-energyactivities-renewable. 

Authorization 

NMFS has issued an IHA to 

Deepwater Wind New England, LLC for 

conducting marine site characterization 

surveys offshore of Rhode Island and 

Massachusetts and along potential 

submarine cable routes, for a period of 

one year, provided the previously 

mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting requirements are incorporated. 

Dated: June 15, 2018. 

Donna S. Wieting, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13279 Filed 6–20–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XC969 

2018 Revision to Technical Guidance 

for Assessing the Effects of 

Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing—Underwater 

Acoustic Thresholds for Onset of 

Permanent and Temporary Threshold 

Shifts 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Per approval of the Secretary 

of Commerce, The National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) announces the 

availability of the 2018 Revision (NOAA 

Technical Memorandum NMFS–OPR– 

59) to its 2016 Technical Guidance for 

Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic 

Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing— 

Underwater Acoustic Thresholds for 

Onset of Permanent and Temporary 

Threshold Shifts (Technical Guidance 

or Guidance) based on comments 

received during the review of the 

Guidance pursuant to section 10 of 

Presidential Executive Order, 

Implementing an America-First Offshore 

Energy Strategy (April 28, 2017). 

ADDRESSES: The 2018 Revision to the 

Technical Guidance (NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS–OPR–59) is 

available in electronic form via the 

internet at https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy R. Scholik-Schlomer, Office of 

Protected Resources, 301–427–8449, 

Amy.Scholik@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Presidential Executive Order (E.O.) 

13795, Implementing an America-First 

Offshore Energy Strategy (82 FR 20815; 

April 28, 2017), states in section 2 that 

‘‘It shall be the policy of the United 

States to encourage energy exploration 

and production, including on the Outer 

Continental Shelf, in order to maintain 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1