45116 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XF456 

Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to 

Specified Activities; Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to a Marine 

Geophysical Survey in the Southwest 

Pacific Ocean, 2017/2018 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental 

harassment authorization; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request 

from Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory 

(L–DEO) for authorization to take 

marine mammals incidental to a WHEN 

OU marine geophysical survey in the 

southwest Pacific Ocean. Pursuant to 

the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments 

on its proposal to issue an incidental 

harassment authorization (IHA) to 

incidentally take marine mammals 

during the specified activities. NMFS 

will consider public comments prior to 

making any final decision on the 

issuance of the requested MMPA 

authorization and agency responses will 

be summarized in the notice of our final 

decision. 

DATES: Comments and information must 

be received no later than October 26, 

2017. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. Physical 

comments should be sent to 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 

and electronic comments should be sent 

to ITP.Carduner@noaa.gov. 

Instructions: NMFS is not responsible 

for comments sent by any other method, 

to any other address or individual, or 

received after the end of the comment 

period. Comments received 

electronically, including all 

attachments, must not exceed a 25- 

megabyte file size. Attachments to 

electronic comments will be accepted in 

Microsoft Word or Excel or Adobe PDF 

file formats only. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted online at 

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

incidental/research.htm without 

change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jordan Carduner, Office of Protected 

Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 

Electronic copies of the application and 

supporting documents, as well as a list 

of the references cited in this document, 

may be obtained online at: 

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

incidental/research.htm. In case of 

problems accessing these documents, 

please call the contact listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

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

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

the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated 

to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the 

incidental, but not intentional, taking of 

small numbers of marine mammals by 

U.S. citizens who engage in a specified 

activity (other than commercial fishing) 

within a specified geographical region if 

certain findings are made and either 

regulations are issued or, if the taking is 

limited to harassment, a notice of a 

proposed authorization is provided to 

the public for review. 

An authorization for incidental 

takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 

that the taking will have a negligible 

impact on the species or stock(s), will 

not have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of the species or 

stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 

relevant), and if the permissible 

methods of taking and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth. 

NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact 

resulting from the specified activity that 

cannot be reasonably expected to, and is 

not reasonably likely to, adversely affect 

the species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

The MMPA states that the term ‘‘take’’ 

means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, 

or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or 

kill any marine mammal. 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) 

has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

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

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering (Level B 

harassment). 

National Environmental Policy Act 

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 is preparing an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) to consider the 

environmental impacts associated with 

the issuance of the proposed IHA. 

NMFS’ EA is available at 

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

incidental/research.htm. We will review 

all comments submitted in response to 

this notice prior to concluding our 

NEPA process or making a final 

decision on the IHA request. 

Summary of Request 

On May 17, 2017, NMFS received a 

request from the L–DEO for an IHA to 

take marine mammals incidental to 

conducting a marine geophysical survey 

in the southwest Pacific Ocean. On 

September 13, 2017, we deemed L– 

DEO’s application for authorization to 

be adequate and complete. L–DEO’s 

request is for take of a small number of 

38 species of marine mammals by Level 

B harassment and Level A harassment. 

Neither L–DEO nor NMFS expects 

mortality to result from this activity, 

and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. 

The planned activity is not expected to 

exceed one year, hence, we do not 

expect subsequent MMPA incidental 

harassment authorizations would be 

issued for this particular activity. 

Description of Proposed Activity 

Overview 

Researchers from California State 

Polytechnic University, California 

Institute of Technology, Pennsylvania 

State University, University Southern 

California, University of Southern 

Mississippi (USM), University of Hawaii 

at Manoa, University of Texas, and 

University of Wisconsin Madison, with 

funding from the U.S. National Science 

Foundation, propose to conduct three 

high-energy seismic surveys from the 

research vessel (R/V) Marcus G. 

Langseth (Langseth) in the waters of 

New Zealand in the southwest Pacific 

Ocean in 2017/2018. The NSF-owned 

Langseth is operated by L–DEO. One 

proposed survey would occur east of 

North Island and would use an 18- 

airgun towed array with a total 

discharge volume of ∼3300 cubic inches 

(in3). Two other proposed seismic 

surveys (one off the east coast of North 

Island and one south of South Island) 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Notices 45117 

would use a 36-airgun towed array with 

a discharge volume of ∼6600 in3. The 

surveys would take place in water 

depths from ∼50 to >5,000 m. 

Dates and Duration 

The North Island two-dimensional (2– 

D) survey would consist of 

approximately 35 days of seismic 

operations plus approximately 2 days of 

transit and towed equipment 

deployment/retrieval. The Langseth 

would depart Auckland on 

approximately October 26, 2017 and 

arrive in Wellington on December 1, 

2017. The North Island threedimensional (3–D) survey is proposed 

for approximately January 5, 2018– 

February 8, 2018 and would consist of 

approximately 33 days of seismic 

operations plus approximately 2 days of 

transit and towed equipment 

deployment/retrieval. The Langseth 

would leave and return to port in 

Napier. The South Island 2–D survey is 

proposed for approximately February 

15, 2018–March 15, 2018 and would 

consist of approximately 22 days of 

seismic operations, approximately 3 

days of transit, and approximately 7 

days of ocean bottom seismometer 

(OBS) deployment/retrieval. 

Specific Geographic Region 

The proposed surveys would occur 

within the Exclusive Economic Zone 

(EEZ) and territorial sea of New 

Zealand. The proposed North Island 2– 

D survey would occur within ∼37–43° S. 

between 180° E. and the east coast of 

North Island along the Hikurangi 

margin. The proposed North Island 3–D 

survey would occur over a 15 x 60 

kilometer (km) area offshore at the 

Hikurangi trench and forearc off North 

Island within ∼38–39.5° S., ∼178–179.5° 

E. The proposed South Island 2–D 

survey would occur along the Puysegur 

margin off South Island within ∼163– 

168° E. between 50° S. and the south 

coast of South Island. Please see Figure 

1 and Figure 2 in L–DEO’s IHA 

application for maps depicting the 

specified geographic region of the 

proposed surveys. 

Detailed Description of Specific Activity 

The proposed study consists of three 

seismic surveys off the coast of New 

Zealand in the southwest Pacific Ocean. 

The proposed surveys include: (1) A 2– 

D survey along the Hikurangi margin off 

the east coast of North Island; (2) a deep 

penetrating 3–D seismic reflection 

acquisition over a 15 x 60 km area 

offshore at the Hikurangi trench and 

forearc off the east coast of North Island; 

and (3) a 2–D survey along the Puysegur 

margin off the south coast of South 

Island. Water depths in the proposed 

survey areas range from ∼50 to >5000 m. 

The proposed surveys would be 

conducted within both the territorial sea 

of New Zealand (from 0–12 nautical 

miles (nm) from shore) and the EEZ of 

New Zealand (from 12 to 200 nm from 

shore). All planned geophysical data 

acquisition activities would be 

conducted by L–DEO with onboard 

assistance by the scientists who have 

proposed the studies. The vessel would 

be self-contained, and the crew would 

live aboard the vessel. 

Survey protocols generally involve a 

predetermined set of survey, or track 

lines. The seismic acquisition vessel 

(source vessel) travels down a linear 

track for some distance until a line of 

data is acquired, then turns and acquires 

data on a different track. Representative 

survey tracklines are shown in Figures 

1 and 2 in L–DEO’s IHA; however, some 

deviation in actual track lines could be 

necessary for reasons such as science 

drivers, poor data quality, inclement 

weather, or mechanical issues with the 

research vessel and/or equipment. The 

proposed surveys would entail a total of 

approximately 13,299 km of track lines. 

During the two 2–D surveys, the 

Langseth would tow a full array, 

consisting of four strings with 36 

airguns (plus 4 spares) and a total 

volume of approximately 6,600 in3. 

During the North Island 3–D survey, the 

Langseth would tow two separate 18- 

airgun arrays that would fire alternately; 

each array would have a total discharge 

volume of approximately 3,300 in3. 

Specifications of the airgun arrays, 

trackline distances, and water depths of 

each of the three proposed surveys are 

shown in Table 1. Descriptions of the 

three proposed surveys are provided 

below. More detailed descriptions of the 

three proposed surveys are provided in 

the IHA application (LGL, 2017). 

TABLE 1—SPECIFICATIONS OF AIRGUN ARRAYS, TRACKLINE DISTANCES, AND WATER DEPTHS ASSOCIATED WITH THREE

PROPOSED R/V LANGSETH SURVEYS OFF NEW ZEALAND

North Island 2–D survey North Island 3–D survey South Island 2–D survey 

Airgun array configuration and total 

volume.

36 airguns, four strings, total volume of ∼6,600 in3.two separate 18-airgun arrays 

that would fire alternately; each 

array would have a total discharge volume of ∼3,300 in3.

36 airguns, four strings, total volume of ∼6,600 in3. 

Tow depth of arrays ....................... 9 m ................................................ 9 m ................................................ 9 m. 

Shot point intervals ........................ 37.5 m ........................................... 37.5 m ........................................... 50 m. 

Source velocity (tow speed) .......... 4.3 knots ....................................... 4.5 knots ....................................... 4.5 knots. 

Water depths ................................. 8%, 23%, and 69% of line km 

would take place in shallow 

(<100 m), intermediate (100– 

1000 m), and deep water 

(>1000 m), respectively.

0%, 42%, and 58% of line km 

would take place in shallow, intermediate, and deep water, respectively.

1%, 17%, and 82% of line km 

would take place in shallow, intermediate, and deep water, respectively. 

Approximate trackline distance ...... 5,398 km ....................................... 3,025 km ....................................... 4,876 km. 

Percentage of survey tracklines 

proposed in New Zealand Territorial Waters.

Approximately 9 percent ............... Approximately 1 percent ............... Approximately 6 percent. 

North Island 2–D Survey 

During the proposed North Island 2– 

D survey, approximately 5,398 km of 

track lines would be surveyed, spanning 

an area off eastern North Island from the 

south coast to the Bay of Plenty. 

Approximately 9 percent of the 

proposed North Island 2–D survey 

would occur within New Zealand’s 

territorial sea. The main goal of the 

proposed North Island 2–D survey is to 

collect seismic data to create images of 

the plate boundary fault zone and to 

show other faults and folding of the 

upper New Zealand plate and the 

underlying Pacific plate. The data 

would improve scientific understanding 

of why the different parts of the same 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
45118 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Notices 

plate boundary are behaving so 

differently to produce slow slip events 

and large stick-slip earthquakes. A 

better understanding of what causes the 

differences may help New Zealand 

government agencies in their efforts to 

mitigate danger posed by earthquakes in 

this area. 

To achieve the project goals of the 

North Island 2–D survey, the principal 

investigators (PIs) and co-PIs propose to 

use multi-channel seismic (MCS) 

reflection surveys and seismic refraction 

data recorded by OBSs to characterize 

the incoming Hikurangi Plateau and the 

seaward portion of the accretionary 

prism, and document subducted 

sediment variations. The project also 

includes an onshore/offshore seismic 

component. A total of 90 short-period 

seismometers would be deployed on the 

Raukumara Peninsula. The land 

seismometers would record seismic 

energy from the R/V Langseth during 

the North Island 2–D and 3–D surveys 

and would remain in place for three to 

four months to also record earthquakes. 

This instrumentation allows for very 

deep seismic sampling of the Hikurangi 

Subduction system to determine the 

structure of the upper plate and 

properties of the deeper plate boundary 

zone. 

North Island 3–D Survey 

During the proposed North Island 3– 

D survey, approximately 3,025 km of 

track lines would be surveyed within a 

15 x 60 km survey area that would begin 

at the Hikurangi trench and extend to 

within ∼20 km of the shoreline. 

Approximately 1 percent of the 

proposed North Island 3–D survey 

would occur within New Zealand’s 

territorial sea. The main goal of the 

proposed North Island 3–D survey is to 

determine what conditions are 

associated with slow slip behavior, how 

they differ from conditions associated 

with subduction zones that generate 

great earthquakes, and what controls the 

development of slow-slip faults instead 

of earthquake prone faults. The PI and 

co-PIs propose to use MCS surveys to 

acquire 3–D seismic reflection data 

offshore New Zealand’s Hikurangi 

trench and forearc. Although not funded 

through NSF, international collaborators 

would work with the PIs to achieve the 

research goals, providing assistance, 

such as through logistical support and 

data acquisition and exchange. This 

international collaborative experiment 

would record Langseth shots during 

seismic acquisition and develop the first 

ever high-resolution 3–D velocity 

models across a subduction zone using 

3–D full-waveform inversion, 

overlapping and extending beyond the 

3–D volume. 

South Island 2–D Survey 

During the South Island 2–D survey, 

marine seismic refraction data would be 

collected along two east-west lines 

across the plate boundary. One 200-km 

line would cross the Puysegur Trench at 

49° S., and would be occupied by 20 

short-period OBSs. A second line at 

47.3° S. would be 260 km long with 23 

OBSs. MCS profiles would occur along 

these same two lines (thus each of the 

two lines would be surveyed twice) as 

well as in between and within ∼100 km 

north and south of the two OBS lines. 

Approximately 4,876 km of track lines 

would be surveyed during the proposed 

South Island 2–D survey. 

Approximately 6 percent of those track 

lines would be within New Zealand’s 

territorial sea. 

The main goal of the South Island 2– 

D survey is to test models for the 

formation of new subduction zones and 

to measure several fundamental aspects 

of this poorly understood process. The 

study would strive to (1) measure the 

angle of the new fault which forms the 

new plate boundary and test ideas of 

how the faults form; (2) measure the 

thickness of the oceanic crust at the 

Puysegur ridge and test models of how 

the force from the nascent slab is 

transmitted into the plate; and (3) 

measure the nature of the faults, 

especially the thrust faults, on the overriding plate and test models for how the 

forces on the over-riding plate change 

with time. In addition, the airguns 

would be used as a source of seismic 

waves that would be recorded onshore 

of the South Island, to test models for 

the tectonic evolution and nature of the 

shallow mantle directly below the 

plates. To achieve the project goals of 

the South Island 2–D survey, the PI and 

co-PIs propose to use MCS surveys to 

acquire a combination of 2–D MCS and 

refraction profiles with OBSs along the 

Puysegur Ridge and Trench south of 

South Island. Although not funded 

through NSF, international collaborators 

would work with the PIs to achieve the 

research goals, providing assistance, 

such as through logistical support and 

data acquisition and exchange. In 

addition, the collaborators would use 

land seismometers to record offshore 

airgun shots to determine the structure 

of the upper plate. 

In addition to the operations of the 

airgun array, the ocean floor would be 

mapped with a multibeam echosounder 

(MBES) and a sub-bottom profiler (SBP). 

An Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler 

(ADCP) would be used to measure water 

current velocities. These would operate 

continuously during the proposed 

surveys, but not during transit to and 

from the survey areas. 

Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and 

reporting measures are described in 

detail later in this document (please see 

‘‘Proposed Mitigation’’ and ‘‘Proposed 

Monitoring and Reporting’’). 

Description of Marine Mammals in the 

Area of Specified Activities 

Section 4 of the IHA application 

summarizes available information 

regarding status and trends, distribution 

and habitat preferences, and behavior 

and life history of the potentially 

affected species. More general 

information about these species (e.g., 

physical and behavioral descriptions) 

may be found on NMFS’ Web site 

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

mammals/). Table 2 lists all species 

with expected potential for occurrence 

in the Southwest Pacific Ocean off New 

Zealand and summarizes information 

related to the population, including 

regulatory status under the MMPA and 

ESA. The populations of marine 

mammals considered in this document 

do not occur within the U.S. EEZ and 

are therefore not assigned to stocks and 

are not assessed in NMFS’ Stock 

Assessment Reports 

(www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/). As such, 

information on potential biological 

removal (PBR; defined by the MMPA as 

the maximum number of animals, not 

including natural mortalities, that may 

be removed from a marine mammal 

stock while allowing that stock to reach 

or maintain its optimum sustainable 

population) and on annual levels of 

serious injury and mortality from 

anthropogenic sources are not available 

for these marine mammal populations. 

In addition to the marine mammal 

species known to occur in proposed 

survey areas, there are 16 species of 

marine mammals with ranges that are 

known to potentially occur in the waters 

of the proposed survey areas, but they 

are categorized as ‘‘vagrant’’ under the 

New Zealand Threat Classification 

System (Baker et al., 2016). These 

species are: The ginkgo-toothed whale 

(Mesoplodon ginkgodens); pygmy 

beaked whale (M. peruvianus); dwarf 

sperm whale (Kogia sima); pygmy killer 

whale (Feresa attenuata); melon-headed 

whale (Peponocephala electra); Risso’s 

dolphin (Grampus griseus); Fraser’s 

dolphin (Lagenodelphis hosei), 

pantropical spotted dolphin (Stenella 

attenuata); striped dolphin (S. 

coeruleoalba); rough-toothed dolphin 

(Steno bredanensis); Antarctic fur seal 

(Arctocephalus gazelle); Subantarctic 

fur seal (A. tropicalis); leopard seal 

(Hydrurga leptonyx); Weddell seal 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Notices 45119 

(Leptonychotes weddellii); crabeater seal 

(Lobodon carcinophagus); and Ross seal 

(Ommatophoca rossi). Except for Risso’s 

dolphin and leopard seal, for which 

there have been several sightings and 

strandings reported in New Zealand 

(Clement 2010; Torres 2012; 

Berkenbusch et al. 2013; NZDOC 2017), 

the other ‘‘vagrant’’ species listed above 

are not expected to occur in the 

proposed survey areas and are therefore 

not considered further in this document. 

Marine mammal abundance estimates 

presented in this document represent 

the total number of individuals 

estimated within a particular study or 

survey area. All values presented in 

Table 2 are the most recent available at 

the time of publication. 

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMALS THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE PROPOSED SURVEY AREAS

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Population 

abundance 2

Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales) 

Family Balaenidae 

Southern right whale ............................................ Eubalaena australis ............................................. N/A E/D;N 3 12,000 

Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals) 

Humpback whale ................................................. Megaptera novaeangliae ..................................... N/A -/-; N 3 42,000 

Bryde’s whale ...................................................... Balaenoptera edeni ............................................. N/A -/-; N 4 48,109 

Common minke whale ......................................... Balaenoptera acutorostrata ................................. N/A -/-; N 5 6 750,000 

Antarctic minke whale .......................................... Balaenoptera bonaerensis ................................... N/A -/-; N 5 6 750,000 

Sei whale ............................................................. Balaenoptera borealis .......................................... N/A E/D;- 5 10,000 

Fin whale ............................................................. Balaenoptera physalus ........................................ N/A E/D;- 5 15,000 

Blue whale ........................................................... Balaenoptera musculus ....................................... N/A E/D;- 3 5 3,800 

Family Cetotheriidae 

Pygmy right whale ............................................... Caperea marginata .............................................. N/A -/-; N N/A 

Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises) 

Family Physeteridae 

Sperm whale ........................................................ Physeter macrocephalus ..................................... N/A E/D;- 5 30,000 

Family Kogiidae 

Pygmy sperm whale ............................................ Kogia breviceps ................................................... N/A -/-; N N/A 

Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales) 

Cuvier’s beaked whale ........................................ Ziphius cavirostris ................................................ N/A -/-; N 5 7 600,000 

Arnoux’s beaked whale ....................................... Berardius arnuxii .................................................. N/A -/-; N 5 7 600,000 

Shepherd’s beaked whale ................................... Tasmacetus shepherdi ........................................ N/A -/-; N 5 7 600,000 

Hector’s beaked whale ........................................ Mesoplodon hectori ............................................. N/A -/-; N 5 7 600,000 

True’s beaked whale ........................................... Mesoplodon mirus ............................................... N/A -/-; N N/A 

Southern bottlenose whale .................................. Hyperoodon planifrons ........................................ N/A -/-; N 5 7 600,000 

Gray’s beaked whale ........................................... Mesoplodon grayi ................................................ N/A -/-; N 5 7 600,000 

Andrew’s beaked whale ....................................... Mesoplodon bowdoini .......................................... N/A -/-; N 5 7 600,000 

Strap-toothed beaked whale ................................ Mesoplodon layardii ............................................. N/A -/-; N 5 7 600,000 

Blainville’s beaked whale ..................................... Mesoplodon densirostris ...................................... N/A -/-; N 5 7 600,000 

Spade-toothed beaked whale .............................. Mesoplodon traversii ........................................... N/A -/-; N 5 7 600,000 

Family Delphinidae 

Bottlenose dolphin ............................................... Tursiops truncatus ............................................... N/A -/-; N N/A 

Short-beaked common dolphin ............................ Delphinus delphis ................................................ N/A -/-; N N/A 

Dusky dolphin ...................................................... Lagenorhynchus obscurus .................................. N/A -/-; N 8 12,000– 

20,000 

Hourglass dolphin ................................................ Lagenorhynchus cruciger .................................... N/A -/-; N 5 150,000 

Southern right whale dolphin ............................... Lissodelphis peronii ............................................. N/A -/-; N N/A 

Risso’s dolphin ..................................................... Grampus griseus ................................................. N/A -/-; N N/A 

South Island Hector’s dolphin .............................. Cephalorhynchus hectori hectori ......................... N/A T/D;- 9 14,849 

Maui dolphin ........................................................ Cephalorhynchus hectori maui ............................ N/A E/D;- 10 55–63 

False killer whale ................................................. Pseudorca crassidens ......................................... N/A -/-; N N/A 

Killer whale .......................................................... Orcinus orca ........................................................ N/A -/-; N 5 80,000 

Long-finned pilot whale ........................................ Globicephala melas ............................................. N/A -/-; N 5 200,000 

Short-finned pilot whale ....................................... Globicephala macrorhynchus .............................. N/A -/-; N N/A 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
45120 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Notices 

TABLE 2—MARINE MAMMALS THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE PROPOSED SURVEY AREAS—Continued 

Common name Scientific name Stock 

ESA/MMPA 

status; 

strategic 

(Y/N) 1

Population 

abundance 2

Family Phocoenidae (porpoises) 

Spectacled porpoise ............................................ Phocoena dioptrica .............................................. N/A -/-; N N/A 

Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia 

Family Otariidae (eared seals and sea lions) 

New Zealand fur seal .......................................... Arctocephalus forsteri .......................................... N/A -/-; N 8 200,000 

New Zealand sea lion .......................................... Phocarctos hookeri .............................................. N/A -/-; N 11 9,880 

Family Phocidae (earless seals) 

Leopard seal ........................................................ Hydrurga leptonyx ............................................... N/A -/-; N 8 222,000 

Southern elephant seal ........................................ Mirounga leonina ................................................. N/A -/-; N 8 607,000 

N/A = Not available or not assessed. 

1Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is 

not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct 

human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. 

Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock. 2Abundance for the Southern Hemisphere or Antarctic unless otherwise noted. 

3 IWC (2016). 

4 IWC (1981). 

5Boyd (2002). 

6 Dwarf and Antarctic minke whales combined. 

7All Antarctic beaked whales combined. 

8Estimate for New Zealand; NZDOC 2017. 

9Estimate for New Zealand; MacKenzie and Clement 2016. 

10Estimate for New Zealand; Hamner et al. (2014) and Baker et al. (2016). 11Geschke and Chilvers (2009). 

All species that could potentially 

occur in the proposed survey area are 

included in table 2. However, of the 

species described in Table 2, the 

temporal and/or spatial occurrence of 

one subspecies, the Maui dolphin, is 

such that take is not expected to occur 

as a result of the proposed project. The 

Maui dolphin is one of two subspecies 

of Hector’s dolphin (the other being the 

South Island Hector’s dolphin), both of 

which are endemic to New Zealand. The 

Maui dolphin has been demonstrated to 

be genetically distinct from the South 

Island subspecies of Hector’s dolphin 

based on studies of mitochondrial and 

nuclear DNA (Pichler et al. 1998). It is 

currently considered one of the rarest 

dolphins in the world with a population 

size estimated at just 55–63 individuals 

(Hamner et al. 2014; Baker et al. 2016). 

Historically, Hector’s dolphins are 

thought to have ranged along almost the 

entire coastlines of both the North and 

South Islands of New Zealand, though 

their present range is substantially 

smaller (Pichler 2002). The range of the 

Maui dolphin in particular has 

undergone a marked reduction (Dawson 

et al. 2001; Slooten et al. 2005), with the 

subspecies now restricted to the 

northwest coast of the North Island, 

between Maunganui Bluff in the north 

and Whanganui in the south (Currey et 

al., 2012). Occasional sightings and 

strandings have also been reported from 

areas further south along the west coast 

as well as possible sightings in other 

areas such as Hawke’s Bay on the east 

coast of North Island (Baker 1978, 

Russell 1999, Ferreira and Roberts 2003, 

Slooten et al. 2005, DuFresne 2010, 

Berkenbusch et al. 2013; Torres et al. 

2013; Patin ̃ o-Pe ́rez 2015; NZDOC 2017) 

though it is unclear whether those 

individuals may have originated from 

the South Island Hector’s dolphin 

populations. A 2016 NMFS Draft Status 

Review Report concluded the Maui 

dolphin is facing a high risk of 

extinction as a result of small 

population size, reduced genetic 

diversity, low theoretical population 

growth rates, evidence of continued 

population decline, and the ongoing 

threats of fisheries bycatch, disease, 

mining and seismic disturbances 

(Manning and Grantz, 2016). Due to its 

extremely low population size and the 

fact that the subspecies is not expected 

to occur in the proposed survey areas off 

the North Island, take of Maui dolphins 

is not expected to occur as a result of 

the proposed activities. Therefore the 

Maui dolphin is not discussed further 

beyond the explanation provided here. 

We have reviewed L–DEO’s species 

descriptions, including life history 

information, distribution, regional 

distribution, diving behavior, and 

acoustics and hearing, for accuracy and 

completeness. We refer the reader to 

Section 4 of L–DEO’s IHA application, 

rather than reprinting the information 

here. Below, for the 38 species that are 

likely to be taken by the activities 

described, we offer a brief introduction 

to the species and relevant stock as well 

as available information regarding 

population trends and threats, and 

describe any information regarding local 

occurrence. 

Southern Right Whale 

The southern right whale occurs 

throughout the Southern Hemisphere 

between ∼20° S. and 60° S. (Kenney 

2009). Southern right whales calve in 

nearshore coastal waters during the 

winter and typically migrate to offshore 

feeding grounds during summer 

(Patenaude 2003). Wintering 

populations off the subantarctic 

Auckland Islands of New Zealand spend 

the majority of their time resting or 

engaging in social interactions 

regardless of their group type (e.g. single 

whale, group, and mother-calf pair). 

Over 35% of mother-calf pairs in the 

area were seen traveling (Patenaude and 

Baker 2001). 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Notices 45121 

Southern right whale sounds and 

their role in communication have been 

fully described by Clark (1983) and are 

categorized into three general classes 

(blow, slaps, and calls). Calls are 

generally low frequency (peak 

frequencies <500 Hertz (Hz)) and one 

common call—‘Up’—has been described 

to function as a way for individuals to 

find and make contact with each other. 

The available information suggests 

that southern right whales could be 

migrating near or within the proposed 

survey areas during October–March, 

with the possibility of some individuals 

calving in nearshore waters off eastern 

North Island during November. Habitat 

use (Torres et al. 2013c) and suitability 

modeling (Patin ̃ o-Pe ́rez 2015) for New 

Zealand showed that a large proportion 

of the proposed North and South Island 

survey areas (mainly in deeper water) 

has low habitat suitability for the 

southern right whale; sheltered coastal 

areas had the highest habitat suitability, 

especially in Foveaux Strait between 

South and Stewart Islands. 

Humpback Whale 

Humpback whales are found 

worldwide in all ocean basins. In 

winter, most humpback whales occur in 

the subtropical and tropical waters of 

the Northern and Southern Hemispheres 

(Muto et al., 2015). These wintering 

grounds are used for mating, giving 

birth, and nursing new calves. In the 

South Pacific Ocean, there are several 

distinct winter breeding grounds, 

including eastern Australia and Oceania 

(Anderson et al. 2010; Garrigue et al. 

2011; Bettridge et al. 2013). Whales 

from Oceania migrate past New Zealand 

to Antarctic summer feeding areas 

(Constantine et al. 2007; Garrigue et al. 

2000, 2010); migration from eastern 

Australia past New Zealand has also 

been reported (Franklin et al. 2014). The 

northern migration along the New 

Zealand coast occurs from May to 

August, with a peak in late June to midJuly; the southern migration occurs from 

September to December, with a peak in 

late October to late November (Dawbin 

1956). It is likely that some humpback 

whales would be encountered in the 

survey area during November and 

December, as they migrate from winter 

breeding areas in the tropics to summer 

feeding grounds in the Antarctic. Fewer 

humpbacks are expected to occur in the 

proposed survey areas during January 

through March, as most individuals 

occur further south during the summer. 

Humpback whales were listed as 

endangered under the Endangered 

Species Conservation Act (ESCA) in 

June 1970. In 1973, the ESA replaced 

the ESCA, and humpbacks continued to 

be listed as endangered. NMFS recently 

evaluated the status of the species, and 

on September 8, 2016, NMFS divided 

the species into 14 distinct population 

segments (DPS), removed the current 

species-level listing, and in its place 

listed four DPSs as endangered and one 

DPS as threatened (81 FR 62259; 

September 8, 2016). The remaining nine 

DPSs were not listed. The only DPSs 

with the potential to occur in the 

proposed survey areas would be the 

Oceania DPS and the Eastern Australia 

DPS; neither of these DPSs is listed 

under the ESA (81 FR 62259; September 

8, 2016). 

Bryde’s Whale 

The Bryde’s whale occurs in all 

tropical and warm temperate waters in 

the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian oceans, 

between 40° N. and 40° S. (Kato and 

Perrin 2009). It is one of the least known 

large baleen whales, and it remains 

uncertain how many species are 

represented in this complex (Kato and 

Perrin 2009). Bryde’s whales remain in 

warm (>16 °C) water year-round, and 

seasonal movements towards the 

Equator in winter and offshore in 

summer have been recorded (Kato and 

Perrin 2009). The Bryde’s whale is 

likely to occur in the Bay of Plenty in 

the proposed North Island survey area; 

it is unlikely to occur anywhere else in 

the North Island or South Island survey 

areas. 

Minke Whale 

The minke whale has a cosmopolitan 

distribution ranging from the tropics 

and sub-tropics to the ice edge in both 

hemispheres (Jefferson et al. 2015). Its 

distribution in the Southern 

Hemisphere is not well known 

(Jefferson et al. 2015). Populations of 

minke whales around New Zealand are 

migratory (Baker 1983). Clement (2010) 

noted that minke whales likely use East 

Cape to navigate along the east coast of 

New Zealand during the northern and 

southern migrations. Small groups of 

minke whales have been sighted off 

New Zealand (Baker 1999; Clement 

2010; Berkenbusch et al. 2013; Torres et 

al. 2013b; Patin ̃o-Pe ́rez 2015). 

Antarctic Minke Whale 

The Antarctic minke whale has a 

circumpolar distribution in coastal and 

offshore areas of the Southern 

Hemisphere from ∼7° S. to the ice edge 

(Jefferson et al. 2015). Antarctic minke 

whales are found between 60° S. and the 

ice edge during the austral summer 

(December to February); in the austral 

winter (June to August), they are mainly 

found at breeding grounds at mid 

latitudes, including 10° S.–30° S. and 

170° E.–100° W. in the Pacific, off 

eastern Australia (Perrin and Brownell 

2009). Antarctic minke whales would be 

less likely to be encountered during the 

time of the proposed surveys, because 

they would be expected to be in their 

summer feeding areas further south. 

Sei Whale 

The sei whale occurs in all ocean 

basins (Horwood 2009) but appears to 

prefer mid-latitude temperate waters 

(Jefferson et al. 2008). It undertakes 

seasonal migrations to feed in subpolar 

latitudes during summer and returns to 

lower latitudes during winter to calve 

(Horwood 2009). The sei whale is 

pelagic and generally not found in 

coastal waters (Harwood and Wilson 

2001). It occurs in deeper waters 

characteristic of the continental shelf 

edge region (Hain et al. 1985) and in 

other regions of steep bathymetric relief 

such as seamounts and canyons 

(Kenney and Winn 1987; Gregr and 

Trites 2001). In the South Pacific, sei 

whales typically concentrate between 

the sub-tropical and Antarctic 

convergences during the summer 

(Horwood 2009). The sei whale is likely 

to be uncommon in the proposed survey 

areas during October–March. 

Fin Whale 

Fin whales are found throughout all 

oceans from tropical to polar latitudes, 

however, their overall range and 

distribution is not well known (Jefferson 

et al. 2015). The fin whale most 

commonly occurs offshore but can also 

be found in coastal areas (Aguilar 2009). 

Most populations migrate seasonally 

between temperate waters where mating 

and calving occur in winter, and polar 

waters where feeding occurs in summer 

(Aguilar 2009). However, recent 

evidence suggests that some animals 

may remain at high latitudes in winter 

or low latitudes in summer (Edwards et 

al. 2015). Northern and southern fin 

whale populations are distinct and are 

sometimes recognized as different 

subspecies (Aguilar 2009). In the 

Southern Hemisphere, fin whales are 

usually distributed south of 50 °S. in the 

austral summer, and they migrate 

northward to breed in the winter 

(Gambell 1985). 

Blue Whale 

The blue whale has a cosmopolitan 

distribution and tends to be pelagic, 

only coming nearshore to feed and 

possibly to breed (Jefferson et al. 2008). 

Blue whale migration is less well 

defined than for some other rorquals, 

and their movements tend to be more 

closely linked to areas of high primary 

productivity, and hence prey, to meet 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
45122 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Notices 

their high energetic demands (Branch et 

al. 2007). Generally, blue whales are 

seasonal migrants between high 

latitudes in the summer, where they 

feed, and low latitudes in the winter, 

where they mate and give birth (Lockyer 

and Brown 1981). Some individuals 

may stay in low or high latitudes 

throughout the year (Reilly and Thayer 

1990; Watkins et al. 2000). 

Three subspecies of blue whale are 

recognized: B. m. musculus in the 

Northern Hemisphere; B. m. intermedia 

(the true blue whale) in the Antarctic, 

and B. m. brevicauda (the pygmy blue 

whale) in the sub-Antarctic zone of the 

southern Indian Ocean and the 

southwestern Pacific Ocean (Sears and 

Perrin 2009). The pygmy and Antarctic 

blue whale occur in New Zealand 

(Branch et al. 2007). The blue whale is 

considered rare in the Southern Ocean 

(Sears and Perrin 2009). Most pygmy 

blue whales do not migrate south during 

summer; however, Antarctic blue 

whales are typically found south of 55° 

S. during summer, although some are 

known not to migrate (Branch et al. 

2007). 

Blue whale calls have been detected 

in New Zealand waters year-round 

(Miller et al. 2014). Vocalizations have 

been recorded within 2 km from Great 

Barrier Island, northern New Zealand, 

from June to December 1997 (McDonald 

2006), as well as off the tip of Northland 

(Miller et al. 2014). Blue whale 

vocalizations were also detected along 

the west and east coasts of South Island 

during January–March 2013; these 

included songs detected in four 

locations off the southwest tip of the 

South Island in early February and at 

multiple locations south of Stewart 

Island in mid-March (Miller et al. 2014). 

Southern Ocean blue whale songs were 

detected further offshore during May– 

July (McDonald 2006). 

Pygmy Right Whale 

The pygmy right whale is the 

smallest, most cryptic and least known 

of the living baleen whales. Pygmy right 

whales are found individually or in 

pairs, although groups of up to 80 

whales have been observed. Although 

little is known about them, it is thought 

that pygmy right whales do not exhibit 

common behaviors of other whales such 

as breaching or displaying their flukes. 

In one case, a pygmy right whale was 

observed swimming by undulating the 

body from head to tail rather than 

swimming using movement of the tail 

area and flukes like other cetaceans. 

Pygmy right whales are strong, fast 

swimmers (Fordyce 2013). 

The pygmy right whale’s distribution 

is circumpolar in the Southern 

Hemisphere between 30° S. and 55° S. 

in oceanic and coastal environments 

(Kemper 2009; Jefferson et al. 2015). 

Pygmy right whales appear to be nonmigratory, although there may be some 

movement inshore during spring and 

summer (Kemper 2002). Strandings 

appear to be associated with favorable 

feeding areas in New Zealand, including 

upwelling regions, along the Subtropical 

Convergence, and the Southland 

Current (Kemper 2002; Kemper et al. 

2013). Despite the scarcity of sightings, 

Kemper (2009) noted that the number of 

strandings indicate that the pygmy right 

whale may be relatively common in 

Australia and New Zealand. 

Sperm Whale 

Sperm whales are found throughout 

the world’s oceans in deep waters from 

the tropics to the edge of the ice at both 

poles (Leatherwood and Reeves 1983; 

Rice 1989; Whitehead 2002). Sperm 

whales throughout the world exhibit a 

geographic social structure where 

females and juveniles of both sexes 

occur in mixed groups and inhabit 

tropical and subtropical waters. Males, 

as they mature, initially form bachelor 

groups but eventually become more 

socially isolated and more wide-ranging, 

inhabiting temperate and polar waters 

as well (Whitehead 2003). Females 

typically inhabit waters >1000 m deep 

and latitudes <40° (Rice 1989). Torres et 

al. (2013a) found that sperm whale 

distribution is associated with 

proximity to geomorphologic features, 

as well as surface temperature. 

Sperm whales are widely distributed 

throughout New Zealand waters, 

occurring in offshore and nearshore 

regions, with decreasing abundance 

away from New Zealand toward the 

central South Pacific Ocean (Gaskin 

1973). Sperm whale sightings have been 

reported throughout the year in and 

near the proposed North Island survey 

area, including the Bay of Plenty and off 

East Cape (Clement 2010; Berkenbusch 

et al. 2013; Torres et al. 2013b; Blue 

Planet Marine 2016; NZDOC 2017b), as 

well as in and near the South Island 

survey area (Berkenbusch et al. 2013; 

NZDOC 2017b). Although sightings 

have been made during the summer in 

the proposed North Island survey area, 

no summer sightings were reported for 

the South Island survey area. However, 

sightings were made just to the south of 

the proposed survey area during 

summer (Kasamatsu and Joynce 1995). 

There have been at least 211 strandings 

reported for New Zealand (Berkenbusch 

et al. 2013), including along the coast of 

East Cape, in Hawke’s Bay, Cook Strait, 

and along the south coast of South 

Island (Brabyn 1991; NZDOC 2017b). 

Pygmy Sperm Whale 

Pygmy sperm whales are found in 

tropical and warm-temperate waters 

throughout the world (Ross and 

Leatherwood 1994) and prefer deeper 

waters with observations of this species 

in greater than 4,000 m depth (Baird et 

al., 2013). Sightings are rare of this 

species. They are difficult to sight at sea, 

because of their dive behavior and 

perhaps because of their avoidance 

reactions to ships and behavior changes 

in relation to survey aircraft (Wu ̈rsig et 

al. 1998). Both pygmy and dwarf sperm 

whales are sighted primarily along the 

continental shelf edge and slope and 

over deeper waters off the shelf (Hansen 

et al. 1994; Davis et al. 1998; Jefferson 

et al. 2008). 

There have been very few sightings of 

pygmy sperm whales in New Zealand. 

The lack of sightings is likely because of 

their subtle surface behavior and long 

dive times (Clement 2010). However, 

the pygmy sperm whale is one of the 

most regularly stranded cetacean 

species in New Zealand, suggesting that 

this species is relatively common in 

those waters (Clement 2010). Pygmy 

sperm whales are likely to occur near 

the North Island survey area but are less 

likely to occur in the South Island 

survey area. 

Cuvier’s Beaked Whale 

Cuvier’s beaked whale is the most 

widespread of the beaked whales 

occurring in almost all temperate, 

subtropical, and tropical waters and 

even some sub-polar and polar waters 

(MacLeod et al. 2006). It is found in 

deep water over and near the 

continental slope (Jefferson et al. 2008). 

New Zealand has been reported as a 

hotspot for beaked whales (MacLeod 

and Mitchell 2006), with both sightings 

and strandings of Cuvier’s beaked 

whales in the proposed survey area 

(MacLeod et al. 2006; Thompson et al. 

2013a). 

Cuvier’s beaked whales strand 

relatively frequently in New Zealand; at 

least 82 strandings have been reported 

(Berkenbusch et al. 2013). For the North 

Island, strandings have been reported 

for the Bay of Plenty, East Cape, Mahia 

Peninsula, Hawke’s Bay, as well as Cook 

Strait; strandings have occurred along 

all coasts of South Island (Brabyn 1991; 

Clement 2010; Thompson et al. 2013a). 

Strandings have been reported 

throughout the year, with a peak during 

fall (Thompson et al. 2013a). 

Arnoux’s Beaked Whale 

Arnoux’s beaked whale is distributed 

in deep, temperate and subpolar waters 

of the Southern Hemisphere, with most 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Notices 45123 

records for southeast South America, 

the Antarctic Peninsula, South Africa, 

New Zealand, and southern Australia 

(Jefferson et al. 2015). It typically occurs 

south of 40° S., but it could reach 

latitudes of 34° S. or even farther north 

(Jefferson et al. 2015). Arnoux’s beaked 

whale strands frequently in New 

Zealand (Ross 2006), with strandings 

reported for the northwest coast of 

North Island, Bay of Plenty, Hawke’s 

Bay, and Cook Strait (Clement 2010; 

Thompson et al. 2013a). MacLeod et al. 

(2006) reported numerous strandings of 

Berardius spp. for New Zealand. One 

sighting has been made in the Bay of 

Plenty (Clement 2010). 

Shepherd’s Beaked Whale 

Based on known records, it is likely 

that Shepherd’s beaked whale has a 

circumpolar distribution in the cold 

temperate waters of the Southern 

Hemisphere (Mead 1989a). This species 

is primarily known from strandings, 

most of which have been recorded in 

New Zealand (Mead 2009). Thus, 

MacLeod and Mitchell (2006) suggested 

that New Zealand may be a globally 

important area for Shepherd’s beaked 

whale. However, only a few sightings of 

live animals have been reported for New 

Zealand (MacLeod and Mitchell 2006). 

One possible sighting was made near 

Christchurch (Watkins 1976). In 2016, 

there were two sightings of Shepherd’s 

beaked whale on a winter survey 

offshore from the Otago Peninsula on 

the South Island (NZDOC 2017b). At 

least 20 specimens have stranded on the 

coast of New Zealand (Baker 1999), 

including in southern Taranaki Bight 

and Banks Peninsula (Brabyn 1991). 

Stranding records also exist for Mahia 

Peninsula and northeastern North Island 

(Thompson et al. 2013a). 

Hector’s Beaked Whale 

Hector’s beaked whale is thought to 

have a circumpolar distribution in deep 

oceanic temperate waters of the 

Southern Hemisphere (Pitman 2002). 

Based on the number of stranding 

records for the species, it appears to be 

relatively rare. One individual was 

observed swimming close to shore off 

southwestern Australia for periods of 

weeks before disappearing (Gales et al. 

2002). This was the first live sighting in 

which species identity was confirmed. 

MacLeod and Mitchell (2006) 

suggested that New Zealand may be a 

globally important area for this species. 

There are sighting and stranding records 

of Hector’s beaked whales for New 

Zealand (MacLeod et al. 2006; Clement 

2010). One sighting has been reported 

for the Bay of Plenty on the North Island 

(Clement 2010). At least 12 strandings 

have been reported for New Zealand 

(Berkenbusch et al. 2013), including 

records for the Bay of Plenty, East Cape, 

Mahia Peninsula, Hawke’s Bay, Cook 

Strait, and the east coast of South Island 

(Brabyn 1991; Clement 2010; Thompson 

et al. 2013a; NZDOC 2017b). 

True’s Beaked Whale 

True’s beaked whale has a disjunct, 

antitropical distribution in the Northern 

and Southern hemispheres (Jefferson et 

al. 2015). In the Southern Hemisphere, 

it is known to occur in the Atlantic and 

Indian oceans, including Brazil, South 

Africa, Madagascar, and southern 

Australia (Jefferson et al. 2015). There is 

a single record of True’s beaked whale 

in New Zealand, which stranded on the 

west coast of South Island in November 

2011 (Constantine et al. 2014). 

Southern Bottlenose Whale 

The southern bottlenose whale can be 

found throughout the Southern 

Hemisphere from 30° S. to the ice edge, 

with most sightings occurring from ∼57° 

S. to 70° S. (Jefferson et al. 2015). It is 

apparently migratory, occurring in 

Antarctic waters during summer 

(Jefferson et al. 2015). New Zealand has 

been reported as a hotspot for beaked 

whales (MacLeod and Mitchell 2006), 

with both sightings and strandings of 

southern bottlenose whales in the area 

(MacLeod et al. 2006). At least six 

sightings have been reported for waters 

around New Zealand, including one in 

Hauraki Gulf, one on the southwest 

coast of South Island, one off the east 

coast of North Island within the 

proposed survey area, one off the Otago 

Peninsula, and two sightings south of 

New Zealand within the EEZ 

(Berkenbusch et al. 2013; NZDOC 

2017b). In addition, 24 strandings were 

reported for New Zealand between 1970 

and 2013 (Berkenbusch et al. 2013). 

Strandings have been reported for Bay 

of Plenty, East Cape, Hawke’s Bay, 

southern North Island, northeastern 

South Island, and Cook Strait (Brabyn 

1991; Clement 2010; Thompson et al. 

2013a). 

Gray’s Beaked Whale 

Gray’s beaked whale is thought to 

have a circumpolar distribution in 

temperate waters of the Southern 

Hemisphere (Pitman 2002). Gray’s 

beaked whale primarily occurs in deep 

waters beyond the edge of the 

continental shelf (Jefferson et al. 2015). 

Some sightings have been made in very 

shallow water, usually of sick animals 

coming in to strand (Gales et al. 2002; 

Dalebout et al. 2004). One Gray’s beaked 

whale was observed within 200 m of the 

shore off southwestern Australia off and 

on for periods of weeks before 

disappearing (Gales et al. 2002). There 

are many sighting records from 

Antarctic and sub-Antarctic waters, and 

in summer months they appear near the 

Antarctic Peninsula and along the 

shores of the continent (sometimes in 

the sea ice). 

New Zealand has been reported as a 

hotspot for beaked whales (MacLeod 

and Mitchell 2006), with both sightings 

and strandings of Gray’s beaked whales 

in the proposed survey area (MacLeod et 

al. 2006; Thompson et al. 2013a). In 

particular, the area between the South 

Island of New Zealand and the Chatham 

Islands has been suggested to be a 

hotspot for sightings of this species 

(Dalebout et al. 2004). 

Andrew’s Beaked Whale 

Andrew’s beaked whale has a 

circumpolar distribution in temperate 

waters of the Southern Hemisphere 

(Baker 2001). This species is known 

only from stranding records between 32° 

S. and 55° S., with more than half of the 

strandings occurring in New Zealand 

(Jefferson et al. 2015). Thus, New 

Zealand may be a globally important 

area for Andrew’s beaked whale 

(MacLeod and Mitchell 2006). In 

particular, Clement (2010) suggested 

that the East Cape/Hawke’s Bay waters 

may be an important habitat for 

Andrew’s beaked whale. 

There have been at least 19 strandings 

in New Zealand (Berkenbusch et al. 

2013), at least 10 of which have been 

reported in the spring and summer 

(Baker 1999). Strandings have occurred 

from the North Island to the subAntarctic Islands (Baker 1999), 

including East Cape, Hawke’s Bay, Cook 

Strait, and southeast of Stewart Island 

(Brabyn 1991; Clement 2010; Thompson 

et al. 2013a). 

Strap-Toothed Beaked Whale 

The strap-toothed beaked whale is 

thought to have a circumpolar 

distribution in temperate and subAntarctic waters of the Southern 

Hemisphere, mostly between 35° and 

60° S. (Jefferson et al. 2015). Based on 

the number of stranding records, it 

appears to be fairly common. Straptoothed whales are thought to migrate 

northward from Antarctic and subAntarctic latitudes during April– 

September (Sekiguchi et al. 1996). 

New Zealand has been reported as a 

hotspot for beaked whales (MacLeod 

and Mitchell 2006), with both sightings 

and strandings of strap-toothed beaked 

whales adjacent to the proposed survey 

area (MacLeod et al. 2006; Clement 

2010; Thompson et al. 2013a). Straptoothed whales commonly strand in 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
45124 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Notices 

New Zealand, with at least 78 

strandings reported (Berkenbusch et al. 

2013). Most strandings occur between 

January and April, suggesting some 

seasonal austral summer inshore 

migration (Baker 1999; Thompson et al. 

2013a). Strap-toothed whale strandings 

have been reported for the east coast of 

North Island and South Island, 

including the Bay of Plenty, East Cape, 

Hawke’s Bay, Cook Strait, the Otago 

Peninsula and along Foveaux Strait 

(Brabyn 1991; Clement 2010; Thompson 

et al. 2013a). 

Blainville’s Beaked Whale 

Blainville’s beaked whale is found in 

tropical and warm temperate waters of 

all oceans; it has the widest distribution 

throughout the world of all 

mesoplodont species and appears to be 

common (Pitman 2009b). In the western 

Pacific, strandings have been reported 

from Japan to Australia and New 

Zealand (MacLeod et al. 2006). There 

have been at least four strandings of 

Blainville’s beaked whale in New 

Zealand, including three strandings for 

the northwest coast of North Island and 

another for Hawke’s Bay, but none for 

the South Island (Thompson et al. 

2013a). 

Spade-Toothed Beaked Whale 

The spade-toothed beaked whale is 

the name proposed for the species 

formerly known as Bahamonde’s beaked 

whale (M. bahamondi). Recent genetic 

evidence has shown that they belong to 

the species first identified by Gray in 

1874 (van Helden et al. 2002). The 

species is considered relatively rare and 

is known from only four records, three 

of which are from New Zealand 

(Thompson et al. 2012). One mandible 

was found at the Chatham Islands in 

1872; two skulls were found at White 

Island, Bay of Plenty, in the 1950s; a 

skull was collected at Robinson Crusoe 

Island, Chile, in 1986; and most 

recently, two live whales, a female and 

a male, stranded at Opape, in the Bay 

of Plenty, and subsequently died 

(Thompson et al. 2012). MacLeod and 

Mitchell (2006) suggested that New 

Zealand may be a globally important 

area for the spade-toothed beaked 

whale. 

Bottlenose Dolphin 

Bottlenose dolphins are widely 

distributed throughout the world in 

tropical and warm-temperate waters 

(Perrin et al. 2009). Generally, there are 

two distinct bottlenose dolphin 

ecotypes: One mainly found in coastal 

waters and one mainly found in oceanic 

waters (Duffield et al. 1983; Hoelzel et 

al. 1998; Walker et al. 1999). As well as 

inhabiting different areas, these 

ecotypes differ in their diving abilities 

(Klatsky 2004) and prey types (Mead 

and Potter 1995). 

Short-Beaked Common Dolphin 

The short-beaked common dolphin is 

found in tropical to cool temperate 

oceans around the world, and ranges as 

far south as ∼40° S. (Perrin 2009). It is 

generally considered an oceanic species 

(Jefferson et al. 2015), but Neumann 

(2001) noted that this species can be 

found in coastal and offshore habitats. 

Short-beaked common dolphins are 

found in shelf waters of New Zealand, 

generally north of Stewart Island; they 

are more commonly seen in waters 

along the northeastern coast of North 

Island (Stockin and Orams 2009; NABIS 

2017) and may occur closer to shore 

during the summer (Neumann 2001; 

Stockin et al. 2008). They can be found 

all around New Zealand (Baker 1999) 

with abundance hotspots on the coasts 

of Northland, Hauraki Gulf, Mahia 

Peninsula, Cape Palliser, Cook Strait, 

Marlborough Sounds, and the northwest 

coast of South Island (NABIS 2017). 

The short-beaked common dolphin is 

likely the most common cetacean 

species in New Zealand waters, 

occurring there year-round (Clement 

2010; Hutching 2015). Numerous 

sightings have been made in shelf 

waters of the east coast of North and 

South Islands, as well as farther 

offshore, throughout the year, including 

within the proposed survey areas 

(Clement 2010; Berkenbusch et al. 2013; 

Torres et al. 2013b; Patin ̃o-Pe ́rez 2015; 

Blue Planet Marine 2016; NZDOC 

2017b). 

Dusky Dolphin 

The dusky dolphin is found 

throughout the Southern Hemisphere, 

occurring in disjunct subpopulations in 

the waters off southern Australia, New 

Zealand (including some sub-Antarctic 

Islands), central and southern South 

America, and southwestern Africa 

(Jefferson et al. 2015). The species 

occurs in coastal and continental slope 

waters and is uncommon in waters 

>2000 m deep (Wu ̈rsig et al 2007). The 

dusky dolphin is common in New 

Zealand (Hutching 2015) and occurs 

there year-round. Dusky dolphins 

migrate northward to warmer waters in 

winter and south during the summer 

(Gaskin 1968). 

Sightings of dusky dolphins exist for 

shelf as well as deep, offshore waters 

(Berkenbusch et al. 2013). Wu ̈rsig et al. 

(2007) noted that dusky dolphins 

typically move into deeper waters 

during the winter. Sightings have been 

made in and near the proposed North 

and South Island survey areas during 

summer (see Clement 2010; 

Berkenbusch et al. 2013; Patin ̃ o-Pe ́rez 

2015; Blue Planet Marine 2016; NZDOC 

2017b). Some sightings in the austral 

spring and summer have been made 

along Northland, Bay of Plenty, off East 

Cape, southeast coast of North Island, 

Cape Palliser, and Cook Strait 

(Berkenbusch et al. 2013; NZDOC 

2017b). However, sightings off the entire 

coastline of South Island appear to be 

more common and are made throughout 

the year. 

Hourglass Dolphin 

The hourglass dolphin occurs in all 

parts of the Southern Ocean south of 

∼45° S., with most sightings between 45° 

S. and 60° S. (Goodall 2009). Although 

it is pelagic, it is also sighted near banks 

and Islands (Goodall 2009). Baker (1999) 

noted that the hourglass dolphin is 

considered a rare coastal visitor to New 

Zealand. Berkenbusch et al. (2013) 

reported five sightings of hourglass 

dolphins in New Zealand waters, 

including one off Banks Peninsula, one 

off the southeast coast of South Island, 

two within the proposed South Island 

survey, and one southwest of the 

Auckland Islands. All sightings were 

made during November–February. In 

addition, there have been at least five 

strandings in New Zealand 

(Berkenbusch et al. 2013), including 

records for the South Island (Baker 

1999). Due to these observations, the 

hourglass dolphin would likely be rare 

in the proposed North survey area and 

uncommon in the South Island survey 

area. 

Southern Right Whale Dolphin 

The southern right whale dolphin is 

distributed between the Subtropical and 

Antarctic Convergences in the Southern 

Hemisphere, generally between ∼30° S. 

and 65° S. (Jefferson et al. 2015). It is 

sighted most often in cool, offshore 

waters, although it is sometimes seen 

near shore where coastal waters are 

deep (Jefferson et al. 2015). The species 

has rarely been seen at sea in New 

Zealand (Baker 1999). Berkenbusch et 

al. (2013) reported five sightings for the 

EEZ of New Zealand, including one 

each off the southeast coast and 

southwest coast of South Island, and 

three to the southeast of Stewart Island; 

sightings were made during February 

and September. During August 1999, a 

group 500+ southern right whale 

dolphins including a calf were sighted 

southeast of Kaikoura in water >1500 m 

deep (Visser et al. 2004). There were 

five additional sightings in the OBIS 

database, including one sighting in the 

South Taranaki Bight, two sightings 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Notices 45125 

southeast of Kaikoura during 1985– 

1986, and two sightings off the 

southwest coast of South Island (OBIS 

2017). Several more sightings have also 

been reported off the southeast coast of 

South Island (NZDOC 2017b). 

At least 16 strandings have been 

reported for New Zealand (Berkenbusch 

et al. 2013). Most strandings have 

occurred along the north coast of South 

Island (Brabyn 1991), but strandings 

were also reported for Hawke’s Bay, 

southeast North Island, Banks 

Peninsula, and Foveaux Strait (Clement 

2010; NZDOC 2017b). 

Risso’s Dolphin 

Risso’s dolphins are found in tropical 

to warm-temperate waters (Carretta et 

al., 2016). The species occurs from 

coastal to deep water but is most often 

found in depths greater than 3,000 m 

with the highest sighting rate in depths 

greater than 4,500 m (Baird 2016) and is 

known to frequent seamounts and 

escarpments (Kruse et al. 1999). It 

occurs between 60° N. and 60° S. where 

surface water temperatures are at least 

10 °C (Kruse et al. 1999). 

According to Jefferson et al. (2014, 

2015), the range of the Risso’s dolphin 

includes the waters of New Zealand, 

although the number of records for that 

region is small. Nonetheless, a few 

records exist for the North Island, 

including the east coast (Clement 2010; 

Berkenbusch et al. 2013; Jefferson et al. 

2014). Although some sightings have 

been reported in New Zealand, such as 

in South Taranaki Bight on the west 

coast of North Island (Torres 2012), only 

strandings are known for the east coast 

of North Island (Clement 2010). One 

stranding has been reported for the 

northwest coast of South Island 

(NZDOC 2017b). 

South Island Hector’s Dolphin 

Hector’s dolphins are endemic to New 

Zealand and have one of the most 

restricted distributions of any cetacean 

(Dawson and Slooten 1988); they occur 

in New Zealand waters year-round 

(Berkenbusch et al. 2013) and are found 

mainly in coastal waters, preferring 

depths of <90 m (Bra ̈ger et al. 2003; 

Rayment et al. 2006; Slooten et al. 2006) 

within 10 km from shore (Hutching 

2015). As described above, the South 

Island Hector’s dolphin (C. hectori 

hectori) is one of two subspecies of 

Hector’s dolphins that have been 

formally recognized on the basis of 

multiple morphological distinctions and 

genetic evidence of reproductive 

isolation (Baker et al., 2002; Pichler 

2002, Hamner et al., 2012). 

Historically, Hector’s dolphins are 

thought to have ranged along almost the 

entire coastlines of both the North and 

South Islands of New Zealand, though 

their present range is substantially 

smaller (Pichler 2002). The South Island 

Hector’s dolphin is found only off the 

coast of the South Island of New 

Zealand (L. Manning and K. Grantz, 

2016). There are at least three 

genetically separate populations of 

Hector’s dolphin off South Island: Off 

the east coast (particularly around 

Banks Peninsula), off the west coast, 

and off the Southland coast of southern 

South Island (Baker et al. 2002). The 

majority of Hector’s dolphins off the 

South Island are found along the West 

Coast (between Farewell Spit and 

Milford Sound) with the remainder 

(about 1200 to 2900) found along the 

East Coast (from Farewell Spit to Nugget 

Point) and South Coast (from Nugget 

Point to Long Point) (Dawson et al. 

2004). 

False Killer Whale 

The false killer whale is found in all 

tropical and warm temperate oceans of 

the world, with only occasional 

sightings in cold temperate waters 

(Baird 2009b). It is known to occur in 

deep, offshore waters (Odell and 

McClune 1999), but can also occur over 

the continental shelf and in nearshore 

shallow waters (Jefferson et al. 2015; 

Zaeschmar et al. 2014). In the western 

Pacific, the false killer whale is 

distributed from Japan south to 

Australia and New Zealand. 

Berkenbusch et al. (2013) reported at 

least 27 sightings of false killer whales 

in New Zealand during summer and 

fall, primarily along the coast of North 

Island, but also off South Island and in 

South Taranaki Bight. In addition, there 

have been at least 28 strandings in New 

Zealand (Zaeschmar 2014), including 

along East Cape, Hawke’s Bay, Cape 

Palliser, Cook Strait, Otago Peninsula, 

and Catlin’s coast (Brabyn 1991; 

Clement 2010; NZDOC 2017b). The 

strandings include a mass stranding on 

North Island (∼37 ° S.) of 231 whales in 

March 1978 (Baker 1999). 

Killer Whale 

Killer whales have been observed in 

all oceans and seas of the world 

(Leatherwood and Dahlheim 1978). 

Although reported from tropical and 

offshore waters (Heyning and Dahlheim 

1988), killer whales prefer the colder 

waters of both hemispheres, with 

greatest abundances found within 800 

km of major continents (Mitchell 1975). 

High densities of the species occur in 

high latitudes, especially in areas where 

prey is abundant. 

The killer whale has been reported to 

be common in New Zealand waters 

(Baker 1999), with a population of ∼200 

individuals (Suisted and Neale 2004). 

Killer whales have been sighted in all 

months around North and South Islands 

(Berkenbusch et al. 2013; Torres 2012; 

NABIS 2017). Calves and juveniles 

occur there throughout the year (Visser 

2000). Only the Type A killer whale is 

considered resident in New Zealand, 

while Types B, C, and D are vagrant and 

most common in the Southern Ocean 

(Visser 2000, 2007; Baker et al. 2010, 

2016a). As sighting of killer whales have 

been made near and within the survey 

areas during austral spring and summer, 

killer whales could occur in small 

numbers near the project areas. 

Long-Finned Pilot Whale 

Long-finned pilot whales roam 

throughout the cold temperate waters of 

the Southern Hemisphere. They live in 

stable family groups, and offspring of 

both sexes stay in their mother’s pod 

throughout their lives. Each pod 

numbers 20–100 whales, though they 

can congregate in much larger numbers. 

Pilot whales are prolific stranders, and 

this behavior is not well understood. 

There are recordings of individual 

strandings all over New Zealand, and 

there are a few mass stranding 

‘‘hotspots’’ at Golden Bay, Stewart 

Island, and the Chatham Islands. Due to 

this, it is possible for the proposed 

survey to encounter species. 

Short-Finned Pilot Whale 

Short finned pilot whales tend to 

inhabit more sub-tropical and tropical 

zones. Although long-finned and shortfinned pilot whales are readily 

distinguishable by differences in tooth 

count, flipper length, and skull 

morphology, it is almost impossible to 

distinguish between the two species at 

sea. The species prefers deeper waters, 

ranging from 324 m to 4,400 m, with 

most sightings between 500 m and 3,000 

m (Baird 2016). 

Short-finned pilot whale stranding 

records exist for the Bay of Plenty, East 

Cape, Hawke’s Bay, off Banks Peninsula, 

and the southeast coast of South Island. 

While most pilot whales sighted south 

of ∼40° S., would likely be the longfinned variety, short-finned pilot whales 

could also be encountered during the 

survey, particularly off the northeast 

coast of North Island. 

Spectacled Porpoise 

The spectacled porpoise is 

circumpolar in cool temperate, subAntarctic, and low Antarctic waters 

(Goodall 2009). It is thought to be 

oceanic in temperate to sub-Antarctic 

waters and is often sighted in deep 

waters far from land (Goodall 2009). 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
45126 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Notices 

Little is known regarding the 

distribution and abundance of the 

species, but it is believed to be rare 

throughout most of its range (Goodall 

and Schiavini 1995). Only five sightings 

were made during 10 years (1978/79– 

1987/88) of extensive Antarctic surveys 

for minke whales (Kasamatsu et al. 

1990). An additional 23 at-sea sightings 

described in Sekiguchi et al. (2006) have 

expanded the knowledge of the species. 

The sightings were circumpolar, mostly 

in offshore waters with sea surface 

temperatures of 0.9–10.3 °C, with a 

concentration south of the Auckland 

Islands (Sekiguchi et al. 2006). Sightings 

have been reported for the west coast of 

Northland and off the southeast coast of 

South Island (NZDOC 2017b). 

Strandings have occurred along the Bay 

of Plenty, South Taranaki Bight, Banks 

Peninsula, Otago Peninsula, Catlins 

Coast, and the Auckland Islands 

(NZDOC 2017b). The spectacled 

porpoise is rare; it is not expected to 

occur in the proposed North Island 

survey area but could occur off South 

Island. 

New Zealand Fur Seal 

New Zealand fur seals are found on 

rocky shores around the mainland, 

Chatham Islands and the Subantarctic 

islands (including Macquarie Island) of 

New Zealand. They are also found much 

further afield in South Australia, 

Western Australia and Tasmania. Off 

Otago, New Zealand fur seal’s prey stay 

very deep underwater during the day, 

and then come closer to the surface at 

night. Here, fur seals feed almost 

exclusively at night, when prey is closer 

to the surface, as deep as 163 m during 

summer. Their summer foraging is 

concentrated over the continental shelf, 

or near the slope. They will dive 

continuously from sundown to sunrise. 

In autumn and winter, they dive much 

deeper with many dives greater than 

100 m. At least some females dive 

deeper than 240 m, and from satellite 

tracking they may forage up to 200 km 

beyond the continental slope in water 

deeper than 1000 m (NZDOC 2017a). 

On the east coast of North Island, 

there are at least 15 haul-out sites and 

three breeding areas between Cape 

Palliser and Bay of Plenty, including 

haul out sites along Hawke’s Bay, on 

East Cape, and in the Bay of Plenty 

(Clement 2010). In addition, there are 

also at least two haul-out sites along the 

northeast coast of South Island (Taylor 

et al. 1995). Numerous nearshore and 

offshore sightings have been made 

within the proposed survey area east of 

North Island from seismic vessels off the 

southeast coast of North Island (Blue 

Planet Marine 2016; SIO n.d.). New 

Zealand fur seals would likely be 

encountered during the proposed 

surveys off the North and South Islands. 

New Zealand Sea Lion 

The New Zealand sea lion is New 

Zealand’s only endemic pinniped. It is 

one of the world’s rarest pinnipeds, 

with a highly restricted breeding range 

between 50 ° S. and 53 ° S., primarily on 

the Auckland (50 ° S., 166 ° E.) and 

Campbell islands (52°33 S., 169°09 E.) 

(Gales & Fletcher 1999; McNally 2001; 

Childerhouse et al. 2005). 

Sea lions that were satellite-tracked in 

the Auckland Islands during January 

and February foraged over the entire 

shelf out to a water depth of 500 m 

(Chilvers 2009; Meynier et al. 2014) and 

beyond (Geschke and Chilvers 2009), 

including near the southeastern-most 

edge of the proposed survey area. New 

Zealand sea lions are also known to 

forage on arrow squid near Snares 

Islands (Lalas and Webster 2013). 

Numerous nearshore and offshore 

sightings have been made off South 

Island from seismic vessels, including 

off the southeast coast, east of Stewart 

Island, and east of Snares Island (Blue 

Planet Marine 2016). It is possible that 

New Zealand sea lions would be 

encountered during the proposed survey 

off South Island, but unlikely that they 

would be encountered in the proposed 

survey areas off North Island. 

Leopard Seal 

Adult leopard seals are normally 

found along the edge of the Antarctic 

pack ice but in winter, young animals 

move throughout the Southern Ocean 

and occasionally occur in New Zealand, 

including the Auckland and Campbell 

Islands, and the mainland (NZDOC 

2017a). Auckland and Campbell islands 

are known to have leopard seals 

annually and the mainland regularly 

receives visitors (NZDOC 2017a). 

Numerous sightings have been made 

along the North and South Islands, not 

only in the winter but also during 

January–March (NZDOC 2017b). 

Sightings for the North Island include 

Cook Strait, Cape Palliser, the Bay of 

Plenty, and Hauruki Gulf; there is also 

one record for offshore waters of the 

study area off the southeast coast of 

North Island. For the South Island, 

sightings have been reported on all 

coasts, including Forveaux Strait and 

Stewart Island off the south coast, and 

in offshore waters off the southeast coast 

of Stewart Island during January–March. 

Southern Elephant Seal 

The southern elephant seal has a near 

circumpolar distribution in the 

Southern Hemisphere (Jefferson et al. 

2015). However, the distribution of 

southern elephant seals does not 

typically extend to the proposed survey 

areas (NABIS 2017). Breeding colonies 

occur on some New Zealand subAntarctic Islands, including Antipodes 

and Campbell Islands (Suisted and 

Neale 2004); these are part of the 

Macquarie Island stock of southern 

elephant seals (Taylor and Taylor 1989). 

Pups are occasionally born during 

September–October on east coast 

beaches of the mainland, including the 

southern coast of South Island (between 

Oamaru and Nugget Point), Kaikoura 

Peninsula, and on the southeast coast of 

North Island (Taylor and Taylor 1989; 

Harcourt 2001). 

Even though mainland New Zealand 

is not part of their regular distribution, 

juvenile southern elephant seals are 

sometimes seen over the shelf of South 

Island (van den Hoff et al. 2002; Field 

et al. 2004); there are numerous 

sightings along the southeastern and 

southwestern coasts of South Island in 

the marine mammal sightings and 

strandings database (NZDOC 2017b). 

Most sightings occur during the haulout period in July and August and 

between November and January during 

the molt (van den Hoff 2001). Sightings 

have been made on the northeastern 

coast of South Island, including 

Kaikoura Peninsula (Harcourt 2001; van 

den Hoff 2001; NZDOC 2017b). 

Individuals have also occurred in the 

Bay of Plenty and Gisborne (Harcourt 

2001); others have been seen in 

Wellington and other North Island 

beaches (Daniel 1971), and off Cape 

Palliser during the austral summer 

(NZDOC 2017b). 

Marine Mammal Hearing—Hearing is 

the most important sensory modality for 

marine mammals underwater, and 

exposure to anthropogenic sound can 

have deleterious effects. To 

appropriately assess the potential effects 

of exposure to sound, it is necessary to 

understand the frequency ranges marine 

mammals are able to hear. Current data 

indicate that not all marine mammal 

species have equal hearing capabilities 

(e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok 

and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 

2008). To reflect this, Southall et al. 

(2007) recommended that marine 

mammals be divided into functional 

hearing groups based on directly 

measured or estimated hearing ranges 

on the basis of available behavioral 

response data, audiograms derived 

using auditory evoked potential 

techniques, anatomical modeling, and 

other data. Note that no direct 

measurements of hearing ability have 

been successfully completed for 

mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Notices 45127 

cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2016) 

described generalized hearing ranges for 

these marine mammal hearing groups. 

Generalized hearing ranges were chosen 

based on the approximately 65 dB 

threshold from the normalized 

composite audiograms, with the 

exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower 

bound was deemed to be biologically 

implausible and the lower bound from 

Southall et al. (2007) retained. The 

functional groups and the associated 

frequencies are indicated below (note 

that these frequency ranges correspond 

to the range for the composite group, 

with the entire range not necessarily 

reflecting the capabilities of every 

species within that group): 

• Low-frequency cetaceans 

(mysticetes): Generalized hearing is 

estimated to occur between 

approximately 7 Hz and 35 kHz, with 

best hearing estimated to be from 100 

Hz to 8 kHz; 

D Mid-frequency cetaceans (larger 

toothed whales, beaked whales, and 

most delphinids): Generalized hearing is 

estimated to occur between 

approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz, 

with best hearing from 10 to less than 

100 kHz; 

D High-frequency cetaceans 

(porpoises, river dolphins, and members 

of the genera Kogia and 

Cephalorhynchus; including two 

members of the genus Lagenorhynchus, 

on the basis of recent echolocation data 

and genetic data): Generalized hearing is 

estimated to occur between 

approximately 275 Hz and 160 kHz. 

D Pinnipeds in water; Phocidae (true 

seals): Generalized hearing is estimated 

to occur between approximately 50 Hz 

to 86 kHz, with best hearing between 1– 

50 kHz; 

D Pinnipeds in water; Otariidae (eared 

seals): Generalized hearing is estimated 

to occur between 60 Hz and 39 kHz, 

with best hearing between 2–48 kHz. 

The pinniped functional hearing 

group was modified from Southall et al. 

(2007) on the basis of data indicating 

that phocid species have consistently 

demonstrated an extended frequency 

range of hearing compared to otariids, 

especially in the higher frequency range 

(Hemila ̈ et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 

2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013). 

TABLE 3—MARINE FUNCTIONAL MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS AND THEIR GENERALIZED HEARING RANGES

Hearing group Generalized hearing 

range * 

Low frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen whales) ................................................................................................................. 7 Hz to 35 kHz. 

Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans (dolphins, toothed whales, beaked whales, bottlenose whales) ...................................... 150 Hz to 160 kHz. 

High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins, cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus cruciger and 

L. australis).

275 Hz to 160 kHz. 

Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true seals) .............................................................................................................. 50 Hz to 86 kHz. 

Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea lions and fur seals) .......................................................................................... 60 Hz to 39 kHz. 

* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual species’ 

hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized hearing range chosen based on ∼65 dB threshold from normalized composite audiogram, 

with the exception for lower limits for LF cetaceans (Southall et al., 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation). 

For more detail concerning these 

groups and associated frequency ranges, 

please see NMFS (2016) for a review of 

available information. Thirty-eight 

marine mammal species have the 

reasonable potential to co-occur with 

the proposed survey activities (Table 2). 

Of the cetacean species that may be 

present, 9 are classified as lowfrequency cetaceans (i.e., all mysticete 

species), 21 are classified as midfrequency cetaceans (i.e., all delphinid 

and ziphiid species and the sperm 

whale), and 4 are classified as highfrequency cetaceans (i.e., Kogia spp.). 

For the four pinniped species that may 

be present, 2 are otariids and 2 are 

classified as phocids. 

Potential Effects of Specified Activities 

on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat 

This section includes a summary and 

discussion of the ways that components 

of the specified activity may impact 

marine mammals and their habitat. The 

‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment’’ section later in this 

document includes a quantitative 

analysis of the number of individuals 

that are expected to be taken by this 

activity. The ‘‘Negligible Impact 

Analysis and Determination’’ section 

considers the content of this section, the 

‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental 

Harassment’’ section, and the ‘‘Proposed 

Mitigation’’ section, to draw 

conclusions regarding the likely impacts 

of these activities on the reproductive 

success or survivorship of individuals 

and how those impacts on individuals 

are likely to impact marine mammal 

species or stocks. 

Description of Active Acoustic Sound 

Sources 

This section contains a brief technical 

background on sound, the 

characteristics of certain sound types, 

and on metrics used in this proposal 

inasmuch as the information is relevant 

to the specified activity and to a 

discussion of the potential effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

found later in this document. 

Sound travels in waves, the basic 

components of which are frequency, 

wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. 

Frequency is the number of pressure 

waves that pass by a reference point per 

unit of time and is measured in Hz or 

cycles per second. Wavelength is the 

distance between two peaks or 

corresponding points of a sound wave 

(length of one cycle). Higher frequency 

sounds have shorter wavelengths than 

lower frequency sounds, and typically 

attenuate (decrease) more rapidly, 

except in certain cases in shallower 

water. Amplitude is the height of the 

sound pressure wave or the ‘‘loudness’’ 

of a sound and is typically described 

using the relative unit of the decibel 

(dB). A sound pressure level (SPL) in dB 

is described as the ratio between a 

measured pressure and a reference 

pressure (for underwater sound, this is 

1 microPascal (mPa)) and is a 

logarithmic unit that accounts for large 

variations in amplitude; therefore, a 

relatively small change in dB 

corresponds to large changes in sound 

pressure. The source level (SL) 

represents the SPL referenced at a 

distance of 1 m from the source 

(referenced to 1 mPa) while the received 

level is the SPL at the listener’s position 

(referenced to 1 mPa). 

Root mean square (rms) is the 

quadratic mean sound pressure over the 

duration of an impulse. Root mean 

square is calculated by squaring all of 

the sound amplitudes, averaging the 

squares, and then taking the square root 

of the average (Urick, 1983). Root mean 

square accounts for both positive and 

negative values; squaring the pressures 

makes all values positive so that they 

may be accounted for in the summation 

of pressure levels (Hastings and Popper, 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
45128 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Notices 

2005). This measurement is often used 

in the context of discussing behavioral 

effects, in part because behavioral 

effects, which often result from auditory 

cues, may be better expressed through 

averaged units than by peak pressures. 

Sound exposure level (SEL; 

represented as dB re 1 mPa2-s) represents 

the total energy contained within a 

pulse and considers both intensity and 

duration of exposure. Peak sound 

pressure (also referred to as zero-to-peak 

sound pressure or 0-p) is the maximum 

instantaneous sound pressure 

measurable in the water at a specified 

distance from the source and is 

represented in the same units as the rms 

sound pressure. Another common 

metric is peak-to-peak sound pressure 

(pk-pk), which is the algebraic 

difference between the peak positive 

and peak negative sound pressures. 

Peak-to-peak pressure is typically 

approximately 6 dB higher than peak 

pressure (Southall et al., 2007). 

When underwater objects vibrate or 

activity occurs, sound-pressure waves 

are created. These waves alternately 

compress and decompress the water as 

the sound wave travels. Underwater 

sound waves radiate in a manner similar 

to ripples on the surface of a pond and 

may be either directed in a beam or 

beams or may radiate in all directions 

(omnidirectional sources), as is the case 

for pulses produced by the airgun arrays 

considered here. The compressions and 

decompressions associated with sound 

waves are detected as changes in 

pressure by aquatic life and man-made 

sound receptors such as hydrophones. 

Even in the absence of sound from the 

specified activity, the underwater 

environment is typically loud due to 

ambient sound. Ambient sound is 

defined as environmental background 

sound levels lacking a single source or 

point (Richardson et al., 1995), and the 

sound level of a region is defined by the 

total acoustical energy being generated 

by known and unknown sources. These 

sources may include physical (e.g., 

wind and waves, earthquakes, ice, 

atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., 

sounds produced by marine mammals, 

fish, and invertebrates), and 

anthropogenic (e.g., vessels, dredging, 

construction) sound. A number of 

sources contribute to ambient sound, 

including the following (Richardson et 

al., 1995): 

• Wind and waves: The complex 

interactions between wind and water 

surface, including processes such as 

breaking waves and wave-induced 

bubble oscillations and cavitation, are a 

main source of naturally occurring 

ambient sound for frequencies between 

200 Hz and 50 kHz (Mitson, 1995). In 

general, ambient sound levels tend to 

increase with increasing wind speed 

and wave height. Surf sound becomes 

important near shore, with 

measurements collected at a distance of 

8.5 km from shore showing an increase 

of 10 dB in the 100 to 700 Hz band 

during heavy surf conditions. 

D Precipitation: Sound from rain and 

hail impacting the water surface can 

become an important component of total 

sound at frequencies above 500 Hz, and 

possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet 

times. 

D Biological: Marine mammals can 

contribute significantly to ambient 

sound levels, as can some fish and 

snapping shrimp. The frequency band 

for biological contributions is from 

approximately 12 Hz to over 100 kHz. 

D Anthropogenic: Sources of ambient 

sound related to human activity include 

transportation (surface vessels), 

dredging and construction, oil and gas 

drilling and production, seismic 

surveys, sonar, explosions, and ocean 

acoustic studies. Vessel noise typically 

dominates the total ambient sound for 

frequencies between 20 and 300 Hz. In 

general, the frequencies of 

anthropogenic sounds are below 1 kHz 

and, if higher frequency sound levels 

are created, they attenuate rapidly. 

Sound from identifiable anthropogenic 

sources other than the activity of 

interest (e.g., a passing vessel) is 

sometimes termed background sound, as 

opposed to ambient sound. 

The sum of the various natural and 

anthropogenic sound sources at any 

given location and time—which 

comprise ‘‘ambient’’ or ‘‘background’’ 

sound—depends not only on the source 

levels (as determined by current 

weather conditions and levels of 

biological and human activity) but also 

on the ability of sound to propagate 

through the environment. In turn, sound 

propagation is dependent on the 

spatially and temporally varying 

properties of the water column and sea 

floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a 

result of the dependence on a large 

number of varying factors, ambient 

sound levels can be expected to vary 

widely over both coarse and fine spatial 

and temporal scales. Sound levels at a 

given frequency and location can vary 

by 10–20 dB from day to day 

(Richardson et al., 1995). The result is 

that, depending on the source type and 

its intensity, sound from a given activity 

may be a negligible addition to the local 

environment or could form a distinctive 

signal that may affect marine mammals. 

Details of source types are described in 

the following text. 

Sounds are often considered to fall 

into one of two general types: Pulsed 

and non-pulsed (defined in the 

following). The distinction between 

these two sound types is important 

because they have differing potential to 

cause physical effects, particularly with 

regard to hearing (e.g., Ward, 1997 in 

Southall et al., 2007). Please see 

Southall et al. (2007) for an in-depth 

discussion of these concepts. 

Pulsed sound sources (e.g., airguns, 

explosions, gunshots, sonic booms, 

impact pile driving) produce signals 

that are brief (typically considered to be 

less than one second), broadband, atonal 

transients (ANSI, 1986, 2005; Harris, 

1998; NIOSH, 1998; ISO, 2003) and 

occur either as isolated events or 

repeated in some succession. Pulsed 

sounds are all characterized by a 

relatively rapid rise from ambient 

pressure to a maximal pressure value 

followed by a rapid decay period that 

may include a period of diminishing, 

oscillating maximal and minimal 

pressures, and generally have an 

increased capacity to induce physical 

injury as compared with sounds that 

lack these features. 

Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal, 

narrowband, or broadband, brief or 

prolonged, and may be either 

continuous or non-continuous (ANSI, 

1995; NIOSH, 1998). Some of these nonpulsed sounds can be transient signals 

of short duration but without the 

essential properties of pulses (e.g., rapid 

rise time). Examples of non-pulsed 

sounds include those produced by 

vessels, aircraft, machinery operations 

such as drilling or dredging, vibratory 

pile driving, and active sonar systems 

(such as those used by the U.S. Navy). 

The duration of such sounds, as 

received at a distance, can be greatly 

extended in a highly reverberant 

environment. 

Airgun arrays produce pulsed signals 

with energy in a frequency range from 

about 10–2,000 Hz, with most energy 

radiated at frequencies below 200 Hz. 

The amplitude of the acoustic wave 

emitted from the source is equal in all 

directions (i.e., omnidirectional), but 

airgun arrays do possess some 

directionality due to different phase 

delays between guns in different 

directions. Airgun arrays are typically 

tuned to maximize functionality for data 

acquisition purposes, meaning that 

sound transmitted in horizontal 

directions and at higher frequencies is 

minimized to the extent possible. 

As described above, a Kongsberg EM 

122 MBES, a Knudsen Chirp 3260 SBP, 

and a Teledyne RDI 75 kHz Ocean 

Surveyor ADCP would be operated 

continuously during the proposed 

surveys, but not during transit to and 

from the survey areas. Due to the lower 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Notices 45129 

source level of the Kongsberg EM 122 

MBES relative to the Langseth’s airgun 

array (242 dB re 1 mPa · m for the MBES 

versus a minimum of 249.4 dB re 1 mPa 

· m (rms) for the 36 airgun array and a 

minimum of 243.6 dB re 1 mPa · m (rms) 

for the 18 airgun array) (NSF–USGS, 

2011; Table 6), sounds from the MBES 

are expected to be effectively subsumed 

by the sounds from the airgun array. 

Thus, any marine mammal potentially 

exposed to sounds from the MBES 

would already have been exposed to 

sounds from the airgun array, which are 

expected to propagate further in the 

water. Each ping emitted by the MBES 

consists of eight (in water >1,000 m 

deep) or four (<1,000 m) successive fanshaped transmissions, each ensonifying 

a sector that extends 1° fore–aft. Given 

the movement and speed of the vessel, 

the intermittent and narrow downwarddirected nature of the sounds emitted by 

the MBES would result in no more than 

one or two brief ping exposures of any 

individual marine mammal, if any 

exposure were to occur. Due to the 

lower source levels of both the Knudsen 

Chirp 3260 SBP and the Teledyne RDI 

75 kHz Ocean Surveyor ADCP relative 

to the Langseth’s airgun array 

(maximum SL of 222 dB re 1 mPa · m 

for the SBP and maximum SL of 224 dB 

re 1 mPa · m for the ADCP, versus a 

minimum of 249.4 dB re 1 mPa · m for 

the 36 airgun array and a minimum of 

243.6 dB re 1 mPa · m for the 18 airgun 

array) (NSF–USGS, 2011; Table 6 

above), sounds from the SBP and ADCP 

are expected to be effectively subsumed 

by sounds from the airgun array. Thus, 

any marine mammal potentially 

exposed to sounds from the SBP and/or 

the ADCP would already have been 

exposed to sounds from the airgun 

array, which are expected to propagate 

further in the water. As such, we 

conclude that the likelihood of marine 

mammal take resulting from exposure to 

sound from the MBES, SBP or ADCP is 

discountable and therefore we do not 

consider noise from the MBES, SBP or 

ADCP further in this analysis. 

Acoustic Effects 

Here, we discuss the effects of active 

acoustic sources on marine mammals. 

Potential Effects of Underwater 

Sound—Please refer to the information 

given previously (‘‘Description of Active 

Acoustic Sources’’) regarding sound, 

characteristics of sound types, and 

metrics used in this document. 

Anthropogenic sounds cover a broad 

range of frequencies and sound levels 

and can have a range of highly variable 

impacts on marine life, from none or 

minor to potentially severe responses, 

depending on received levels, duration 

of exposure, behavioral context, and 

various other factors. The potential 

effects of underwater sound from active 

acoustic sources can potentially result 

in one or more of the following: 

Temporary or permanent hearing 

impairment, non-auditory physical or 

physiological effects, behavioral 

disturbance, stress, and masking 

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

2004; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et 

al., 2007; Go ̈tz et al., 2009). The degree 

of effect is intrinsically related to the 

signal characteristics, received level, 

distance from the source, and duration 

of the sound exposure. In general, 

sudden, high level sounds can cause 

hearing loss, as can longer exposures to 

lower level sounds. Temporary or 

permanent loss of hearing will occur 

almost exclusively for noise within an 

animal’s hearing range. We first describe 

specific manifestations of acoustic 

effects before providing discussion 

specific to the use of airgun arrays. 

Richardson et al. (1995) described 

zones of increasing intensity of effect 

that might be expected to occur, in 

relation to distance from a source and 

assuming that the signal is within an 

animal’s hearing range. First is the area 

within which the acoustic signal would 

be audible (potentially perceived) to the 

animal, but not strong enough to elicit 

any overt behavioral or physiological 

response. The next zone corresponds 

with the area where the signal is audible 

to the animal and of sufficient intensity 

to elicit behavioral or physiological 

responsiveness. Third is a zone within 

which, for signals of high intensity, the 

received level is sufficient to potentially 

cause discomfort or tissue damage to 

auditory or other systems. Overlaying 

these zones to a certain extent is the 

area within which masking (i.e., when a 

sound interferes with or masks the 

ability of an animal to detect a signal of 

interest that is above the absolute 

hearing threshold) may occur; the 

masking zone may be highly variable in 

size. 

We describe the more severe nonauditory physical or physiological 

effects only briefly as we do not expect 

that use of the airgun arrays is 

reasonably likely to result in such 

effects (see below for further 

discussion). Potential effects from 

impulsive sound sources can range in 

severity from effects such as behavioral 

disturbance or tactile perception to 

physical discomfort, slight injury of the 

internal organs and the auditory system, 

or mortality (Yelverton et al., 1973). 

Non-auditory physiological effects or 

injuries that theoretically might occur in 

marine mammals exposed to high level 

underwater sound or as a secondary 

effect of extreme behavioral reactions 

(e.g., change in dive profile as a result 

of an avoidance reaction) caused by 

exposure to sound include neurological 

effects, bubble formation, resonance 

effects, and other types of organ or 

tissue damage (Cox et al., 2006; Southall 

et al., 2007; Zimmer and Tyack, 2007; 

Tal et al., 2015). The survey activities 

considered here do not involve the use 

of devices such as explosives or midfrequency tactical sonar that are 

associated with these types of effects. 

1. Threshold Shift—Marine mammals 

exposed to high-intensity sound, or to 

lower-intensity sound for prolonged 

periods, can experience hearing 

threshold shift (TS), which is the loss of 

hearing sensitivity at certain frequency 

ranges (Finneran, 2015). TS can be 

permanent (PTS), in which case the loss 

of hearing sensitivity is not fully 

recoverable, or temporary (TTS), in 

which case the animal’s hearing 

threshold would recover over time 

(Southall et al., 2007). Repeated sound 

exposure that leads to TTS could cause 

PTS. In severe cases of PTS, there can 

be total or partial deafness, while in 

most cases the animal has an impaired 

ability to hear sounds in specific 

frequency ranges (Kryter, 1985). 

When PTS occurs, there is physical 

damage to the sound receptors in the ear 

(i.e., tissue damage), whereas TTS 

represents primarily tissue fatigue and 

is reversible (Southall et al., 2007). In 

addition, other investigators have 

suggested that TTS is within the normal 

bounds of physiological variability and 

tolerance and does not represent 

physical injury (e.g., Ward, 1997). 

Therefore, NMFS does not consider TTS 

to constitute auditory injury. 

Relationships between TTS and PTS 

thresholds have not been studied in 

marine mammals, and there is no PTS 

data for cetaceans but such relationships 

are assumed to be similar to those in 

humans and other terrestrial mammals. 

PTS typically occurs at exposure levels 

at least several decibels above (a 40-dB 

threshold shift approximates PTS onset; 

e.g., Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974) 

that inducing mild TTS (a 6-dB 

threshold shift approximates TTS onset; 

e.g., Southall et al. 2007). Based on data 

from terrestrial mammals, a 

precautionary assumption is that the 

PTS thresholds for impulse sounds 

(such as airgun pulses as received close 

to the source) are at least 6 dB higher 

than the TTS threshold on a peakpressure basis and PTS cumulative 

sound exposure level thresholds are 15 

to 20 dB higher than TTS cumulative 

sound exposure level thresholds 

(Southall et al., 2007). Given the higher 

level of sound or longer exposure 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
45130 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Notices 

duration necessary to cause PTS as 

compared with TTS, it is considerably 

less likely that PTS could occur. 

For mid-frequency cetaceans in 

particular, potential protective 

mechanisms may help limit onset of 

TTS or prevent onset of PTS. Such 

mechanisms include dampening of 

hearing, auditory adaptation, or 

behavioral amelioration (e.g., Nachtigall 

and Supin, 2013; Miller et al., 2012; 

Finneran et al., 2015; Popov et al., 

2016). 

TTS is the mildest form of hearing 

impairment that can occur during 

exposure to sound (Kryter, 1985). While 

experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold 

rises, and a sound must be at a higher 

level in order to be heard. In terrestrial 

and marine mammals, TTS can last from 

minutes or hours to days (in cases of 

strong TTS). In many cases, hearing 

sensitivity recovers rapidly after 

exposure to the sound ends. Few data 

on sound levels and durations necessary 

to elicit mild TTS have been obtained 

for marine mammals. 

Marine mammal hearing plays a 

critical role in communication with 

conspecifics, and interpretation of 

environmental cues for purposes such 

as predator avoidance and prey capture. 

Depending on the degree (elevation of 

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

time), and frequency range of TTS, and 

the context in which it is experienced, 

TTS can have effects on marine 

mammals ranging from discountable to 

serious. For example, a marine mammal 

may be able to readily compensate for 

a brief, relatively small amount of TTS 

in a non-critical frequency range that 

occurs during a time where ambient 

noise is lower and there are not as many 

competing sounds present. 

Alternatively, a larger amount and 

longer duration of TTS sustained during 

time when communication is critical for 

successful mother/calf interactions 

could have more serious impacts. 

Finneran et al. (2015) measured 

hearing thresholds in three captive 

bottlenose dolphins before and after 

exposure to ten pulses produced by a 

seismic airgun in order to study TTS 

induced after exposure to multiple 

pulses. Exposures began at relatively 

low levels and gradually increased over 

a period of several months, with the 

highest exposures at peak SPLs from 

196 to 210 dB and cumulative 

(unweighted) SELs from 193–195 dB. 

No substantial TTS was observed. In 

addition, behavioral reactions were 

observed that indicated that animals can 

learn behaviors that effectively mitigate 

noise exposures (although exposure 

patterns must be learned, which is less 

likely in wild animals than for the 

captive animals considered in this 

study). The authors note that the failure 

to induce more significant auditory 

effects was likely due to the intermittent 

nature of exposure, the relatively low 

peak pressure produced by the acoustic 

source, and the low-frequency energy in 

airgun pulses as compared with the 

frequency range of best sensitivity for 

dolphins and other mid-frequency 

cetaceans. 

Currently, TTS data only exist for four 

species of cetaceans (bottlenose 

dolphin, beluga whale, harbor porpoise, 

and Yangtze finless porpoise) exposed 

to a limited number of sound sources 

(i.e., mostly tones and octave-band 

noise) in laboratory settings (Finneran, 

2015). In general, harbor porpoises have 

a lower TTS onset than other measured 

cetacean species (Finneran, 2015). 

Additionally, the existing marine 

mammal TTS data come from a limited 

number of individuals within these 

species. There are no data available on 

noise-induced hearing loss for 

mysticetes. 

Critical questions remain regarding 

the rate of TTS growth and recovery 

after exposure to intermittent noise and 

the effects of single and multiple pulses. 

Data at present are also insufficient to 

construct generalized models for 

recovery and determine the time 

necessary to treat subsequent exposures 

as independent events. More 

information is needed on the 

relationship between auditory evoked 

potential and behavioral measures of 

TTS for various stimuli. For summaries 

of data on TTS in marine mammals or 

for further discussion of TTS onset 

thresholds, please see Southall et al. 

(2007), Finneran and Jenkins (2012), 

Finneran (2015), and NMFS (2016). 

2. Behavioral Effects—Behavioral 

disturbance may include a variety of 

effects, including subtle changes in 

behavior (e.g., minor or brief avoidance 

of an area or changes in vocalizations), 

more conspicuous changes in similar 

behavioral activities, and more 

sustained and/or potentially severe 

reactions, such as displacement from or 

abandonment of high-quality habitat. 

Behavioral responses to sound are 

highly variable and context-specific and 

any reactions depend on numerous 

intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., 

species, state of maturity, experience, 

current activity, reproductive state, 

auditory sensitivity, time of day), as 

well as the interplay between factors 

(e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et 

al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007; Weilgart, 

2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral 

reactions can vary not only among 

individuals but also within an 

individual, depending on previous 

experience with a sound source, 

context, and numerous other factors 

(Ellison et al., 2012), and can vary 

depending on characteristics associated 

with the sound source (e.g., whether it 

is moving or stationary, number of 

sources, distance from the source). 

Please see Appendices B–C of Southall 

et al. (2007) for a review of studies 

involving marine mammal behavioral 

responses to sound. 

Habituation can occur when an 

animal’s response to a stimulus wanes 

with repeated exposure, usually in the 

absence of unpleasant associated events 

(Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most 

likely to habituate to sounds that are 

predictable and unvarying. It is 

important to note that habituation is 

appropriately considered as a 

‘‘progressive reduction in response to 

stimuli that are perceived as neither 

aversive nor beneficial,’’ rather than as, 

more generally, moderation in response 

to human disturbance (Bejder et al., 

2009). The opposite process is 

sensitization, when an unpleasant 

experience leads to subsequent 

responses, often in the form of 

avoidance, at a lower level of exposure. 

As noted, behavioral state may affect the 

type of response. For example, animals 

that are resting may show greater 

behavioral change in response to 

disturbing sound levels than animals 

that are highly motivated to remain in 

an area for feeding (Richardson et al., 

1995; NRC, 2003; Wartzok et al., 2003). 

Controlled experiments with captive 

marine mammals have showed 

pronounced behavioral reactions, 

including avoidance of loud sound 

sources (Ridgway et al., 1997). Observed 

responses of wild marine mammals to 

loud pulsed sound sources (typically 

seismic airguns or acoustic harassment 

devices) have been varied but often 

consist of avoidance behavior or other 

behavioral changes suggesting 

discomfort (Morton and Symonds, 2002; 

see also Richardson et al., 1995; 

Nowacek et al., 2007). However, many 

delphinids approach acoustic source 

vessels with no apparent discomfort or 

obvious behavioral change (e.g., 

Barkaszi et al., 2012). 

Available studies show wide variation 

in response to underwater sound; 

therefore, it is difficult to predict 

specifically how any given sound in a 

particular instance might affect marine 

mammals perceiving the signal. If a 

marine mammal does react briefly to an 

underwater sound by changing its 

behavior or moving a small distance, the 

impacts of the change are unlikely to be 

significant to the individual, let alone 

the stock or population. However, if a 

sound source displaces marine 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Notices 45131 

mammals from an important feeding or 

breeding area for a prolonged period, 

impacts on individuals and populations 

could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and 

Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007; NRC, 

2005). However, there are broad 

categories of potential response, which 

we describe in greater detail here, that 

include alteration of dive behavior, 

alteration of foraging behavior, effects to 

breathing, interference with or alteration 

of vocalization, avoidance, and flight. 

Changes in dive behavior can vary 

widely, and may consist of increased or 

decreased dive times and surface 

intervals as well as changes in the rates 

of ascent and descent during a dive (e.g., 

Frankel and Clark, 2000; Ng and Leung, 

2003; Nowacek et al.; 2004; Goldbogen 

et al., 2013a, b). Variations in dive 

behavior may reflect interruptions in 

biologically significant activities (e.g., 

foraging) or they may be of little 

biological significance. The impact of an 

alteration to dive behavior resulting 

from an acoustic exposure depends on 

what the animal is doing at the time of 

the exposure and the type and 

magnitude of the response. 

Disruption of feeding behavior can be 

difficult to correlate with anthropogenic 

sound exposure, so it is usually inferred 

by observed displacement from known 

foraging areas, the appearance of 

secondary indicators (e.g., bubble nets 

or sediment plumes), or changes in dive 

behavior. As for other types of 

behavioral response, the frequency, 

duration, and temporal pattern of signal 

presentation, as well as differences in 

species sensitivity, are likely 

contributing factors to differences in 

response in any given circumstance 

(e.g., Croll et al., 2001; Nowacek et al.; 

2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et 

al., 2007). A determination of whether 

foraging disruptions incur fitness 

consequences would require 

information on or estimates of the 

energetic requirements of the affected 

individuals and the relationship 

between prey availability, foraging effort 

and success, and the life history stage of 

the animal. 

Visual tracking, passive acoustic 

monitoring, and movement recording 

tags were used to quantify sperm whale 

behavior prior to, during, and following 

exposure to airgun arrays at received 

levels in the range 140–160 dB at 

distances of 7–13 km, following a phasein of sound intensity and full array 

exposures at 1–13 km (Madsen et al., 

2006; Miller et al., 2009). Sperm whales 

did not exhibit horizontal avoidance 

behavior at the surface. However, 

foraging behavior may have been 

affected. The sperm whales exhibited 19 

percent less vocal (buzz) rate during full 

exposure relative to post exposure, and 

the whale that was approached most 

closely had an extended resting period 

and did not resume foraging until the 

airguns had ceased firing. The 

remaining whales continued to execute 

foraging dives throughout exposure; 

however, swimming movements during 

foraging dives were 6 percent lower 

during exposure than control periods 

(Miller et al., 2009). These data raise 

concerns that seismic surveys may 

impact foraging behavior in sperm 

whales, although more data are required 

to understand whether the differences 

were due to exposure or natural 

variation in sperm whale behavior 

(Miller et al., 2009). 

Variations in respiration naturally 

vary with different behaviors and 

alterations to breathing rate as a 

function of acoustic exposure can be 

expected to co-occur with other 

behavioral reactions, such as a flight 

response or an alteration in diving. 

However, respiration rates in and of 

themselves may be representative of 

annoyance or an acute stress response. 

Various studies have shown that 

respiration rates may either be 

unaffected or could increase, depending 

on the species and signal characteristics, 

again highlighting the importance in 

understanding species differences in the 

tolerance of underwater noise when 

determining the potential for impacts 

resulting from anthropogenic sound 

exposure (e.g., Kastelein et al., 2001, 

2005, 2006; Gailey et al., 2007; Gailey et 

al., 2016). 

Marine mammals vocalize for 

different purposes and across multiple 

modes, such as whistling, echolocation 

click production, calling, and singing. 

Changes in vocalization behavior in 

response to anthropogenic noise can 

occur for any of these modes and may 

result from a need to compete with an 

increase in background noise or may 

reflect increased vigilance or a startle 

response. For example, in the presence 

of potentially masking signals, 

humpback whales and killer whales 

have been observed to increase the 

length of their songs (Miller et al., 2000; 

Fristrup et al., 2003; Foote et al., 2004), 

while right whales have been observed 

to shift the frequency content of their 

calls upward while reducing the rate of 

calling in areas of increased 

anthropogenic noise (Parks et al., 2007). 

In some cases, animals may cease sound 

production during production of 

aversive signals (Bowles et al., 1994). 

Cerchio et al. (2014) used passive 

acoustic monitoring to document the 

presence of singing humpback whales 

off the coast of northern Angola and to 

opportunistically test for the effect of 

seismic survey activity on the number of 

singing whales. Two recording units 

were deployed between March and 

December 2008 in the offshore 

environment; numbers of singers were 

counted every hour. Generalized 

Additive Mixed Models were used to 

assess the effect of survey day 

(seasonality), hour (diel variation), 

moon phase, and received levels of 

noise (measured from a single pulse 

during each ten minute sampled period) 

on singer number. The number of 

singers significantly decreased with 

increasing received level of noise, 

suggesting that humpback whale 

breeding activity was disrupted to some 

extent by the survey activity. 

Castellote et al. (2012) reported 

acoustic and behavioral changes by fin 

whales in response to shipping and 

airgun noise. Acoustic features of fin 

whale song notes recorded in the 

Mediterranean Sea and northeast 

Atlantic Ocean were compared for areas 

with different shipping noise levels and 

traffic intensities and during a seismic 

airgun survey. During the first 72 h of 

the survey, a steady decrease in song 

received levels and bearings to singers 

indicated that whales moved away from 

the acoustic source and out of the study 

area. This displacement persisted for a 

time period well beyond the 10-day 

duration of seismic airgun activity, 

providing evidence that fin whales may 

avoid an area for an extended period in 

the presence of increased noise. The 

authors hypothesize that fin whale 

acoustic communication is modified to 

compensate for increased background 

noise and that a sensitization process 

may play a role in the observed 

temporary displacement. 

Seismic pulses at average received 

levels of 131 dB re 1 mPa2-s caused blue 

whales to increase call production (Di 

Iorio and Clark, 2010). In contrast, 

McDonald et al. (1995) tracked a blue 

whale with seafloor seismometers and 

reported that it stopped vocalizing and 

changed its travel direction at a range of 

10 km from the acoustic source vessel 

(estimated received level 143 dB pk-pk). 

Blackwell et al. (2013) found that 

bowhead whale call rates dropped 

significantly at onset of airgun use at 

sites with a median distance of 41–45 

km from the survey. Blackwell et al. 

(2015) expanded this analysis to show 

that whales actually increased calling 

rates as soon as airgun signals were 

detectable before ultimately decreasing 

calling rates at higher received levels 

(i.e., 10-minute SELcum of ∼127 dB). 

Overall, these results suggest that 

bowhead whales may adjust their vocal 

output in an effort to compensate for 

noise before ceasing vocalization effort 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
45132 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Notices 

and ultimately deflecting from the 

acoustic source (Blackwell et al., 2013, 

2015). These studies demonstrate that 

even low levels of noise received far 

from the source can induce changes in 

vocalization and/or behavior for 

mysticetes. 

Avoidance is the displacement of an 

individual from an area or migration 

path as a result of the presence of a 

sound or other stressors, and is one of 

the most obvious manifestations of 

disturbance in marine mammals 

(Richardson et al., 1995). For example, 

gray whales are known to change 

direction—deflecting from customary 

migratory paths—in order to avoid noise 

from seismic surveys (Malme et al., 

1984). Humpback whales showed 

avoidance behavior in the presence of 

an active seismic array during 

observational studies and controlled 

exposure experiments in western 

Australia (McCauley et al., 2000). 

Avoidance may be short-term, with 

animals returning to the area once the 

noise has ceased (e.g., Bowles et al., 

1994; Goold, 1996; Stone et al., 2000; 

Morton and Symonds, 2002; Gailey et 

al., 2007). Longer-term displacement is 

possible, however, which may lead to 

changes in abundance or distribution 

patterns of the affected species in the 

affected region if habituation to the 

presence of the sound does not occur 

(e.g., Bejder et al., 2006; Teilmann et al., 

2006). 

A flight response is a dramatic change 

in normal movement to a directed and 

rapid movement away from the 

perceived location of a sound source. 

The flight response differs from other 

avoidance responses in the intensity of 

the response (e.g., directed movement, 

rate of travel). Relatively little 

information on flight responses of 

marine mammals to anthropogenic 

signals exist, although observations of 

flight responses to the presence of 

predators have occurred (Connor and 

Heithaus, 1996). The result of a flight 

response could range from brief, 

temporary exertion and displacement 

from the area where the signal provokes 

flight to, in extreme cases, marine 

mammal strandings (Evans and 

England, 2001). However, it should be 

noted that response to a perceived 

predator does not necessarily invoke 

flight (Ford and Reeves, 2008), and 

whether individuals are solitary or in 

groups may influence the response. 

Behavioral disturbance can also 

impact marine mammals in more subtle 

ways. Increased vigilance may result in 

costs related to diversion of focus and 

attention (i.e., when a response consists 

of increased vigilance, it may come at 

the cost of decreased attention to other 

critical behaviors such as foraging or 

resting). These effects have generally not 

been demonstrated for marine 

mammals, but studies involving fish 

and terrestrial animals have shown that 

increased vigilance may substantially 

reduce feeding rates (e.g., Beauchamp 

and Livoreil, 1997; Fritz et al., 2002; 

Purser and Radford, 2011). In addition, 

chronic disturbance can cause 

population declines through reduction 

of fitness (e.g., decline in body 

condition) and subsequent reduction in 

reproductive success, survival, or both 

(e.g., Harrington and Veitch, 1992; Daan 

et al., 1996; Bradshaw et al., 1998). 

However, Ridgway et al. (2006) reported 

that increased vigilance in bottlenose 

dolphins exposed to sound over a fiveday period did not cause any sleep 

deprivation or stress effects. 

Many animals perform vital functions, 

such as feeding, resting, traveling, and 

socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour 

cycle). Disruption of such functions 

resulting from reactions to stressors 

such as sound exposure are more likely 

to be significant if they last more than 

one diel cycle or recur on subsequent 

days (Southall et al., 2007). 

Consequently, a behavioral response 

lasting less than one day and not 

recurring on subsequent days is not 

considered particularly severe unless it 

could directly affect reproduction or 

survival (Southall et al., 2007). Note that 

there is a difference between multi-day 

substantive behavioral reactions and 

multi-day anthropogenic activities. For 

example, just because an activity lasts 

for multiple days does not necessarily 

mean that individual animals are either 

exposed to activity-related stressors for 

multiple days or, further, exposed in a 

manner resulting in sustained multi-day 

substantive behavioral responses. 

Stone (2015) reported data from at-sea 

observations during 1,196 seismic 

surveys from 1994 to 2010. When large 

arrays of airguns (considered to be 500 

in3 or more) were firing, lateral 

displacement, more localized 

avoidance, or other changes in behavior 

were evident for most odontocetes. 

However, significant responses to large 

arrays were found only for the minke 

whale and fin whale. Behavioral 

responses observed included changes in 

swimming or surfacing behavior, with 

indications that cetaceans remained 

near the water surface at these times. 

Cetaceans were recorded as feeding less 

often when large arrays were active. 

Behavioral observations of gray whales 

during a seismic survey monitored 

whale movements and respirations 

pre-, during and post-seismic survey 

(Gailey et al., 2016). Behavioral state 

and water depth were the best ‘natural’ 

predictors of whale movements and 

respiration and, after considering 

natural variation, none of the response 

variables were significantly associated 

with seismic survey or vessel sounds. 

3. Stress Responses—An animal’s 

perception of a threat may be sufficient 

to trigger stress responses consisting of 

some combination of behavioral 

responses, autonomic nervous system 

responses, neuroendocrine responses, or 

immune responses (e.g., Seyle, 1950; 

Moberg, 2000). In many cases, an 

animal’s first and sometimes most 

economical (in terms of energetic costs) 

response is behavioral avoidance of the 

potential stressor. Autonomic nervous 

system responses to stress typically 

involve changes in heart rate, blood 

pressure, and gastrointestinal activity. 

These responses have a relatively short 

duration and may or may not have a 

significant long-term effect on an 

animal’s fitness. 

Neuroendocrine stress responses often 

involve the hypothalamus-pituitaryadrenal system. Virtually all 

neuroendocrine functions that are 

affected by stress—including immune 

competence, reproduction, metabolism, 

and behavior—are regulated by pituitary 

hormones. Stress-induced changes in 

the secretion of pituitary hormones have 

been implicated in failed reproduction, 

altered metabolism, reduced immune 

competence, and behavioral disturbance 

(e.g., Moberg, 1987; Blecha, 2000). 

Increases in the circulation of 

glucocorticoids are also equated with 

stress (Romano et al., 2004). 

The primary distinction between 

stress (which is adaptive and does not 

normally place an animal at risk) and 

‘‘distress’’ is the cost of the response. 

During a stress response, an animal uses 

glycogen stores that can be quickly 

replenished once the stress is alleviated. 

In such circumstances, the cost of the 

stress response would not pose serious 

fitness consequences. However, when 

an animal does not have sufficient 

energy reserves to satisfy the energetic 

costs of a stress response, energy 

resources must be diverted from other 

functions. This state of distress will last 

until the animal replenishes its 

energetic reserves sufficiently to restore 

normal function. 

Relationships between these 

physiological mechanisms, animal 

behavior, and the costs of stress 

responses are well-studied through 

controlled experiments and for both 

laboratory and free-ranging animals 

(e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 

1998; Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et 

al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005). Stress 

responses due to exposure to 

anthropogenic sounds or other stressors 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Notices 45133 

and their effects on marine mammals 

have also been reviewed (Fair and 

Becker, 2000; Romano et al., 2002b) 

and, more rarely, studied in wild 

populations (e.g., Romano et al., 2002a). 

For example, Rolland et al. (2012) found 

that noise reduction from reduced ship 

traffic in the Bay of Fundy was 

associated with decreased stress in 

North Atlantic right whales. These and 

other studies lead to a reasonable 

expectation that some marine mammals 

will experience physiological stress 

responses upon exposure to acoustic 

stressors and that it is possible that 

some of these would be classified as 

‘‘distress.’’ In addition, any animal 

experiencing TTS would likely also 

experience stress responses (NRC, 

2003). 

4. Auditory Masking—Sound can 

disrupt behavior through masking, or 

interfering with, an animal’s ability to 

detect, recognize, or discriminate 

between acoustic signals of interest (e.g., 

those used for intraspecific 

communication and social interactions, 

prey detection, predator avoidance, 

navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995; 

Erbe et al., 2016). Masking occurs when 

the receipt of a sound is interfered with 

by another coincident sound at similar 

frequencies and at similar or higher 

intensity, and may occur whether the 

sound is natural (e.g., snapping shrimp, 

wind, waves, precipitation) or 

anthropogenic (e.g., shipping, sonar, 

seismic exploration) in origin. The 

ability of a noise source to mask 

biologically important sounds depends 

on the characteristics of both the noise 

source and the signal of interest (e.g., 

signal-to-noise ratio, temporal 

variability, direction), in relation to each 

other and to an animal’s hearing 

abilities (e.g., sensitivity, frequency 

range, critical ratios, frequency 

discrimination, directional 

discrimination, age or TTS hearing loss), 

and existing ambient noise and 

propagation conditions. 

Under certain circumstances, marine 

mammals experiencing significant 

masking could also be impaired from 

maximizing their performance fitness in 

survival and reproduction. Therefore, 

when the coincident (masking) sound is 

man-made, it may be considered 

harassment when disrupting or altering 

critical behaviors. It is important to 

distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist 

after the sound exposure, from masking, 

which occurs during the sound 

exposure. Because masking (without 

resulting in TS) is not associated with 

abnormal physiological function, it is 

not considered a physiological effect, 

but rather a potential behavioral effect. 

The frequency range of the potentially 

masking sound is important in 

determining any potential behavioral 

impacts. For example, low-frequency 

signals may have less effect on highfrequency echolocation sounds 

produced by odontocetes but are more 

likely to affect detection of mysticete 

communication calls and other 

potentially important natural sounds 

such as those produced by surf and 

some prey species. The masking of 

communication signals by 

anthropogenic noise may be considered 

as a reduction in the communication 

space of animals (e.g., Clark et al., 2009) 

and may result in energetic or other 

costs as animals change their 

vocalization behavior (e.g., Miller et al., 

2000; Foote et al., 2004; Parks et al., 

2007; Di Iorio and Clark, 2009; Holt et 

al., 2009). Masking can be reduced in 

situations where the signal and noise 

come from different directions 

(Richardson et al., 1995), through 

amplitude modulation of the signal, or 

through other compensatory behaviors 

(Houser and Moore, 2014). Masking can 

be tested directly in captive species 

(e.g., Erbe, 2008), but in wild 

populations it must be either modeled 

or inferred from evidence of masking 

compensation. There are few studies 

addressing real-world masking sounds 

likely to be experienced by marine 

mammals in the wild (e.g., Branstetter et 

al., 2013). 

Masking affects both senders and 

receivers of acoustic signals and can 

potentially have long-term chronic 

effects on marine mammals at the 

population level as well as at the 

individual level. Low-frequency 

ambient sound levels have increased by 

as much as 20 dB (more than three times 

in terms of SPL) in the world’s ocean 

from pre-industrial periods, with most 

of the increase from distant commercial 

shipping (Hildebrand, 2009). All 

anthropogenic sound sources, but 

especially chronic and lower-frequency 

signals (e.g., from vessel traffic), 

contribute to elevated ambient sound 

levels, thus intensifying masking. 

Other Potential Impacts 

Here, we discuss potential effects of 

the proposed activity on marine 

mammals other than sound. 

Ship Strike—Vessel collisions with 

marine mammals, or ship strikes, can 

result in death or serious injury of the 

animal. Wounds resulting from ship 

strike may include massive trauma, 

hemorrhaging, broken bones, or 

propeller lacerations (Knowlton and 

Kraus, 2001). An animal at the surface 

may be struck directly by a vessel, a 

surfacing animal may hit the bottom of 

a vessel, or an animal just below the 

surface may be cut by a vessel’s 

propeller. Superficial strikes may not 

kill or result in the death of the animal. 

These interactions are typically 

associated with large whales (e.g., fin 

whales), which are occasionally found 

draped across the bulbous bow of large 

commercial ships upon arrival in port. 

Although smaller cetaceans are more 

maneuverable in relation to large vessels 

than are large whales, they may also be 

susceptible to strike. The severity of 

injuries typically depends on the size 

and speed of the vessel, with the 

probability of death or serious injury 

increasing as vessel speed increases 

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

2001; Vanderlaan and Taggart, 2007; 

Conn and Silber, 2013). Impact forces 

increase with speed, as does the 

probability of a strike at a given distance 

(Silber et al., 2010; Gende et al., 2011). 

Pace and Silber (2005) also found that 

the probability of death or serious injury 

increased rapidly with increasing vessel 

speed. Specifically, the predicted 

probability of serious injury or death 

increased from 45 to 75 percent as 

vessel speed increased from 10 to 14 kn, 

and exceeded 90 percent at 17 kn. 

Higher speeds during collisions result in 

greater force of impact, but higher 

speeds also appear to increase the 

chance of severe injuries or death 

through increased likelihood of 

collision by pulling whales toward the 

vessel (Clyne, 1999; Knowlton et al., 

1995). In a separate study, Vanderlaan 

and Taggart (2007) analyzed the 

probability of lethal mortality of large 

whales at a given speed, showing that 

the greatest rate of change in the 

probability of a lethal injury to a large 

whale as a function of vessel speed 

occurs between 8.6 and 15 kn. The 

chances of a lethal injury decline from 

approximately 80 percent at 15 kn to 

approximately 20 percent at 8.6 kn. At 

speeds below 11.8 kn, the chances of 

lethal injury drop below 50 percent, 

while the probability asymptotically 

increases toward one hundred percent 

above 15 kn. 

The Langseth travels at a speed of 

∼8.3 km/hour while towing seismic 

survey gear (LGL 2017). At this speed, 

both the possibility of striking a marine 

mammal and the possibility of a strike 

resulting in serious injury or mortality 

are discountable. At average transit 

speed, the probability of serious injury 

or mortality resulting from a strike is 

less than 50 percent. However, the 

likelihood of a strike actually happening 

is again discountable. Ship strikes, as 

analyzed in the studies cited above, 

generally involve commercial shipping, 

which is much more common in both 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
45134 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Notices 

space and time than is geophysical 

survey activity. Jensen and Silber (2004) 

summarized ship strikes of large whales 

worldwide from 1975–2003 and found 

that most collisions occurred in the 

open ocean and involved large vessels 

(e.g., commercial shipping). Commercial 

fishing vessels were responsible for 

three percent of recorded collisions, 

while no such incidents were reported 

for geophysical survey vessels during 

that time period. 

It is possible for ship strikes to occur 

while traveling at slow speeds. For 

example, a hydrographic survey vessel 

traveling at low speed (5.5 kn) while 

conducting mapping surveys off the 

central California coast struck and killed 

a blue whale in 2009. The State of 

California determined that the whale 

had suddenly and unexpectedly 

surfaced beneath the hull, with the 

result that the propeller severed the 

whale’s vertebrae, and that this was an 

unavoidable event. This strike 

represents the only such incident in 

approximately 540,000 hours of similar 

coastal mapping activity (p = 1.9 × 10¥6; 

95% CI = 0–5.5 × 10¥6; NMFS, 2013b). 

In addition, a research vessel reported a 

fatal strike in 2011 of a dolphin in the 

Atlantic, demonstrating that it is 

possible for strikes involving smaller 

cetaceans to occur. In that case, the 

incident report indicated that an animal 

apparently was struck by the vessel’s 

propeller as it was intentionally 

swimming near the vessel. While 

indicative of the type of unusual events 

that cannot be ruled out, neither of these 

instances represents a circumstance that 

would be considered reasonably 

foreseeable or that would be considered 

preventable. 

Although the likelihood of the vessel 

striking a marine mammal is low, we 

require a robust ship strike avoidance 

protocol (see ‘‘Proposed Mitigation’’), 

which we believe eliminates any 

foreseeable risk of ship strike. We 

anticipate that vessel collisions 

involving a seismic data acquisition 

vessel towing gear, while not 

impossible, represent unlikely, 

unpredictable events for which there are 

no preventive measures. Given the 

required mitigation measures, the 

relatively slow speed of the vessel 

towing gear, the presence of bridge crew 

watching for obstacles at all times 

(including marine mammals), and the 

presence of marine mammal observers, 

we believe that the possibility of ship 

strike is discountable and, further, that 

were a strike of a large whale to occur, 

it would be unlikely to result in serious 

injury or mortality. No incidental take 

resulting from ship strike is anticipated, 

and this potential effect of the specified 

activity will not be discussed further in 

the following analysis. 

Stranding— When a living or dead 

marine mammal swims or floats onto 

shore and becomes ‘‘beached’’ or 

incapable of returning to sea, the event 

is a ‘‘stranding’’ (Geraci et al., 1999; 

Perrin and Geraci, 2002; Geraci and 

Lounsbury, 2005; NMFS, 2007). The 

legal definition for a stranding within 

the United States under the MMPA is 

that ‘‘(A) a marine mammal is dead and 

is (i) on a beach or shore of the United 

States; or (ii) in waters under the 

jurisdiction of the United States 

(including any navigable waters); or (B) 

a marine mammal is alive and is (i) on 

a beach or shore of the United States 

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

a beach or shore of the United States 

and, although able to return to the 

water, is in need of apparent medical 

attention; or (iii) in the waters under the 

jurisdiction of the United States 

(including any navigable waters), but is 

unable to return to its natural habitat 

under its own power or without 

assistance’’ (16 U.S.C. 1421h(3)). 

Marine mammals strand for a variety 

of reasons, such as infectious agents, 

biotoxicosis, starvation, fishery 

interaction, ship strike, unusual 

oceanographic or weather events, sound 

exposure, or combinations of these 

stressors sustained concurrently or in 

series. However, the cause or causes of 

most strandings are unknown (Geraci et 

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

Best, 1982). Numerous studies suggest 

that the physiology, behavior, habitat 

relationships, age, or condition of 

cetaceans may cause them to strand or 

might pre-dispose them to strand when 

exposed to another phenomenon. These 

suggestions are consistent with the 

conclusions of numerous other studies 

that have demonstrated that 

combinations of dissimilar stressors 

commonly combine to kill an animal or 

dramatically reduce its fitness, even 

though one exposure without the other 

does not produce the same result 

(Chroussos, 2000; Creel, 2005; DeVries 

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

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

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

2004). 

Use of military tactical sonar has been 

implicated in a majority of investigated 

stranding events, although one 

stranding event was associated with the 

use of seismic airguns. This event 

occurred in the Gulf of California, 

coincident with seismic reflection 

profiling by the R/V Maurice Ewing 

operated by Columbia University’s 

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and 

involved two Cuvier’s beaked whales 

(Hildebrand, 2004). The vessel had been 

firing an array of 20 airguns with a total 

volume of 8,500 in3 (Hildebrand, 2004; 

Taylor et al., 2004). Most known 

stranding events have involved beaked 

whales, though a small number have 

involved deep-diving delphinids or 

sperm whales (e.g., Mazzariol et al., 

2010; Southall et al., 2013). In general, 

long duration (∼1 second) and highintensity sounds (>235 dB SPL) have 

been implicated in stranding events 

(Hildebrand, 2004). With regard to 

beaked whales, mid-frequency sound is 

typically implicated (when causation 

can be determined) (Hildebrand, 2004). 

Although seismic airguns create 

predominantly low-frequency energy, 

the signal does include a mid-frequency 

component. We have considered the 

potential for the proposed survey to 

result in marine mammal stranding and 

have concluded that, based on the best 

available information, stranding is not 

expected to occur. 

Entanglement and discharges—We 

are not aware of any records of marine 

mammal entanglement in towed arrays 

such as those considered here. The 

discharge of trash and debris is 

prohibited (33 CFR 151.51–77) unless it 

is passed through a machine that breaks 

up solids such that they can pass 

through a 25-mm mesh screen. All other 

trash and debris must be returned to 

shore for proper disposal with 

municipal and solid waste. Some 

personal items may be accidentally lost 

overboard. However, U.S. Coast Guard 

and Environmental Protection Act 

regulations require operators to become 

proactive in avoiding accidental loss of 

solid waste items by developing waste 

management plans, posting 

informational placards, manifesting 

trash sent to shore, and using special 

precautions such as covering outside 

trash bins to prevent accidental loss of 

solid waste. There are no meaningful 

entanglement risks posed by the 

described activity, and entanglement 

risks are not discussed further in this 

document. 

Marine mammals could be affected by 

accidentally spilled diesel fuel from a 

vessel associated with proposed survey 

activities. Quantities of diesel fuel on 

the sea surface may affect marine 

mammals through various pathways: 

Surface contact of the fuel with skin and 

other mucous membranes, inhalation of 

concentrated petroleum vapors, or 

ingestion of the fuel (direct ingestion or 

by the ingestion of oiled prey) (e.g., 

Geraci and St. Aubin, 1980, 1985, 1990). 

However, the likelihood of a fuel spill 

during any particular geophysical 

survey is considered to be remote, and 

the potential for impacts to marine 

mammals would depend greatly on the 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Notices 45135 

size and location of a spill and 

meteorological conditions at the time of 

the spill. Spilled fuel would rapidly 

spread to a layer of varying thickness 

and break up into narrow bands or 

windrows parallel to the wind direction. 

The rate at which the fuel spreads 

would be determined by the prevailing 

conditions such as temperature, water 

currents, tidal streams, and wind 

speeds. Lighter, volatile components of 

the fuel would evaporate to the 

atmosphere almost completely in a few 

days. Evaporation rate may increase as 

the fuel spreads because of the 

increased surface area of the slick. 

Rougher seas, high wind speeds, and 

high temperatures also tend to increase 

the rate of evaporation and the 

proportion of fuel lost by this process 

(Scholz et al., 1999). We do not 

anticipate potentially meaningful effects 

to marine mammals as a result of any 

contaminant spill resulting from the 

proposed survey activities, and 

contaminant spills are not discussed 

further in this document. 

Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal 

Habitat 

Effects to Prey—Marine mammal prey 

varies by species, season, and location 

and, for some, is not well documented. 

Fish react to sounds which are 

especially strong and/or intermittent 

low-frequency sounds. Short duration, 

sharp sounds can cause overt or subtle 

changes in fish behavior and local 

distribution. Hastings and Popper (2005) 

identified several studies that suggest 

fish may relocate to avoid certain areas 

of sound energy. Additional studies 

have documented effects of pulsed 

sound on fish, although several are 

based on studies in support of 

construction projects (e.g., Scholik and 

Yan, 2001, 2002; Popper and Hastings, 

2009). Sound pulses at received levels 

of 160 dB may cause subtle changes in 

fish behavior. SPLs of 180 dB may cause 

noticeable changes in behavior (Pearson 

et al., 1992; Skalski et al., 1992). SPLs 

of sufficient strength have been known 

to cause injury to fish and fish 

mortality. The most likely impact to fish 

from survey activities at the project area 

would be temporary avoidance of the 

area. The duration of fish avoidance of 

a given area after survey effort stops is 

unknown, but a rapid return to normal 

recruitment, distribution and behavior 

is anticipated. 

Information on seismic airgun 

impacts to zooplankton, which 

represent an important prey type for 

mysticetes, is limited. However, 

McCauley et al. (2017) reported that 

experimental exposure to a pulse from 

a 150 inch3 airgun decreased 

zooplankton abundance when compared 

with controls, as measured by sonar and 

net tows, and caused a two- to threefold 

increase in dead adult and larval 

zooplankton. Although no adult krill 

were present, the study found that all 

larval krill were killed after air gun 

passage. Impacts were observed out to 

the maximum 1.2 km range sampled. 

In general, impacts to marine mammal 

prey are expected to be limited due to 

the relatively small temporal and spatial 

overlap between the proposed survey 

and any areas used by marine mammal 

prey species. The proposed survey 

would occur over a relatively short time 

period (90 days) and would occur over 

a very small area relative to the area 

available as marine mammal habitat in 

the Pacific Ocean off New Zealand. We 

do not have any information to suggest 

the proposed survey area represents a 

significant feeding area for any marine 

mammal, and we believe any impacts to 

marine mammals due to adverse affects 

to their prey would be insignificant due 

to the limited spatial and temporal 

impact of the proposed survey. 

However, adverse impacts may occur to 

a few species of fish and to zooplankton. 

Acoustic Habitat—Acoustic habitat is 

the soundscape—which encompasses 

all of the sound present in a particular 

location and time, as a whole—when 

considered from the perspective of the 

animals experiencing it. Animals 

produce sound for, or listen for sounds 

produced by, conspecifics 

(communication during feeding, mating, 

and other social activities), other 

animals (finding prey or avoiding 

predators), and the physical 

environment (finding suitable habitats, 

navigating). Together, sounds made by 

animals and the geophysical 

environment (e.g., produced by 

earthquakes, lightning, wind, rain, 

waves) make up the natural 

contributions to the total acoustics of a 

place. These acoustic conditions, 

termed acoustic habitat, are one 

attribute of an animal’s total habitat. 

Soundscapes are also defined by, and 

acoustic habitat influenced by, the total 

contribution of anthropogenic sound. 

This may include incidental emissions 

from sources such as vessel traffic, or 

may be intentionally introduced to the 

marine environment for data acquisition 

purposes (as in the use of airgun arrays). 

Anthropogenic noise varies widely in its 

frequency content, duration, and 

loudness and these characteristics 

greatly influence the potential habitatmediated effects to marine mammals 

(please see also the previous discussion 

on masking under ‘‘Acoustic Effects’’), 

which may range from local effects for 

brief periods of time to chronic effects 

over large areas and for long durations. 

Depending on the extent of effects to 

habitat, animals may alter their 

communications signals (thereby 

potentially expending additional 

energy) or miss acoustic cues (either 

conspecific or adventitious). For more 

detail on these concepts see, e.g., Barber 

et al., 2010; Pijanowski et al., 2011; 

Francis and Barber, 2013; Lillis et al., 

2014. 

Problems arising from a failure to 

detect cues are more likely to occur 

when noise stimuli are chronic and 

overlap with biologically relevant cues 

used for communication, orientation, 

and predator/prey detection (Francis 

and Barber, 2013). Although the signals 

emitted by seismic airgun arrays are 

generally low frequency, they would 

also likely be of short duration and 

transient in any given area due to the 

nature of these surveys. As described 

previously, exploratory surveys such as 

these cover a large area but would be 

transient rather than focused in a given 

location over time and therefore would 

not be considered chronic in any given 

location. 

In summary, activities associated with 

the proposed action are not likely to 

have a permanent, adverse effect on any 

fish habitat or populations of fish 

species or on the quality of acoustic 

habitat. Thus, any impacts to marine 

mammal habitat are not expected to 

cause significant or long-term 

consequences for individual marine 

mammals or their populations. 

Estimated Take 

This section provides an estimate of 

the number of incidental takes proposed 

for authorization through this IHA, 

which will inform both NMFS’ 

consideration of whether the number of 

takes is ‘‘small’’ and the negligible 

impact determination. 

Harassment is the only type of take 

expected to result from these activities. 

Except with respect to certain activities 

not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the 

MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any 

act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance 

which (i) has the potential to injure a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild (Level A harassment); 

or (ii) has the potential to disturb a 

marine mammal or marine mammal 

stock in the wild by causing disruption 

of behavioral patterns, including, but 

not limited to, migration, breathing, 

nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

(Level B harassment). 

Authorized takes would primarily be 

by Level B harassment, as use of the 

seismic airguns have the potential to 

result in disruption of behavioral 

patterns for individual marine 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
45136 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Notices 

mammals. There is also some potential 

for auditory injury (Level A harassment) 

to result, primarily for mysticetes and 

high frequency cetaceans (i.e., kogiidae 

spp.), due to larger predicted auditory 

injury zones for those functional hearing 

groups. Auditory injury is unlikely to 

occur for mid-frequency species given 

very small modeled zones of injury for 

those species. The proposed mitigation 

and monitoring measures are expected 

to minimize the severity of such taking 

to the extent practicable. 

As described previously, no serious 

injury or mortality is anticipated or 

proposed to be authorized for this 

activity. Below we describe how the 

take is estimated. 

Described in the most basic way, we 

estimate take by considering: (1) 

acoustic thresholds above which NMFS 

believes the best available science 

indicates marine mammals will be 

behaviorally harassed or incur some 

degree of permanent hearing 

impairment; (2) the area or volume of 

water that will be ensonified above 

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

occurrence of marine mammals within 

these ensonified areas; and (4) and the 

number of days of activities. Below, we 

describe these components in more 

detail and present the exposure estimate 

and associated numbers of take 

proposed for authorization. 

Acoustic Thresholds 

Using the best available science, 

NMFS has developed acoustic 

thresholds that identify the received 

level of underwater sound above which 

exposed marine mammals would be 

reasonably expected to be behaviorally 

harassed (equated to Level B 

harassment) or to incur PTS of some 

degree (equated to Level A harassment). 

Level B Harassment for non-explosive 

sources— Though significantly driven 

by received level, the onset of 

behavioral disturbance from 

anthropogenic noise exposure is also 

informed to varying degrees by other 

factors related to the source (e.g., 

frequency, predictability, duty cycle), 

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

the receiving animals (hearing, 

motivation, experience, demography, 

behavioral context) and can be difficult 

to predict (Southall et al., 2007, Ellison 

et al. 2011). Based on the best available 

science and the practical need to use a 

threshold based on a factor that is both 

predictable and measurable for most 

activities, NMFS uses a generalized 

acoustic threshold based on received 

level to estimate the onset of behavioral 

harassment. NMFS predicts that marine 

mammals are likely to be behaviorally 

harassed in a manner we consider to fall 

under Level B harassment when 

exposed to underwater anthropogenic 

noise above received levels of 120 dB re 

1 mPa (rms) for continuous sources (e.g. 

vibratory pile-driving, drilling) and 

above 160 dB re 1 mPa (rms) for nonexplosive impulsive (e.g., seismic 

airguns) or intermittent (e.g., scientific 

sonar) sources. L–DEO’s proposed 

activity includes the use of impulsive 

seismic sources. Therefore, the 160 dB 

re 1 mPa (rms) criteria is applicable for 

analysis of level B harassment. 

Level A harassment for non-explosive 

sources—NMFS’ Technical Guidance 

for Assessing the Effects of 

Anthropogenic Sound on Marine 

Mammal Hearing (NMFS, 2016) 

identifies dual criteria to assess auditory 

injury (Level A harassment) to five 

different marine mammal groups (based 

on hearing sensitivity) as a result of 

exposure to noise from two different 

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

identifies the received levels, or 

thresholds, above which individual 

marine mammals are predicted to 

experience changes in their hearing 

sensitivity for all underwater 

anthropogenic sound sources, reflects 

the best available science, and better 

predicts the potential for auditory injury 

than does NMFS’ historical criteria. 

These thresholds were developed by 

compiling and synthesizing the best 

available science and soliciting input 

multiple times from both the public and 

peer reviewers to inform the final 

product, and are provided in Table 4 

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: http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/ 

guidelines.htm. As described above, L– 

DEO’s proposed activity includes the 

use of intermittent and impulsive 

seismic sources. 

TABLE 4—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT IN MARINE MAMMALS

Hearing group 

PTS onset thresholds 

Impulsive * Non-impulsive 

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

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

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

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

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

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

should also be considered. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ensonified Area 

Here, we describe operational and 

environmental parameters of the activity 

that will feed into estimating the area 

ensonified above the relevant acoustic 

thresholds. 

The proposed survey would entail use 

of a 36-airgun array with a total 

discharge of 6,600 in3 at a tow depth of 

9 m and an 18-airgun array with a total 

discharge of 3,300 in3 at a tow depth of 

7–9 m. Received sound levels were 

predicted by L–DEO’s model (Diebold et 

al., 2010) as a function of distance from 

the 36-airgun array and 18-airgun array 

and for a single 40-in3 airgun which 

would be used during power downs; all 

models used a 9 m tow depth. This 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Notices 45137 

modeling approach uses ray tracing for 

the direct wave traveling from the array 

to the receiver and its associated source 

ghost (reflection at the air-water 

interface in the vicinity of the array), in 

a constant-velocity half-space (infinite 

homogeneous ocean layer, unbounded 

by a seafloor). In addition, propagation 

measurements of pulses from the 36- 

airgun array at a tow depth of 6 m have 

been reported in deep water 

(approximately 1600 m), intermediate 

water depth on the slope (approximately 

600–1100 m), and shallow water 

(approximately 50 m) in the Gulf of 

Mexico in 2007–2008 (Tolstoy et al. 

2009; Diebold et al. 2010). 

For deep and intermediate-water 

cases, L–DEO determined that the field 

measurements cannot be used readily to 

derive mitigation radii, as at those sites 

the calibration hydrophone was located 

at a roughly constant depth of 350–500 

m, which may not intersect all the SPL 

isopleths at their widest point from the 

sea surface down to the maximum 

relevant water depth for marine 

mammals of approximately 2,000 m 

(See Appendix H in NSF–USGS 2011). 

At short ranges, where the direct 

arrivals dominate and the effects of 

seafloor interactions are minimal, the 

data recorded at the deep and slope sites 

are suitable for comparison with 

modeled levels at the depth of the 

calibration hydrophone. At longer 

ranges, the comparison with the 

mitigation model—constructed from the 

maximum SPL through the entire water 

column at varying distances from the 

airgun array—is the most relevant. 

Please see the IHA application for 

further discussion of summarized 

results. 

For deep water (>1000 m), L–DEO 

used the deep-water radii obtained from 

model results down to a maximum 

water depth of 2000 m. The radii for 

intermediate water depths (100–1000 m) 

were derived from the deep-water ones 

by applying a correction factor 

(multiplication) of 1.5, such that 

observed levels at very near offsets fall 

below the corrected mitigation curve 

(See Fig. 16 in Appendix H of NSF– 

USGS, 2011). The shallow-water radii 

were obtained by scaling the empirically 

derived measurements from the Gulf of 

Mexico calibration survey to account for 

the differences in tow depth between 

the calibration survey (6 m) and the 

proposed surveys (9 m). A simple 

scaling factor is calculated from the 

ratios of the isopleths determined by the 

deep-water L–DEO model, which are 

essentially a measure of the energy 

radiated by the source array. 

Measurements have not been reported 

for the single 40-in3 airgun. L–DEO 

model results are used to determine the 

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

airgun at a 9 m tow depth in deep water 

(See LGL 2017, Figure 6). For 

intermediate-water depths, a correction 

factor of 1.5 was applied to the deepwater model results. For shallow water, 

a scaling of the field measurements 

obtained for the 36-airgun array was 

used. 

L–DEO’s modeling methodology is 

described in greater detail in the IHA 

application (LGL 2017) and we refer the 

reader to that document rather than 

repeating it here. The estimated 

distances to the Level B harassment 

isopleth for the Langseth’s 36-airgun 

array, 18-airgun array, and the single 40- 

in3 airgun are shown in Table 5. 

TABLE 5—PREDICTED RADIAL DISTANCES FROM R/V LANGSETH SEISMIC SOURCE TO ISOPLETHS CORRESPONDING TO LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLD

Source and 

volume Water depth 

Predicted 

distance to 

threshold 

(160 dB re 1 

μPa) 1

1 airgun, 40 

in3.

>1000 m .......

100–1000 m

<100 m .........

388 m. 

582 m. 

938 m. 

18 airguns, 

3,300 in3.

>1000 m .......

100–1000 m

<100 m .........

3,562 m. 

5,343 m. 

10,607 m. 

36 airguns, 

6,600 in3.

>1000 m .......

100–1000 m

<100 m .........

5,629 m. 

8,444 m. 

22,102 m. 

1 Distances for depths >1000 m are based 

on L–DEO model results. Distance for depths 

100–1000 m are based on L–DEO model results with a 1.5 × correction factor between 

deep and intermediate water depths. Distances for depths <100 m are based on empirically derived measurements in the Gulf of 

Mexico with scaling applied to account for differences in tow depth. 

Predicted distances to Level A 

harassment isopleths, which vary based 

on marine mammal hearing groups 

(Table 3), were calculated based on 

modeling performed by L–DEO using 

the NUCLEUS software program and the 

NMFS User Spreadsheet, described 

below. The updated acoustic thresholds 

for impulsive sounds (e.g., airguns) 

contained in the Technical Guidance 

were presented as dual metric acoustic 

thresholds using both SELcum and peak 

sound pressure metrics (NMFS 2016). 

As dual metrics, NMFS considers onset 

of PTS (Level A harassment) to have 

occurred when either one of the two 

metrics is exceeded (i.e., metric 

resulting in the largest isopleth). The 

SELcum metric considers both level and 

duration of exposure, as well as 

auditory weighting functions by marine 

mammal hearing group. In recognition 

of the fact that the requirement to 

calculate Level A harassment ensonified 

areas could be more technically 

challenging to predict due to the 

duration component and the use of 

weighting functions in the new SELcum

thresholds, NMFS developed an 

optional User Spreadsheet that includes 

tools to help predict a simple isopleth 

that can be used in conjunction with 

marine mammal density or occurrence 

to facilitate the estimation of take 

numbers. 

The values for SELcum and peak SPL 

for the Langseth airgun array were 

derived from calculating the modified 

farfield signature (Table 6). The farfield 

signature is often used as a theoretical 

representation of the source level. To 

compute the farfield signature, the 

source level is estimated at a large 

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

and this level is back projected 

mathematically to a notional distance of 

1 m from the array’s geometrical center. 

However, when the source is an array of 

multiple airguns separated in space, the 

source level from the theoretical farfield 

signature is not necessarily the best 

measurement of the source level that is 

physically achieved at the source 

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

short ranges, distances <1 km), the 

pulses of sound pressure from each 

individual airgun in the source array do 

not stack constructively, as they do for 

the theoretical farfield signature. The 

pulses from the different airguns spread 

out in time such that the source levels 

observed or modeled are the result of 

the summation of pulses from a few 

airguns, not the full array (Tolstoy et al. 

2009). At larger distances, away from 

the source array center, sound pressure 

of all the airguns in the array stack 

coherently, but not within one time 

sample, resulting in smaller source 

levels (a few dB) than the source level 

derived from the farfield signature. 

Because the farfield signature does not 

take into account the large array effect 

near the source and is calculated as a 

point source, the modified farfield 

signature is a more appropriate measure 

of the sound source level for distributed 

sound sources, such as airgun arrays. L– 

DEO used the acoustic modeling 

methodology as used for Level B takes 

with a small grid step of 1 m in both the 

inline and depth directions. The 

propagation modeling takes into 

account all airgun interactions at short 

distances from the source, including 

interactions between subarrays which 

are modeled using the NUCLEUS 

software to estimate the notional 

signature and MATLAB software to 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
45138 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Notices 

calculate the pressure signal at each 

mesh point of a grid. 

TABLE 6—MODELED SOURCE LEVELS BASED ON MODIFIED FARFIELD SIGNATURE FOR THE R/V LANGSETH 6,600 IN3

AIRGUN ARRAY, 3,300 IN3 AIRGUN ARRAY, AND SINGLE 40 IN3 AIRGUN

Low frequency 

cetaceans 

(Lpk,flat: 219 

dB; 

LE,LF,24h: 183 

dB) 

Mid frequency 

cetaceans 

(Lpk,flat: 230 

dB; 

LE,MF,24h: 185 

dB 

High 

frequency 

cetaceans 

(Lpk,flat: 202 

dB; 

LE,HF,24h: 155 

dB) 

Phocid 

Pinnipeds 

(Underwater) 

(Lpk,flat: 218 

dB; 

LE,HF,24h: 185 

dB) 

Otariid 

Pinnipeds 

(Underwater) 

(Lpk,flat: 232 

dB; 

LE,HF,24h: 203 

dB) 

6,600 in3 airgun array (Peak SPLflat) .................................. 250.77 252.76 249.44 250.50 252.72 

6,600 in3 airgun array (SELcum) ........................................... 232.75 232.67 232.83 232.67 231.07 

3,300 in3 airgun array (Peak SPLflat) .................................. 246.34 250.98 243.64 246.03 251.92 

3,300 in3 airgun array (SELcum) ........................................... 226.22 226.13 226.75 226.13 226.89 

40 in3 airgun (Peak SPLflat) ................................................. 224.02 225.16 224.00 224.09 226.64 

40 in3 airgun (SELcum) ......................................................... 202.33 202.35 203.12 202.35 202.61 

In order to more realistically 

incorporate the Technical Guidance’s 

weighting functions over the seismic 

array’s full acoustic band, unweighted 

spectrum data for the Langseth’s airgun 

array (modeled in 1 Hz bands) was used 

to make adjustments (dB) to the 

unweighted spectrum levels, by 

frequency, according to the weighting 

functions for each relevant marine 

mammal hearing group. These adjusted/ 

weighted spectrum levels were then 

converted to pressures (micropascals) in 

order to integrate them over the entire 

broadband spectrum, resulting in 

broadband weighted source levels by 

hearing group that could be directly 

incorporated within the User 

Spreadsheet (i.e., to override the 

Spreadsheet’s more simple weighting 

factor adjustment). Using the User 

Spreadsheet’s ‘‘safe distance’’ 

methodology for mobile sources 

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

hearing group-specific weighted source 

levels, and inputs assuming spherical 

spreading propagation and source 

velocities and shot intervals specific to 

each of the three proposed surveys 

(Table 1), potential radial distances to 

auditory injury zones were then 

calculated for SELcum thresholds. 

Inputs to the User Spreadsheets in the 

form of estimated SLs are shown in 

Table 6. User Spreadsheets used by L– 

DEO to estimate distances to Level A 

harassment isopleths (SELcum) for the 

36-airgun array, 18-airgun array, and the 

single 40 in3 airgun for the South Island 

2–D survey, North Island 2–D survey, 

and North Island 3–D survey are shown 

in Tables 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, and 12, of the 

IHA application (LGL 2017). Outputs 

from the User Spreadsheets in the form 

of estimated distances to Level A 

harassment isopleths for the South 

Island 2–D survey, North Island 2–D 

survey, and North Island 3–D survey are 

shown in Tables 7, 8 and 9, 

respectively. As described above, NMFS 

considers onset of PTS (Level A 

harassment) to have occurred when 

either one of the dual metrics (SELcum

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

metric resulting in the largest isopleth). 

TABLE 7—MODELED RADIAL DISTANCES (m) TO ISOPLETHS CORRESPONDING TO LEVEL A HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS

DURING PROPOSED NORTH ISLAND 2–D SURVEY

Low frequency 

cetaceans 

(Lpk,flat: 219 

dB; 

LE,LF,24h: 183 

dB) 

Mid frequency 

cetaceans 

(Lpk,flat: 230 

dB; 

LE,MF,24h: 185 

dB 

High 

frequency 

cetaceans 

(Lpk,flat: 202 

dB; 

LE,HF,24h: 155 

dB) 

Phocid 

Pinnipeds 

(Underwater) 

(Lpk,flat: 218 

dB; 

LE,HF,24h: 185 

dB) 

Otariid 

Pinnipeds 

(Underwater) 

(Lpk,flat: 232 

dB; 

LE,HF,24h: 203 

dB) 

6,600 in3 airgun array (Peak SPLflat) .................................. 38.8 13.8 229.2 42.2 10.9 

6,600 in3 airgun array (SELcum) .......................................... 501.3 0 1.2 13.2 0 

40 in3 airgun (Peak SPLflat) ................................................. 1.8 0.6 12.6 2.0 0.5 

40 in3 airgun (SELcum) ......................................................... 0.4 0 0 0 0 

TABLE 8—MODELED RADIAL DISTANCES (m) TO ISOPLETHS CORRESPONDING TO LEVEL A HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS

DURING PROPOSED NORTH ISLAND 3–D SURVEY

Low frequency 

cetaceans 

(Lpk,flat: 219 

dB; 

LE,LF,24h: 183 

dB) 

Mid frequency 

cetaceans 

(Lpk,flat: 230 

dB; 

LE,MF,24h: 185 

dB 

High 

frequency 

cetaceans 

(Lpk,flat: 202 

dB; 

LE,HF,24h: 155 

dB) 

Phocid 

Pinnipeds 

(Underwater) 

(Lpk,flat: 218 

dB; 

LE,HF,24h: 185 

dB) 

Otariid 

Pinnipeds 

(Underwater) 

(Lpk,flat: 232 

dB; 

LE,HF,24h: 203 

dB) 

3,300 in3 airgun array (Peak SPLflat) .................................. 23.3 11.2 119.0 25.2 9.9 

3,300 in3 airgun array (SELcum) .......................................... 73.1 0 0.3 2.8 0 

40 in3 airgun (Peak SPLflat) ................................................. 1.8 0.6 12.6 2.0 0.5 

40 in3 airgun (SELcum) ......................................................... 0.4 0 0 0 0 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Notices 45139 

TABLE 9—MODELED RADIAL DISTANCES (m) TO ISOPLETHS CORRESPONDING TO LEVEL A HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS

DURING PROPOSED SOUTH ISLAND 2–D SURVEY

Low frequency 

cetaceans 

(Lpk,flat: 219 

dB; 

LE,LF,24h: 183 

dB) 

Mid frequency 

cetaceans 

(Lpk,flat: 230 

dB; 

LE,MF,24h: 185 

dB 

High 

frequency 

cetaceans 

(Lpk,flat: 202 

dB; 

LE,HF,24h: 155 

dB) 

Phocid 

Pinnipeds 

(Underwater) 

(Lpk,flat: 218 

dB; 

LE,HF,24h: 185 

dB) 

Otariid 

Pinnipeds 

(Underwater) 

(Lpk,flat: 232 

dB; 

LE,HF,24h: 203 

dB) 

6,600 in3 airgun array (Peak SPLflat) .................................. 38.8 13.8 229.2 42.2 10.9 

6,600 in3 airgun array (SELcum) .......................................... 376.0 0 0.9 9.9 0 

40 in3 airgun (Peak SPLflat) ................................................. 1.8 0.6 12.6 2.0 0.5 

40 in3 airgun (SELcum) ......................................................... 0.3 0 0 0 0 

Note that because of some of the 

assumptions included in the methods 

used, isopleths produced may be 

overestimates to some degree, which 

will ultimately result in some degree of 

overestimate of Level A take. However, 

these tools offer the best way to predict 

appropriate isopleths when more 

sophisticated 3D modeling methods are 

not available, and NMFS continues to 

develop ways to quantitatively refine 

these tools and will qualitatively 

address the output where appropriate. 

For mobile sources, such as the 

proposed seismic survey, the User 

Spreadsheet predicts the closest 

distance at which a stationary animal 

would not incur PTS if the sound source 

traveled by the animal in a straight line 

at a constant speed. 

Marine Mammal Occurrence 

In this section we provide the 

information about the presence, density, 

or group dynamics of marine mammals 

that will inform the take calculations. 

The best available scientific information 

was considered in conducting marine 

mammal exposure estimates (the basis 

for estimating take). 

No systematic aircraft- or ship-based 

surveys have been conducted for marine 

mammals in offshore waters of the 

South Pacific Ocean off New Zealand 

that can be used to estimate species 

densities that we are aware of, with the 

exception of Hector’s dolphin surveys 

that have occurred off the South Island. 

Densities for Hector’s dolphins off the 

South Island were estimated using 

averaged estimated summer densities 

from the most southern stratum of an 

East Coast South Island survey (Otago) 

and a West Coast South Island survey 

(Milford Sound), both in three offshore 

strata categories (0–4 nm, 4–12 nm, and 

12–20 nm; MacKenzie and Clement 

2014, 2016). The estimated density for 

Hector’s dolphins for the South Island 

2–D survey was based on the proportion 

of that survey occurring in each offshore 

stratum. 

For cetacean species other than 

Hector’s dolphin, densities were derived 

from data available for the Southern 

Ocean (Butterworth et al. 1994; 

Kasamatsu and Joyce 1995) (See Table 

17 in the IHA application). Butterworth 

et al. (1994) provided comparable data 

for sei, fin, blue, and sperm whales 

extrapolated to latitudes 30–40° S., 40– 

50° S., and 50–60° S. based on Japanese 

scouting vessel data from 1965/66– 

1977/78 and 1978/79–1987/88. 

Densities were calculated for these 

species based on abundances and 

surface areas provided in Butterworth et 

al. (1994) using the mean density for the 

more recent surveys (1978/79–1987/88) 

and the 30–40° S. and 40–50° S. strata, 

because the proposed survey areas are 

between ∼37° S. and 50° S. Densities 

were corrected for mean trackline 

detection probability, g(0) availability 

bias, using mean g(0) values provided 

for these species during NMFS 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center 

ship-based surveys between 1991–2014 

(Barlow 2016). Data for the humpback 

whale was also presented in 

Butterworth et al. (1994), but, based on 

the best available information, it was 

determined that the density values 

presented for humpback whales in 

Butterworth et al. (1994) were likely 

lower than would be expected in the 

proposed survey areas, thus the density 

for humpback whales was ultimately 

calculated in the same way as for the 

baleen whales for which density data 

was unavailable. Kasamatsu and Joyce 

(1995) provided data for beaked whales, 

killer whales, long-finned pilot whales, 

and Hourglass dolphins, based on 

surveys conducted as part of the 

International Whaling Commission/ 

International Decade of Cetacean 

Research–Southern Hemisphere Minke 

Whale Assessment, started in 1978/79, 

and the Japanese sightings survey 

program started in 1976/77. Densities 

for these species were calculated based 

on abundances and surface areas 

provided in Kasamatsu and Joyce (1995) 

for Antarctic Areas V EMN and VI WM, 

which represent the two areas reported 

in Kasamatsu and Joyce (1995) that are 

nearest to the proposed South Island 

survey area. Densities were corrected for 

availability bias using mean g(0) values 

provided by Kasamatsu and Joyce (1995) 

for beaked whales, killer whales, and 

long-fined pilot whales, and provided 

by Barlow (2016) for the Hourglass 

dolphin using the mean g(0) calculated 

for unidentified dolphins during NMFS 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center 

ship-based surveys between 1991–2014. 

For the remaining cetacean species, 

the relative abundances of individual 

species expected to occur in the survey 

areas were estimated within species 

groups. The relative abundances of 

these species were estimated based on 

several factors, including information 

on marine mammal observations from 

areas near the proposed survey areas 

(e.g., monitoring reports from previous 

IHAs (NMFS, 2015); datasets of 

opportunistic sightings (Torres et al., 

2014); and analyses of observer data 

from other marine geophysical surveys 

conducted in New Zealand waters (Blue 

Planet, 2016)), information on 

latitudinal ranges and group sizes of 

marine mammals in New Zealand 

waters (e.g., Jefferson et al., 2015; 

NABIS, 2017; Perrin et al., 2009), and 

other information on marine mammals 

in and near the proposed survey areas 

(e.g., data on marine mammal bycatch in 

New Zealand fisheries (Berkenbush et 

al., 2013), data on marine mammal 

strandings (New Zealand Marine 

Mammal Strandings and Sightings 

Database); and input from subject matter 

experts (pers. comm., E. Slooten, Univ. 

of Otago, to H. Goldstein, NMFS, April 

11, 2015)). 

For each species group (i.e., 

mysticetes), densities of species for 

which data were available were 

averaged to get a mean density for the 

group (e.g., densities of fin, sei, and blue 

whale were averaged to get a mean 

density for mysticetes). Relative 

abundances of those species were then 

averaged to get a mean relative 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
45140 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Notices 

abundances (e.g., relative abundance of 

fin, sei, and blue whale were averaged 

to get a mean relative abundance for 

mysticetes). For the species for which 

density data was unavailable, their 

relative abundance score was multiplied 

by the mean density of their respective 

species group (i.e., relative abundance 

of minke whale was multiplied by mean 

density for mysticetes). The product was 

then divided by the mean relative 

abundance of the species group to come 

up with a density estimate. The fin, sei, 

and blue whale densities calculated 

from Butterworth et al. (1994) were 

proportionally averaged and used to 

estimate the densities of the remaining 

mysticetes. The sperm whale density 

calculated from Butterworth et al. 

(1994) was used to estimate the density 

of the other Physeteridae species, the 

pygmy sperm whale. The Hourglass 

dolphin, killer whale, and long-finned 

pilot whale densities calculated from 

Kasamatsu and Joyce (1995) were 

proportionally averaged and used to 

estimate the densities of the other 

Delphinidae for which density data was 

not available. For beaked whales, the 

beaked whale density calculated from 

Kasamatsu and Joyce (1995) was 

proportionally allocated according to 

each beaked whale species’ estimated 

relative abundance value. 

We are not aware of any information 

regarding at-sea densities of pinnipeds 

off New Zealand. As such, a surrogate 

species (northern fur seal) was used to 

estimate offshore pinniped densities for 

the proposed surveys. The at-sea density 

of northern fur seals reported in Bonnell 

et al. (1992), based on systematic aerial 

surveys conducted in 1989–1990 in 

offshore areas off the west coast of the 

U.S., was used to estimate the numbers 

of pinnipeds that might be present off 

New Zealand. The northern fur seal 

density reported in Bonnell et al. (1992) 

was used as the New Zealand fur seal 

density. Densities for the other three 

pinniped species expected to occur in 

the proposed survey areas were 

proportionally allocated relative to the 

value of the density of the northern fur 

seal, in accordance to the estimated 

relative abundance value of each of the 

other pinniped species. 

NMFS acknowledges there is some 

uncertainty related to the estimated 

density data and the assumptions used 

in their calculations. Given the lack of 

available data on marine mammal 

density in the proposed survey areas, 

the approach used is based on the best 

available data. In recognition of the 

uncertainties in the density data, we 

have proposed an additional 25 percent 

contingency in take estimates to account 

for the fact that density estimates used 

to estimate take may be underestimates 

of actual densities of marine mammals 

in the survey area. 

Take Calculation and Estimation 

Here we describe how the information 

provided above is brought together to 

produce a quantitative take estimate. In 

order to estimate the number of marine 

mammals predicted to be exposed to 

sound levels that would result in Level 

A harassment or Level B harassment, 

radial distances from the airgun array to 

predicted isopleths corresponding to the 

Level A harassment and Level B 

harassment thresholds are calculated, as 

described above. Those radial distances 

are then used to calculate the area(s) 

around the airgun array predicted to be 

ensonified to sound levels that exceed 

the Level A harassment and Level B 

harassment thresholds. The area 

estimated to be ensonified in a single 

day of the survey is then calculated 

(Table 10), based on the areas predicted 

to be ensonified around the array and 

the estimated trackline distance traveled 

per day. This number is then multiplied 

by the number of survey days (i.e., 35 

days for the North Island 2–D survey, 33 

days for the North Island 3–D survey, 

and 22 days for the South Island 2–D 

survey). The product is then multiplied 

by 1.5 to account for an additional 25 

percent contingency for potential 

additional seismic operations 

(associated with turns, airgun testing, 

and repeat coverage of any areas where 

initial data quality is sub-standard, as 

proposed by L–DEO) and an additional 

25 percent contingency in 

acknowledgement of uncertainties in 

available density estimates, as described 

above. This results in an estimate of the 

total areas (km2) expected to be 

ensonified to the Level A harassment 

and Level B harassment thresholds. For 

purposes of Level B take calculations, 

areas estimated to be ensonified to Level 

A harassment thresholds are subtracted 

from total areas estimated to be 

ensonified to Level B harassment 

thresholds in order to avoid double 

counting the animals taken (i.e., if an 

animal is taken by Level A harassment, 

it is not also counted as taken by Level 

B harassment). The marine mammals 

predicted to occur within these 

respective areas, based on estimated 

densities, are assumed to be incidentally 

taken. 

TABLE 10—AREAS (km2) ESTIMATED TO BE ENSONIFIED TO LEVEL A AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS PER DAY

FOR THREE PROPOSED SEISMIC SURVEYS OFF NEW ZEALAND

Survey 

Level B 

harassment 

threshold 

Level A harassment threshold 1

All marine 

mammals 

Low 

frequency 

cetaceans 

Mid 

frequency 

cetaceans 

High 

frequency 

cetaceans 

Otariid 

Pinnipeds 

Phocid 

Pinnipeds 

North Island 2–D Survey ......................... 1,931.3 144.5 3.9 65.8 3.1 12.0 

North Island 3–D Survey ......................... 1,067.3 29.1 4.5 47.5 3.9 10.0 

South Island 2–D Survey ......................... 1,913.4 111.1 4.1 86.3 3.2 12.4 

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

peakSPL). 

Note: Estimated areas shown for single day do not include additional 50 percent contingency. 

Factors including water depth, array 

configuration, and proportion of each 

survey occurring within territorial seas 

(versus within the EEZ) were also 

accounted for in estimates of ensonified 

areas. This was accomplished by 

selecting track lines for a single day (for 

each of the three proposed surveys) that 

were representative of the entire 

proposed survey(s) and using those 

representative track lines to calculate 

daily ensonified areas. Daily track line 

distance was selected depending on 

array configuration (i.e., 160 km per day 

for the proposed 2–D surveys, 200 km 

per day for the proposed 3–D survey). 

Representative daily track lines were 

chosen to reflect the proportion of water 

depths (i.e., less than 100 m, 100–1,000 

m, and greater than 1,000 m) expected 

to occur for that entire survey (Table 5) 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Notices 45141 

as distances to isoploths corresponding 

to harassment vary depending on water 

depth (Table 5), and water depths vary 

considerably within the planned survey 

areas (Table 1). Representative track 

lines were also selected to reflect the 

amount of effort in the New Zealand 

territorial sea (versus within the New 

Zealand EEZ), for each of the three 

surveys, as NMFS does not authorize 

the incidental take of marine mammals 

within the New Zealand territorial sea. 

For example, for the proposed North 

Island 2–D survey approximately 9 

percent of survey effort would occur in 

the New Zealand territorial sea (Table 

1). Thus, representative track lines that 

were chosen also had approximately 9 

percent of survey effort in territorial 

seas; the resultant ensonified areas 

within territorial seas were excluded 

from take calculations. 

Estimated takes for all marine 

mammal species are shown in Tables 

11, 12, 13 and 14. As described above, 

we propose to authorize the incidental 

takes that are expected to occur as a 

result of the proposed surveys within 

the New Zealand EEZ but outside of the 

New Zealand territorial sea. 

TABLE 11—NUMBERS OF POTENTIAL INCIDENTAL TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS PROPOSED FOR AUTHORIZATION DURING L– 

DEO’S PROPOSED NORTH ISLAND 2–D SEISMIC SURVEY OFF NEW ZEALAND

Species Density 

(#/1,000 km2) 

Proposed 

Level A 

takes 

Proposed 

Level B 

takes 

Total 

proposed 

Level A 

and Level B 

takes 

Total 

proposed 

Level A 

and Level B 

takes as a 

percentage 

of population 

Southern right whale ............................................................ 0.24 2 23 25 0.18 

Pygmy right whale ............................................................... 0.10 1 10 11 N.A. 

Humpback whale ................................................................. 0.24 2 23 25 0.05 

Bryde’s whale ....................................................................... 0.14 1 14 15 0.03 

Common minke whale ......................................................... 0.14 1 14 15 <0.01 

Antarctic minke whale .......................................................... 0.14 1 14 15 <0.01 

Sei whale ............................................................................. 0.14 1 14 15 0.13 

Fin whale .............................................................................. 0.25 2 24 26 0.14 

Blue whale ........................................................................... 0.04 0 4 4 0.11 

Sperm whale ........................................................................ 2.89 0 293 293 0.82 

Cuvier’s beaked whale ......................................................... 2.62 0 265 221 0.04 

Arnoux’s beaked whale ........................................................ 2.62 0 265 221 0.04 

Southern bottlenose whale .................................................. 1.74 0 177 148 0.02 

Shepard’s beaked whale ..................................................... 1.74 0 177 148 0.02 

Hector’s beaked whale ........................................................ 1.74 0 177 148 0.02 

True’s beaked whale ............................................................ 0.87 0 89 74 N.A. 

Gray’s beaked whale ........................................................... 3.49 1 353 354 0.05 

Andrew’s beaked whale ....................................................... 1.74 0 177 148 0.02 

Strap-toothed whale ............................................................. 2.62 0 265 221 0.04 

Blainville’s beaked whale ..................................................... 0.87 0 89 74 0.01 

Spade-toothed whale ........................................................... 0.87 0 89 74 0.01 

Bottlenose dolphin ............................................................... 5.12 1 519 520 N.A. 

Short-beaked common dolphin ............................................ 10.25 2 1038 1040 N.A. 

Dusky dolphin ...................................................................... 5.12 1 519 520 3.61 

Southern right-whale dolphin ............................................... 3.07 1 312 313 N.A. 

Risso’s dolphin ..................................................................... 2.05 0 208 208 N.A. 

False killer whale ................................................................. 3.07 1 312 313 N.A. 

Killer whale ........................................................................... 1.91 0 194 194 0.20 

Long-finned pilot whale ........................................................ 8.28 1 838 839 0.35 

Short-finned pilot whale ....................................................... 4.10 1 415 416 N.A. 

Pygmy sperm whale ............................................................ 1.74 3 172 175 N.A. 

Hourglass dolphin ................................................................ 4.16 12 410 418 0.12 

Hector’s dolphin ................................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 

Spectacled porpoise ............................................................ 0 0 0 0 0 

New Zealand fur seal ........................................................... 22.50 3 2279 2283 0.50 

New Zealand sea lion .......................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 

Southern elephant seal ........................................................ 4.50 2 454 456 0.03 

Leopard seal ........................................................................ 2.25 1 227 228 0.04 

TABLE 12—NUMBERS OF POTENTIAL INCIDENTAL TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS PROPOSED FOR AUTHORIZATION DURING L– 

DEO’S PROPOSED NORTH ISLAND 3–D SEISMIC SURVEY OFF NEW ZEALAND

Species Density 

(#/1,000 km2) 

Proposed 

Level A 

takes 

Proposed 

Level B 

takes 

Total 

proposed 

Level A 

and Level B 

takes 

Total 

proposed 

Level A 

and Level B 

takes as a 

percentage 

of population 

Southern right whale ............................................................ 0.24 0 13 13 0.09 

Pygmy right whale ............................................................... 0.10 0 5 5 N.A. 

Humpback whale ................................................................. 0.24 0 13 13 0.03 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
45142 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Notices 

TABLE 12—NUMBERS OF POTENTIAL INCIDENTAL TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS PROPOSED FOR AUTHORIZATION DURING L– 

DEO’S PROPOSED NORTH ISLAND 3–D SEISMIC SURVEY OFF NEW ZEALAND—Continued 

Species Density 

(#/1,000 km2) 

Proposed 

Level A 

takes 

Proposed 

Level B 

takes 

Total 

proposed 

Level A 

and Level B 

takes 

Total 

proposed 

Level A 

and Level B 

takes as a 

percentage 

of population 

Bryde’s whale ....................................................................... 0.14 0 8 8 0.01 

Common minke whale ......................................................... 0.14 0 8 8 <0.01 

Antarctic minke whale .......................................................... 0.14 0 8 8 <0.01 

Sei whale ............................................................................. 0.14 0 8 8 0.07 

Fin whale .............................................................................. 0.25 0 13 13 0.07 

Blue whale ........................................................................... 0.04 0 3 3 0.05 

Sperm whale ........................................................................ 2.89 1 153 154 0.43 

Cuvier’s beaked whale ......................................................... 2.62 0 138 138 0.02 

Arnoux’s beaked whale ........................................................ 2.62 0 138 138 0.02 

Southern bottlenose whale .................................................. 1.74 0 92 92 0.01 

Shepard’s beaked whale ..................................................... 1.74 0 92 92 0.01 

Hector’s beaked whale ........................................................ 1.74 0 92 92 0.01 

True’s beaked whale ............................................................ 0.87 0 46 46 N.A. 

Gray’s beaked whale ........................................................... 3.49 1 184 185 0.03 

Andrew’s beaked whale ....................................................... 1.74 0 92 92 0.01 

Strap-toothed whale ............................................................. 2.62 0 138 138 0.02 

Blainville’s beaked whale ..................................................... 0.87 0 46 46 0.01 

Spade-toothed whale ........................................................... 0.87 0 46 46 0.01 

Bottlenose dolphin ............................................................... 5.12 1 270 271 N.A. 

Short-beaked common dolphin ............................................ 10.25 2 540 540 N.A. 

Dusky dolphin ...................................................................... 5.12 1 270 271 1.88 

Southern right-whale dolphin ............................................... 3.07 1 162 163 N.A. 

Risso’s dolphin ..................................................................... 2.05 0 108 108 N.A. 

False killer whale ................................................................. 3.07 1 162 163 N.A. 

Killer whale ........................................................................... 1.91 0 101 101 0.11 

Long-finned pilot whale ........................................................ 8.28 2 436 438 0.18 

Short-finned pilot whale ....................................................... 4.10 1 216 217 N.A. 

Pygmy sperm whale ............................................................ 1.74 3 89 92 N.A. 

Hourglass dolphin ................................................................ 4.16 8 212 220 0.12 

Hector’s dolphin ................................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 

Spectacled porpoise ............................................................ 0 0 0 0 0 

New Zealand fur seal ........................................................... 22.50 4 1186 1190 0.50 

New Zealand sea lion .......................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 

Southern elephant seal ........................................................ 4.50 2 236 238 0.03 

Leopard seal ........................................................................ 2.25 1 118 119 0.04 

TABLE 13—NUMBERS OF POTENTIAL INCIDENTAL TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS PROPOSED FOR AUTHORIZATION DURING L– 

DEO’S PROPOSED SOUTH ISLAND 2–D SEISMIC SURVEY OFF NEW ZEALAND

Species Density 

(#/1,000 km2) 

Proposed 

Level A 

takes 

Proposed 

Level B 

takes 

Total 

proposed 

Level A 

and Level B 

takes 

Total 

proposed 

Level A 

and Level B 

takes as a 

percentage 

of population 

Southern right whale ............................................................ 0.24 1 15 16 0.11 

Pygmy right whale ............................................................... 0.10 0 6 6 N.A. 

Humpback whale ................................................................. 0.19 1 12 13 0.02 

Bryde’s whale ....................................................................... 0.00 0 0 0 0 

Common minke whale ......................................................... 0.14 0 9 9 <0.01 

Antarctic minke whale .......................................................... 0.14 0 9 9 <0.01 

Sei whale ............................................................................. 0.14 0 9 9 0.08 

Fin whale .............................................................................. 0.25 1 15 16 0.09 

Blue whale ........................................................................... 0.04 0 3 3 0.08 

Sperm whale ........................................................................ 2.89 0 183 183 0.51 

Cuvier’s beaked whale ......................................................... 2.62 0 165 165 0.02 

Arnoux’s beaked whale ........................................................ 2.62 0 165 165 0.02 

Southern bottlenose whale .................................................. 1.74 0 110 110 0.02 

Shepard’s beaked whale ..................................................... 1.74 0 110 110 0.02 

Hector’s beaked whale ........................................................ 1.74 0 110 110 0.02 

True’s beaked whale ............................................................ 0.87 0 55 55 N.A. 

Gray’s beaked whale ........................................................... 3.49 0 220 220 0.03 

Andrew’s beaked whale ....................................................... 1.74 0 110 110 0.02 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Notices 45143 

TABLE 13—NUMBERS OF POTENTIAL INCIDENTAL TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS PROPOSED FOR AUTHORIZATION DURING L– 

DEO’S PROPOSED SOUTH ISLAND 2–D SEISMIC SURVEY OFF NEW ZEALAND—Continued 

Species Density 

(#/1,000 km2) 

Proposed 

Level A 

takes 

Proposed 

Level B 

takes 

Total 

proposed 

Level A 

and Level B 

takes 

Total 

proposed 

Level A 

and Level B 

takes as a 

percentage 

of population 

Strap-toothed whale ............................................................. 2.62 0 165 165 0.02 

Blainville’s beaked whale ..................................................... 0.87 0 55 55 0.01 

Spade-toothed whale ........................................................... 0.87 0 55 55 0.01 

Bottlenose dolphin ............................................................... 4.78 1 302 303 N.A. 

Short-beaked common dolphin ............................................ 4.78 1 302 303 N.A. 

Dusky dolphin ...................................................................... 7.65 1 483 484 3.36 

Southern right-whale dolphin ............................................... 2.87 0 181 181 N.A. 

Risso’s dolphin ..................................................................... 1.91 0 121 121 N.A. 

False killer whale ................................................................. 2.87 0 181 181 N.A. 

Killer whale ........................................................................... 1.91 0 121 121 0.13 

Long-finned pilot whale ........................................................ 8.28 1 522 523 0.22 

Short-finned pilot whale ....................................................... 1.91 0 121 121 N.A. 

Pygmy sperm whale ............................................................ 1.74 4 106 110 N.A. 

Hourglass dolphin ................................................................ 4.16 10 253 263 0.15 

Hector’s dolphin ................................................................... 0.04 0 3 3 0.01 

Spectacled porpoise ............................................................ 1.91 5 117 122 N.A. 

New Zealand fur seal ........................................................... 22.50 2 1419 1421 0.59 

New Zealand sea lion .......................................................... 9.00 1 568 569 4.80 

Southern elephant seal ........................................................ 4.50 2 283 285 0.04 

Leopard seal ........................................................................ 2.25 1 142 143 0.05 

TABLE 14—TOTAL NUMBERS OF POTENTIAL INCIDENTAL TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS PROPOSED FOR AUTHORIZATION

DURING L–DEO’S PROPOSED NORTH ISLAND 3–D SURVEY, NORTH ISLAND 2–D SURVEY, AND SOUTH ISLAND 3–D 

SURVEYS OF THE R/V LANGSETH OFF NEW ZEALAND

Species Density 

(#/1,000 km2) 

Proposed 

Level A 

takes 

Proposed 

Level B 

takes 

Total 

proposed 

Level A 

and Level B 

takes 

Total 

proposed 

Level A 

and Level B 

takes as a 

percentage 

of population 

Southern right whale ............................................................ 0.24 3 51 54 0.38 

Pygmy right whale ............................................................... 0.10 1 21 22 N.A. 

Humpback whale ................................................................. 0.19 3 48 51 0.1 

Bryde’s whale ....................................................................... 0.00 1 22 23 0.04 

Common minke whale ......................................................... 0.14 1 31 32 N.A. 

Antarctic minke whale .......................................................... 0.14 1 31 32 N.A. 

Sei whale ............................................................................. 0.14 1 31 32 0.28 

Fin whale .............................................................................. 0.25 3 52 55 0.3 

Blue whale ........................................................................... 0.04 0 10 10 0.24 

Sperm whale ........................................................................ 2.89 1 629 630 1.76 

Cuvier’s beaked whale ......................................................... 2.62 0 568 568 0.08 

Arnoux’s beaked whale ........................................................ 2.62 0 568 568 0.08 

Southern bottlenose whale .................................................. 1.74 0 379 379 0.05 

Shepard’s beaked whale ..................................................... 1.74 0 379 379 0.05 

Hector’s beaked whale ........................................................ 1.74 0 379 379 0.05 

True’s beaked whale ............................................................ 0.87 0 190 190 N.A. 

Gray’s beaked whale ........................................................... 3.49 2 757 759 0.11 

Andrew’s beaked whale ....................................................... 1.74 0 379 379 0.05 

Strap-toothed whale ............................................................. 2.62 0 568 568 0.08 

Blainville’s beaked whale ..................................................... 0.87 0 190 190 0.03 

Spade-toothed whale ........................................................... 0.87 0 190 190 0.03 

Bottlenose dolphin ............................................................... 4.78 3 1091 1094 N.A. 

Short-beaked common dolphin ............................................ 4.78 5 1880 1885 N.A. 

Dusky dolphin ...................................................................... 7.65 3 1272 1275 8.85 

Southern right-whale dolphin ............................................... 2.87 2 655 657 N.A. 

Risso’s dolphin ..................................................................... 1.91 0 437 437 N.A. 

False killer whale ................................................................. 2.87 2 655 657 N.A. 

Killer whale ........................................................................... 1.91 0 416 416 0.44 

Long-finned pilot whale ........................................................ 8.28 4 1796 1800 0.75 

Short-finned pilot whale ....................................................... 1.91 2 752 754 N.A. 

Pygmy sperm whale ............................................................ 1.74 12 367 379 N.A. 

Hourglass dolphin ................................................................ 4.16 30 875 905 0.39 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
45144 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Notices 

TABLE 14—TOTAL NUMBERS OF POTENTIAL INCIDENTAL TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS PROPOSED FOR AUTHORIZATION

DURING L–DEO’S PROPOSED NORTH ISLAND 3–D SURVEY, NORTH ISLAND 2–D SURVEY, AND SOUTH ISLAND 3–D 

SURVEYS OF THE R/V LANGSETH OFF NEW ZEALAND—Continued 

Species Density 

(#/1,000 km2) 

Proposed 

Level A 

takes 

Proposed 

Level B 

takes 

Total 

proposed 

Level A 

and Level B 

takes 

Total 

proposed 

Level A 

and Level B 

takes as a 

percentage 

of population 

Hector’s dolphin ................................................................... 0.04 0 3 3 0.01 

Spectacled porpoise ............................................................ 1.91 5 117 122 N.A. 

New Zealand fur seal ........................................................... 22.50 9 4884 4893 1.59 

New Zealand sea lion .......................................................... 9.00 1 568 569 0.38 

Southern elephant seal ........................................................ 4.50 6 973 979 N.A. 

Leopard seal ........................................................................ 2.25 3 487 490 0.1 

It should be noted that the proposed 

take numbers shown in Tables 11, 12, 

13 and 14 are expected to be 

conservative for several reasons. First, 

in the calculations of estimated take, 50 

percent has been added in the form of 

operational survey days (equivalent to 

adding 50 percent to the proposed line 

km to be surveyed) to account for the 

possibility of additional seismic 

operations associated with airgun 

testing and repeat coverage of any areas 

where initial data quality is substandard, and in recognition of the 

uncertainties in the density estimates 

used to estimate take as described 

above. Additionally, marine mammals 

would be expected to move away from 

a loud sound source that represents an 

aversive stimulus, such as an airgun 

array, potentially reducing the number 

of Level A takes. However, the extent to 

which marine mammals would move 

away from the sound source is difficult 

to quantify and is therefore not 

accounted for in the take estimates 

shown in 11, 12, 13 and 14. 

For some marine mammal species, we 

propose to authorize a different number 

of incidental takes than the number of 

incidental takes requested by L–DEO 

(see Tables 18, 19 and 20 in the IHA 

application for requested take numbers). 

For instance, for several species, L–DEO 

increased the take request from the 

calculated take number to 1 percent of 

the estimated population size. We do 

not believe it is likely that 1 percent of 

the estimated population size of those 

species will be taken by L–DEO’s 

proposed survey, therefore we do not 

propose to authorize the take numbers 

requested by L–DEO in their IHA 

application (LGL, 2017). However, in 

recognition of the uncertainties in the 

density estimates used to estimate take 

as described above, we believe it is 

reasonable to assume that actual takes 

may exceed numbers of takes calculated 

based on available density estimates; 

therefore, we have increased take 

estimates for all marine mammal species 

by an additional 25 percent, to account 

for the fact that density estimates used 

to estimate take may be underestimates 

of actual densities of marine mammals 

in the survey area. Additionally, L–DEO 

requested authorization for 10 takes of 

Hector’s dolphins during the North 

Island 2–D survey (LGL, 2017). 

However, we do not propose to 

authorize any takes of Hector’s dolphins 

during North Island surveys. We believe 

the likelihood of the proposed North 

Island 2–D survey encountering a 

Hector’s dolphin is extremely low. As 

described above, the North Island 

subpopulation of Hector’s dolphin (aka 

Maui dolphin) is very unlikely to be 

encountered during either proposed 

North Island survey due to the very low 

estimated abundance of the 

subpopulation and due to the 

geographic isolation of the 

subpopulation (currently limited to the 

west coast of the North Island). 

Additionally, while it would be 

extremely unlikely for the proposed 

surveys to encounter a Hector’s dolphin 

during North Island surveys, any 

Hector’s dolphin encountered in waters 

off the North Island would possibly be 

a member of the Maui dolphin 

subspecies. As described above, the 

Maui dolphin is facing a high risk of 

extinction (Manning and Grantz, 2016) 

and has a population size estimated at 

just 55–63 individuals (Hamner et al. 

2014; Baker et al. 2016). Therefore, we 

seek to avoid the remote possibility of 

exposure of Maui dolphins to airgun 

sounds. As such, we do not propose to 

authorize any takes of Hector’s dolphins 

during L–DEO’s proposed North Island 

surveys. Additionally, we propose a 

mitigation measure that would require 

shutdown of the airgun array upon 

observation of a Hector’s dolphin at any 

distance during both proposed North 

Island surveys (described below in 

Proposed Mitigation), which further 

minimizes the potential for any take of 

Hector’s dolphins during the proposed 

North Island surveys. 

Proposed 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 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Notices 45145 

of effective implementation (probability 

implemented as planned), and 

(2) the practicability of the measures 

for applicant implementation, which 

may consider such things as cost, 

impact on operations, and, in the case 

of a military readiness activity, 

personnel safety, practicality of 

implementation, and impact on the 

effectiveness of the military readiness 

activity. 

L–DEO has reviewed mitigation 

measures employed during seismic 

research surveys authorized by NMFS 

under previous incidental harassment 

authorizations, as well as recommended 

best practices in Richardson et al. 

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

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

Wright (2014), and Wright and 

Cosentino (2015), and has incorporated 

a suite of proposed mitigation measures 

into their project description based on 

the above sources. 

To reduce the potential for 

disturbance from acoustic stimuli 

associated with the activities, L–DEO 

has proposed to implement the 

following mitigation measures for 

marine mammals: 

(1) Vessel-based visual mitigation 

monitoring; 

(2) Vessel-based passive acoustic 

monitoring; 

(3) Establishment of an exclusion 

zone; 

(4) Power down procedures; 

(5) Shutdown procedures; 

(6) Ramp-up procedures; and 

(7) Vessel strike avoidance measures. 

In addition to the mitigation measures 

proposed by L–DEO, NMFS has 

proposed the following additional 

measure: Shutdown of the acoustic 

source is required upon observation of 

a beaked whale or kogia spp., a large 

whale with calf, or a Hector’s dolphin 

(during North Island surveys only) at 

any distance. 

Vessel-Based Visual Mitigation 

Monitoring 

Protected Species Observer (PSO) 

observations would take place during all 

daytime airgun operations and 

nighttime start ups (if applicable) of the 

airguns. Airgun operations would be 

suspended when marine mammals are 

observed within, or about to enter, 

designated Exclusion Zones (as 

described below). PSOs would also 

watch for marine mammals near the 

vessel for at least 30 minutes prior to the 

planned start of airgun operations. PSOs 

would monitor the entire extent of the 

modeled Level B harassment zone 

(Table 4) (or, as far as they are able to 

see, if they cannot see to the extent of 

the estimated Level B harassment zone). 

Observations would also be made 

during daytime periods when the 

Langseth is underway without seismic 

operations, such as during transits, to 

allow for comparison of sighting rates 

and behavior with and without airgun 

operations and between acquisition 

periods. 

During seismic operations, a 

minimum of four visual PSOs would be 

based aboard the Langseth. PSOs would 

be appointed by L–DEO, with NMFS’ 

approval. During the majority of seismic 

operations, two PSOs would monitor for 

marine mammals around the seismic 

vessel. Use of two simultaneous 

observers would increase the 

effectiveness of detecting marine 

mammals around the source vessel. 

However, during meal times, only one 

PSO may be on duty. PSO(s) would be 

on duty in shifts of duration no longer 

than 4 hours. Other crew would also be 

instructed to assist in detecting marine 

mammals and in implementing 

mitigation requirements (if practical). 

Before the start of the seismic survey, 

the crew would be given additional 

instruction in detecting marine 

mammals and implementing mitigation 

requirements. The Langseth is a suitable 

platform for marine mammal 

observations. When stationed on the 

observation platform, PSOs would have 

a good view around the entire vessel. 

During daytime, the PSO(s) would scan 

the area around the vessel 

systematically with reticle binoculars 

(e.g., 7×50 Fujinon), Big-eye binoculars 

(25×150), and with the naked eye. 

The PSOs must have no tasks other 

than to conduct observational effort, 

record observational data, and 

communicate with and instruct relevant 

vessel crew with regard to the presence 

of marine mammals and mitigation 

requirements. PSO resumes would be 

provided to NMFS for approval. At least 

two PSOs must have a minimum of 90 

days at-sea experience working as PSOs 

during a high energy seismic survey, 

with no more than eighteen months 

elapsed since the conclusion of the atsea experience. One ‘‘experienced’’ 

visual PSO would be designated as the 

lead for the entire protected species 

observation team. The lead would 

coordinate duty schedules and roles for 

the PSO team and serve as primary 

point of contact for the vessel operator. 

The lead PSO would devise the duty 

schedule such that ‘‘experienced’’ PSOs 

are on duty with those PSOs with 

appropriate training but who have not 

yet gained relevant experience, to the 

maximum extent practicable. 

The PSOs must have successfully 

completed relevant training, including 

completion of all required coursework 

and passing a written and/or oral 

examination developed for the training 

program, and must have successfully 

attained a bachelor’s degree from an 

accredited college or university with a 

major in one of the natural sciences and 

a minimum of 30 semester hours or 

equivalent in the biological sciences and 

at least one undergraduate course in 

math or statistics. The educational 

requirements may be waived if the PSO 

has acquired the relevant skills through 

alternate training, including (1) 

secondary education and/or experience 

comparable to PSO duties; (2) previous 

work experience conducting academic, 

commercial, or government-sponsored 

marine mammal surveys; or (3) previous 

work experience as a PSO. The PSO 

should demonstrate good standing and 

consistently good performance of PSO 

duties. 

In summary, a typical daytime cruise 

would have scheduled two observers 

(visual) on duty from the observation 

platform, and an acoustic observer on 

the passive acoustic monitoring system. 

Vessel-Based Passive Acoustic 

Mitigation Monitoring 

Passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) 

would take place to complement the 

visual monitoring program. Visual 

monitoring typically is not effective 

during periods of poor visibility or at 

night, and even with good visibility, is 

unable to detect marine mammals when 

they are below the surface or beyond 

visual range. Acoustic monitoring can 

be used in addition to visual 

observations to improve detection, 

identification, and localization of 

cetaceans. The acoustic monitoring 

would serve to alert visual observers (if 

on duty) when vocalizing cetaceans are 

detected. It is only useful when marine 

mammals vocalize, but it can be 

effective either by day or by night and 

does not depend on good visibility. It 

would be monitored in real time so that 

visual observers can be alerted when 

marine mammals are detected 

acoustically. 

The PAM system consists of hardware 

(i.e., hydrophones) and software. The 

‘‘wet end’’ of the system consists of a 

towed hydrophone array that is 

connected to the vessel by a tow cable. 

A deck cable would connect the tow 

cable to the electronics unit on board 

where the acoustic station, signal 

conditioning, and processing system 

would be located. The acoustic signals 

received by the hydrophones are 

amplified, digitized, and then processed 

by the software. 

At least one acoustic PSO (in addition 

to the four visual PSOs) would be on 

board. The towed hydrophones would 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
45146 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Notices 

be monitored 24 hours per day (either 

by the acoustic PSO or by a visual PSO 

trained in the PAM system if the 

acoustic PSO is on break) while at the 

seismic survey area during airgun 

operations, and during most periods 

when the Langseth is underway while 

the airguns are not operating. However, 

PAM may not be possible if damage 

occurs to the array or back-up systems 

during operations. One PSO would 

monitor the acoustic detection system at 

any one time, in shifts no longer than 

six hours, by listening to the signals via 

headphones and/or speakers and 

watching the real-time spectrographic 

display for frequency ranges produced 

by cetaceans. 

When a vocalization is detected, 

while visual observations are in 

progress, the acoustic PSO would 

contact the visual PSOs immediately, to 

alert them to the presence of marine 

mammals (if they have not already been 

detected visually), in order to facilitate 

a power down or shut down, if required. 

The information regarding the marine 

mammal acoustic detection would be 

entered into a database. 

Exclusion Zone and Buffer Zone 

An exclusion zone (EZ) is a defined 

area within which occurrence of a 

marine mammal triggers mitigation 

action intended to reduce the potential 

for certain outcomes, e.g., auditory 

injury, disruption of critical behaviors. 

The PSOs would establish a minimum 

EZ with a 500 m radius for the 36 airgun 

array and the 18 airgun array. The 500 

m EZ would be based on radial distance 

from any element of the airgun array 

(rather than being based on the center of 

the array or around the vessel itself). 

With certain exceptions (described 

below), if a marine mammal appears 

within, enters, or appears on a course to 

enter this zone, the acoustic source 

would be powered down (see Power 

Down Procedures below). In addition to 

the 500 m EZ for the full arrays, a 100 

m exclusion zone would be established 

for the single 40 in 3 airgun. With certain 

exceptions (described below), if a 

marine mammal appears within, enters, 

or appears on a course to enter this zone 

the acoustic source would be shut down 

entirely (see Shutdown Procedures 

below). Additionally, power down of 

the full arrays would last no more than 

30 minutes maximum at any given time; 

thus the arrays would be shut down 

entirely if, after 30 minutes of the array 

being powered down, a marine mammal 

remains inside the 500 m EZ. 

In their IHA application, L–DEO 

proposed to establish EZs based upon 

modeled radial distances to auditory 

injury zones (e.g., power down would 

occur when a marine mammal entered 

or appeared likely to enter the zone(s) 

within which auditory injury is 

expected to occur based on modeling) 

(Tables 7, 8, 9). However, we instead 

propose the 500 m EZ as described 

above. The 500 m EZ is intended to be 

precautionary in the sense that it would 

be expected to contain sound exceeding 

peak pressure injury criteria for all 

cetacean hearing groups, while also 

providing a consistent, reasonably 

observable zone within which PSOs 

would typically be able to conduct 

effective observational effort. 

Additionally, a 500-m EZ is expected to 

minimize the likelihood that marine 

mammals will be exposed to levels 

likely to result in more severe 

behavioral responses. Although 

significantly greater distances may be 

observed from an elevated platform 

under good conditions, we believe that 

500 m is likely regularly attainable for 

PSOs using the naked eye during typical 

conditions. 

An appropriate EZ based on 

cumulative sound exposure level 

(SELcum) criteria would be dependent on 

the animal’s applied hearing range and 

how that overlaps with the frequencies 

produced by the sound source of 

interest (i.e., via marine mammal 

auditory weighting functions) (NMFS, 

2016), and may be larger in some cases 

than the zones calculated on the basis 

of the peak pressure thresholds (and 

larger than 500 m) depending on the 

species in question and the 

characteristics of the specific airgun 

array. In particular, the EZ radii would 

be larger for low-frequency cetaceans, 

because their most susceptible hearing 

range overlaps the low frequencies 

produced by airguns, but the zones 

would remain very small for midfrequency cetaceans (i.e., including the 

‘‘small delphinoids’’ described below), 

whose range of best hearing largely does 

not overlap with frequencies produced 

by airguns. 

Use of monitoring and shutdown or 

power-down measures within defined 

exclusion zone distances is inherently 

an essentially instantaneous 

proposition—a rule or set of rules that 

requires mitigation action upon 

detection of an animal. This indicates 

that definition of an exclusion zone on 

the basis of cumulative sound exposure 

level thresholds, which require that an 

animal accumulate some level of sound 

energy exposure over some period of 

time (e.g., 24 hours), has questionable 

relevance as a standard protocol. A PSO 

aboard a mobile source will typically 

have no ability to monitor an animal’s 

position relative to the acoustic source 

over relevant time periods for purposes 

of understanding whether auditory 

injury is likely to occur on the basis of 

cumulative sound exposure and, 

therefore, whether action should be 

taken to avoid such potential. 

Cumulative SEL thresholds are more 

relevant for purposes of modeling the 

potential for auditory injury than they 

are for dictating real-time mitigation, 

though they can be informative 

(especially in a relative sense). We 

recognize the importance of the 

accumulation of sound energy to an 

understanding of the potential for 

auditory injury and that it is likely that, 

at least for low-frequency cetaceans, 

some potential auditory injury is likely 

impossible to mitigate and should be 

considered for authorization. 

In summary, our intent in prescribing 

a standard exclusion zone distance is to 

(1) encompass zones for most species 

within which auditory injury could 

occur on the basis of instantaneous 

exposure; (2) provide additional 

protection from the potential for more 

severe behavioral reactions (e.g., panic, 

antipredator response) for marine 

mammals at relatively close range to the 

acoustic source; (3) provide consistency 

for PSOs, who need to monitor and 

implement the exclusion zone; and (4) 

to define a distance within which 

detection probabilities are reasonably 

high for most species under typical 

conditions. 

Our use of 500 m as the EZ is a 

reasonable combination of factors. This 

zone is expected to contain all potential 

auditory injury for all marine mammals 

(high-frequency, mid-frequency and 

low-frequency cetacean functional 

hearing groups and otariid and phocid 

pinnipeds) as assessed against peak 

pressure thresholds (NMFS, 2016) 

(Tables 7, 8, 9). It is also expected to 

contain all potential auditory injury for 

high-frequency and mid-frequency 

cetaceans as well as otariid and phocid 

pinnipeds as assessed against SELcum

thresholds (NMFS, 2016) (Tables 7, 8, 

9). It has proven to be practicable 

through past implementation in seismic 

surveys conducted for the oil and gas 

industry in the Gulf of Mexico (as 

regulated by BOEM pursuant to the 

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 

(OCSLA) (43 U.S.C. 1331–1356)). In 

summary, a practicable criterion such as 

the proposed EZs has the advantage of 

simplicity while still providing in most 

cases a zone larger than relevant 

auditory injury zones, given realistic 

movement of source and receiver. 

The PSOs would also establish and 

monitor a 1,000 m buffer zone. During 

operation of the airgun arrays, 

occurrence of marine mammals within 

the 1,000 m buffer zone (but outside the 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Notices 45147 

500 m EZ) would be communicated to 

the vessel operator to prepare for 

potential power down or shutdown of 

the acoustic source. The buffer zone is 

discussed further under Ramp Up 

Procedures below. PSOs would also 

monitor the entire extent of the 

estimated Level B harassment zone 

(Table 4) (or, as far as they are able to 

see, if they cannot see to the extent of 

the estimated Level B harassment zone). 

Power Down Procedures 

A power down involves decreasing 

the number of airguns in use such that 

the radius of the mitigation zone is 

decreased to the extent that marine 

mammals are no longer in, or about to 

enter, the 500 m EZ. During a power 

down, one 40-in3 airgun would be 

operated. The continued operation of 

one 40-in3 airgun is intended to alert 

marine mammals to the presence of the 

seismic vessel in the area, and to allow 

them to leave the area of the seismic 

vessel if they choose. In contrast, a 

shutdown occurs when all airgun 

activity is suspended (shutdown 

procedures are discussed below). If a 

marine mammal is detected outside the 

500 m EZ but appears likely to enter the 

500 m EZ, the airguns would be 

powered down before the animal is 

within the 500 m EZ. Likewise, if a 

mammal is already within the 500 m EZ 

when first detected, the airguns would 

be powered down immediately. During 

a power down of the airgun array, the 

40-in3 airgun would be operated. 

Following a power down, airgun 

activity would not resume until the 

marine mammal has cleared the 500 m 

EZ. The animal would be considered to 

have cleared the 500 m EZ if the 

following conditions have been met: 

b It is visually observed to have 

departed the 500 m EZ, or 

b it has not been seen within the 500 

m EZ for 15 min in the case of small 

odontocetes and pinnipeds, or 

b it has not been seen within the 500 

m EZ for 30 min in the case of 

mysticetes and large odontocetes, 

including sperm, pygmy sperm, dwarf 

sperm, and beaked whales. 

This power down requirement would 

be in place for all marine mammals, 

with the exception of small delphinoids 

under certain circumstances. As defined 

here, the small delphinoid group is 

intended to encompass those members 

of the Family Delphinidae most likely to 

voluntarily approach the source vessel 

for purposes of interacting with the 

vessel and/or airgun array (e.g., bow 

riding). This exception to the power 

down requirement would apply solely 

to specific genera of small dolphins 

—Tursiops, Delphinus and Lissodelphis 

— and would only apply if the animals 

were traveling, including approaching 

the vessel. If, for example, an animal or 

group of animals is stationary for some 

reason (e.g., feeding) and the source 

vessel approaches the animals, the 

power down requirement applies. An 

animal with sufficient incentive to 

remain in an area rather than avoid an 

otherwise aversive stimulus could either 

incur auditory injury or disruption of 

important behavior. If there is 

uncertainty regarding identification (i.e., 

whether the observed animal(s) belongs 

to the group described above) or 

whether the animals are traveling, the 

power down or shutdown would be 

implemented. Note that small dolphins 

in the genera Lagenorhynchus and 

Cephalorhynchus are not included in 

the proposed power down/shutdown 

exception. 

We include this small delphinoid 

exception because power-down/ 

shutdown requirements for small 

delphinoids under all circumstances 

represent practicability concerns 

without likely commensurate benefits 

for the animals in question. Small 

delphinoids are generally the most 

commonly observed marine mammals 

in the specific geographic region and 

would typically be the only marine 

mammals likely to intentionally 

approach the vessel. As described 

below, auditory injury is extremely 

unlikely to occur for mid-frequency 

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

group is relatively insensitive to sound 

produced at the predominant 

frequencies in an airgun pulse while 

also having a relatively high threshold 

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

permanent threshold shift). Please see 

Potential Effects of the Specified 

Activity on Marine Mammals above for 

further discussion of sound metrics and 

thresholds and marine mammal hearing. 

A large body of anecdotal evidence 

indicates that small delphinoids 

commonly approach vessels and/or 

towed arrays during active sound 

production for purposes of bow riding, 

with no apparent effect observed in 

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

2012). The potential for increased 

shutdowns resulting from such a 

measure would require the Langseth to 

revisit the missed track line to reacquire 

data, resulting in an overall increase in 

the total sound energy input to the 

marine environment and an increase in 

the total duration over which the survey 

is active in a given area. Although other 

mid-frequency hearing specialists (e.g., 

large delphinoids) are no more likely to 

incur auditory injury than are small 

delphinoids, they are much less likely 

to approach vessels. Therefore, retaining 

a power-down/shutdown requirement 

for large delphinoids would not have 

similar impacts in terms of either 

practicability for the applicant or 

corollary increase in sound energy 

output and time on the water. We do 

anticipate some benefit for a powerdown/shutdown requirement for large 

delphinoids in that it simplifies 

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

potential for physiological effects other 

than to the auditory system as well as 

some more severe behavioral reactions 

for any such animals in close proximity 

to the source vessel. 

A power down could occur for no 

more than 30 minutes maximum at any 

given time. If, after 30 minutes of the 

array being powered down, marine 

mammals had not cleared the 500 m EZ 

(as described above), a shutdown of the 

array would be implemented (see Shut 

Down Procedures, below). Power down 

is only allowed in response to the 

presence of marine mammals within the 

designated EZ. Thus, the single 40 in3

airgun, which would be operated during 

power downs, may not be operated 

continuously throughout the night or 

during transits from one line to another. 

Shut Down Procedures 

The single 40-in3 operating airgun 

would be shut down if a marine 

mammal is seen within or approaching 

the 100 m EZ for the single 40-in3

airgun. Shutdown would be 

implemented if (1) an animal enters the 

100 m EZ of the single 40-in3 airgun 

after a power down has been initiated, 

or (2) an animal is initially seen within 

the 100 m EZ of the single 40-in3 airgun 

when more than one airgun (typically 

the full array) is operating. Airgun 

activity would not resume until the 

marine mammal has cleared the 500 m 

EZ. Criteria for judging that the animal 

has cleared the EZ would be as 

described above. A shutdown of the 

array would be implemented if, after 30 

minutes of the array being powered 

down, marine mammals have not 

cleared the 500 m EZ (as described 

above). 

The shutdown requirement, like the 

power down requirement, would be 

waived for dolphins of the following 

genera: Tursiops, Delphinus and 

Lissodelphis. The shutdown waiver only 

applies if the animals are traveling, 

including approaching the vessel. If 

animals are stationary and the source 

vessel approaches the animals, the 

shutdown requirement would apply. If 

there is uncertainty regarding 

identification (i.e., whether the observed 

animal(s) belongs to the group described 

above) or whether the animals are 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
45148 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Notices 

traveling, the shutdown would be 

implemented. 

In addition to the measures proposed 

by L–DEO, NMFS also proposes that a 

shutdown of the acoustic source would 

also be required, at any distance, upon 

observation of the following: A large 

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

whale) with a calf; a beaked whale or 

kogia spp.; or, a Hector’s dolphin 

(during North Island surveys only). 

These are the only three potential 

scenarios that would require shutdown 

of the array for marine mammals 

observed beyond the 100 m EZ for the 

single 40 in3 airgun. The shutdown 

requirement for Hector’s dolphin during 

North Island surveys is designed to 

avoid any potential for exposure of a 

Maui dolphin to seismic airgun sounds. 

Maui dolphins are not expected to occur 

in the proposed survey areas off the 

North Island based on their current 

range. However, as described above, 

there have been occasional sightings 

and strandings of Hector’s dolphins off 

the east coast of the North Island. While 

the likelihood of L–DEO’s proposed 

surveys encountering a Maui dolphin is 

considered extremely low, we 

nonetheless include this measure to 

avoid any potential for exposure of a 

Maui dolphin to airgun sounds. In the 

event of a shutdown due to observation 

of a shutdown due to observation of a 

beaked whale, kogia app., or large whale 

with calf, ramp-up procedures would 

not be initiated until the Hector’s 

dolphin has not been seen at any 

distance for 30 minutes. In the event of 

a shutdown due to observation of a 

Hector’s dolphin (during North Island 

surveys only), ramp-up procedures 

would not be initiated until the Hector’s 

dolphin has not been seen at any 

distance for 15 minutes. 

Ramp-Up Procedures 

Ramp-up of an acoustic source is 

intended to provide a gradual increase 

in sound levels following a power down 

or shutdown, enabling animals to move 

away from the source if the signal is 

sufficiently aversive prior to its reaching 

full intensity. The ramp-up procedure 

involves a step-wise increase in the 

number of airguns firing and total array 

volume until all operational airguns are 

activated and the full volume is 

achieved. Ramp-up would be required 

after the array is powered down or shut 

down due to mitigation. If the airgun 

array has been shut down for reasons 

other than mitigation (e.g., mechanical 

difficulty) for a period of less than 30 

minutes, it may be activated again 

without ramp-up if PSOs have 

maintained constant visual and acoustic 

observation and no visual detections of 

any marine mammal have occurred 

within the buffer zone and no acoustic 

detections have occurred. This is the 

only scenario under which ramp up 

would not be required. 

Ramp-up would begin by activating a 

single airgun of the smallest volume in 

the array and would continue in stages 

by doubling the number of active 

elements at the commencement of each 

stage, with each stage of approximately 

the same duration. 

If airguns have been powered down or 

shut down due to PSO detection of a 

marine mammal within or approaching 

the 500 m EZ, ramp-up would not be 

initiated until all marine mammals have 

cleared the EZ, during the day or night. 

Visual and acoustic PSOs are required 

to monitor during ramp-up. If a marine 

mammal were detected by visual PSOs 

within or approaching the 500 m EZ 

during ramp-up, a power down (or shut 

down if appropriate) would be 

implemented as though the full array 

were operational. Criteria for clearing 

the EZ would be as described above. 

Thirty minutes of pre-clearance 

observation are required prior to rampup for any power down or shutdown of 

longer than 30 minutes (i.e., if the array 

were shut down during transit from one 

line to another). This 30 minute preclearance period may occur during any 

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

mammal is observed within or 

approaching the 500 m EZ during this 

pre-clearance period, ramp-up would 

not be initiated until all marine 

mammals have cleared the EZ. Criteria 

for clearing the EZ would be as 

described above. 

Ramp-up would be planned to occur 

during periods of good visibility when 

possible. However, ramp-up would be 

allowed at night and during poor 

visibility if the 500 m EZ and 1,000 m 

buffer zone have been monitored by 

visual PSOs for 30 minutes prior to 

ramp-up and if acoustic monitoring has 

occurred for 30 minutes prior to rampup with no acoustic detections during 

that period. 

The operator would be required to 

notify a designated PSO of the planned 

start of ramp-up as agreed-upon with 

the lead PSO. A designated PSO must be 

notified again immediately prior to 

initiating ramp-up procedures and the 

operator must receive confirmation from 

the PSO to proceed. The operator must 

provide information to PSOs 

documenting that appropriate 

procedures were followed. Following 

deactivation of the array for reasons 

other than mitigation, the operator 

would be required to communicate the 

near-term operational plan to the lead 

PSO with justification for any planned 

nighttime ramp-up. 

L–DEO proposed that ramp up would 

not occur following an extended power 

down (LGL 2017). However, as we do 

not propose to allow extended power 

downs during the proposed survey, we 

also do not include this as a proposed 

mitigation measure and instead propose 

that ramp up is required after any power 

down or shutdown of the array, with the 

one exception as described above. L– 

DEO also proposed that ramp up would 

occur when the airgun array begins 

operating after 8 minutes without airgun 

operations (LGL 2017). However, we 

instead propose the criteria for ramp up 

as described above. 

Vessel Strike Avoidance 

Vessel strike avoidance measures are 

intended to minimize the potential for 

collisions with marine mammals. We 

note that these requirements do not 

apply in any case where compliance 

would create an imminent and serious 

threat to a person or vessel or to the 

extent that a vessel is restricted in its 

ability to maneuver and, because of the 

restriction, cannot comply. 

The proposed measures include the 

following: Vessel operator and crew 

would maintain a vigilant watch for all 

marine mammals and slow down or 

stop the vessel or alter course to avoid 

striking any marine mammal. A visual 

observer aboard the vessel would 

monitor a vessel strike avoidance zone 

around the vessel according to the 

parameters stated below. Visual 

observers monitoring the vessel strike 

avoidance zone would be either thirdparty observers or crew members, but 

crew members responsible for these 

duties would be provided sufficient 

training to distinguish marine mammals 

from other phenomena. Vessel strike 

avoidance measures would be followed 

during surveys and while in transit. 

The vessel would maintain a 

minimum separation distance of 100 m 

from large whales (i.e., baleen whales 

and sperm whales). If a large whale is 

within 100 m of the vessel the vessel 

would reduce speed and shift the engine 

to neutral, and would not engage the 

engines until the whale has moved 

outside of the vessel’s path and the 

minimum separation distance has been 

established. If the vessel is stationary, 

the vessel would not engage engines 

until the whale(s) has moved out of the 

vessel’s path and beyond 100 m. The 

vessel would maintain a minimum 

separation distance of 50 m from all 

other marine mammals (with the 

exception of delphinids of the genera 

Tursiops, Delphinus and Lissodelphis 

that approach the vessel, as described 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Notices 45149 

above). If an animal is encountered 

during transit, the vessel would attempt 

to remain parallel to the animal’s 

course, avoiding excessive speed or 

abrupt changes in course. Vessel speeds 

would be reduced to 10 knots or less 

when mother/calf pairs, pods, or large 

assemblages of cetaceans are observed 

near the vessel. 

Based on our evaluation of the 

applicant’s proposed measures, NMFS 

has determined that the mitigation 

measures provide the means effecting 

the least practicable impact on the 

affected species or stocks and their 

habitat, paying particular attention to 

rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of 

similar significance. 

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

In order to issue an IHA for an 

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

MMPA states that NMFS must set forth 

requirements pertaining to the 

monitoring and reporting of such taking. 

The MMPA implementing regulations at 

50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that 

requests for authorizations must include 

the suggested means of accomplishing 

the necessary monitoring and reporting 

that will result in increased knowledge 

of the species and of the level of taking 

or impacts on populations of marine 

mammals that are expected to be 

present in the action area. Effective 

reporting is critical both to compliance 

as well as ensuring that the most value 

is obtained from the required 

monitoring. 

Monitoring and reporting 

requirements prescribed by NMFS 

should contribute to improved 

understanding of one or more of the 

following: 

b Occurrence of marine mammal 

species or stocks in the area in which 

take is anticipated (e.g., presence, 

abundance, distribution, density). 

b Nature, scope, or context of likely 

marine mammal exposure to potential 

stressors/impacts (individual or 

cumulative, acute or chronic), through 

better understanding of: (1) Action or 

environment (e.g., source 

characterization, propagation, ambient 

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

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

of marine mammal species with the 

action; or (4) biological or behavioral 

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

feeding areas). 

b Individual marine mammal 

responses (behavioral or physiological) 

to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or 

cumulative), other stressors, or 

cumulative impacts from multiple 

stressors. 

b How anticipated responses to 

stressors impact either: (1) Long-term 

fitness and survival of individual 

marine mammals; or (2) populations, 

species, or stocks. 

b Effects on marine mammal habitat 

(e.g., marine mammal prey species, 

acoustic habitat, or other important 

physical components of marine 

mammal habitat). 

b Mitigation and monitoring 

effectiveness. 

L–DEO submitted a marine mammal 

monitoring and reporting plan in 

section XIII of their IHA application. 

Monitoring that is designed specifically 

to facilitate mitigation measures, such as 

monitoring of the EZ to inform potential 

power downs or shutdowns of the 

airgun array, are described above and 

are not repeated here. 

L–DEO’s monitoring and reporting 

plan includes the following measures: 

Vessel-Based Visual Monitoring 

As described above, PSO observations 

would take place during daytime airgun 

operations and nighttime start ups (if 

applicable) of the airguns. During 

seismic operations, at least four visual 

PSOs would be based aboard the 

Langseth. PSOs would be appointed by 

L–DEO with NMFS approval. During the 

majority of seismic operations, two 

PSOs would monitor for marine 

mammals around the seismic vessel. 

Use of two simultaneous observers 

would increase the effectiveness of 

detecting animals around the source 

vessel. However, during meal times, 

only one PSO may be on duty. PSOs 

would be on duty in shifts of duration 

no longer than 4 hours. Other crew 

would also be instructed to assist in 

detecting marine mammals and in 

implementing mitigation requirements 

(if practical). During daytime, PSOs 

would scan the area around the vessel 

systematically with reticle binoculars 

(e.g., 7×50 Fujinon), Big-eye binoculars 

(25×150), and with the naked eye. 

PSOs would record data to estimate 

the numbers of marine mammals 

exposed to various received sound 

levels and to document apparent 

disturbance reactions or lack thereof. 

Data would be used to estimate numbers 

of animals potentially ‘taken’ by 

harassment (as defined in the MMPA). 

They would also provide information 

needed to order a power down or 

shutdown of airguns when a marine 

mammal is within or near the EZ. 

When a sighting is made, the 

following information about the sighting 

would be recorded: 

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

categories (if determinable), behavior 

when first sighted and after initial 

sighting, heading (if consistent), bearing 

and distance from seismic vessel, 

sighting cue, apparent reaction to the 

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

approach, paralleling, etc.), and 

behavioral pace. 

2. Time, location, heading, speed, 

activity of the vessel, sea state, 

visibility, and sun glare. 

All observations and power downs or 

shutdowns would be recorded in a 

standardized format. Data would be 

entered into an electronic database. The 

accuracy of the data entry would be 

verified by computerized data validity 

checks as the data are entered and by 

subsequent manual checking of the 

database. These procedures would allow 

initial summaries of data to be prepared 

during and shortly after the field 

program and would facilitate transfer of 

the data to statistical, graphical, and 

other programs for further processing 

and archiving. The time, location, 

heading, speed, activity of the vessel, 

sea state, visibility, and sun glare would 

also be recorded at the start and end of 

each observation watch, and during a 

watch whenever there is a change in one 

or more of the variables. 

Results from the vessel-based 

observations will provide: 

1. The basis for real-time mitigation 

(airgun power down or shut down). 

2. Information needed to estimate the 

number of marine mammals potentially 

taken by harassment, which must be 

reported to NMFS. 

3. Data on the occurrence, 

distribution, and activities of marine 

mammals in the area where the seismic 

study is conducted. 

4. Information to compare the 

distance and distribution of marine 

mammals relative to the source vessel at 

times with and without seismic activity. 

5. Data on the behavior and 

movement patterns of marine mammals 

seen at times with and without seismic 

activity. 

Vessel-Based Passive Acoustic 

Monitoring 

PAM would take place to complement 

the visual monitoring program as 

described above. Please see the 

Mitigation section above for a 

description of the PAM system and the 

acoustic PSO’s duties. The acoustic PSO 

would record data collected via the 

PAM system, including the following: 

An acoustic encounter identification 

number, whether it was linked with a 

visual sighting, date, time when first 

and last heard and whenever any 

additional information was recorded, 

position and water depth when first 

detected, bearing if determinable, 

species or species group (e.g., 

unidentified dolphin, sperm whale), 

types and nature of sounds heard (e.g., 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
45150 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Notices 

clicks, continuous, sporadic, whistles, 

creaks, burst pulses, strength of signal, 

etc.), and any other notable information. 

Acoustic detections would also be 

recorded for further analysis. 

Reporting 

A report would be submitted to NMFS 

within 90 days after the end of the 

cruise. The report would describe the 

operations that were conducted and 

sightings of marine mammals near the 

operations. The report would provide 

full documentation of methods, results, 

and interpretation pertaining to all 

monitoring. The 90-day report would 

summarize the dates and locations of 

seismic operations, and all marine 

mammal sightings (dates, times, 

locations, activities, associated seismic 

survey activities). The report would also 

include estimates of the number and 

nature of exposures that occurred above 

the harassment threshold based on PSO 

observations, including an estimate of 

those on the trackline but not detected. 

Negligible Impact Analysis and 

Determination 

NMFS has defined negligible impact 

as ‘‘an impact resulting from the 

specified activity that cannot be 

reasonably expected to, and is not 

reasonably likely to, adversely affect the 

species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival’’ 

(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact 

finding is based on the lack of likely 

adverse effects on annual rates of 

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

of takes alone is not enough information 

on which to base an impact 

determination. In addition to 

considering estimates of the number of 

marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’ 

through harassment, NMFS considers 

other factors, such as the likely nature 

of any responses (e.g., intensity, 

duration), the context of any responses 

(e.g., critical reproductive time or 

location, migration), as well as effects 

on habitat, and the likely effectiveness 

of the mitigation. We also assess the 

number, intensity, and context of 

estimated takes by evaluating this 

information relative to population 

status. Consistent with the 1989 

preamble for NMFS’ implementing 

regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 

1989), the impacts from other past and 

ongoing anthropogenic activities are 

incorporated into this analysis via their 

impacts on the environmental baseline 

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

of the species, population size and 

growth rate where known, ongoing 

sources of human-caused mortality, or 

ambient noise levels). 

To avoid repetition, our analysis 

applies to all the species listed in Table 

2, given that NMFS expects the 

anticipated effects of the proposed 

seismic survey to be similar in nature. 

Where there are meaningful differences 

between species or stocks, or groups of 

species, in anticipated individual 

responses to activities, impact of 

expected take on the population due to 

differences in population status, or 

impacts on habitat, NMFS has identified 

species-specific factors to inform the 

analysis. As described above, we 

propose to authorize only the takes 

estimated to occur outside of New 

Zealand territorial sea (Tables 11, 12, 13 

and 14); however, for the purposes of 

our negligible impact analysis and 

determination, we consider the total 

number of takes that are expected to 

occur as a result of the proposed survey, 

including those within territorial sea. 

Thus, our negligible impact analysis and 

determination accounts for the takes 

that are anticipated to occur as a result 

of the proposed surveys during the 

portions of those surveys that would 

occur within the territorial sea 

(approximately 9 percent of the North 

Island 2–D survey, 1 percent of the 

North Island 3–D survey, and 6 percent 

of the South Island 2–D survey), though 

we do not propose to authorize the 

incidental take of marine mammals 

during those portions of the proposed 

surveys. 

NMFS does not anticipate that serious 

injury or mortality would occur as a 

result of L–DEO’s proposed survey, even 

in the absence of proposed mitigation. 

Thus the proposed authorization does 

not authorize any mortality. As 

discussed in the Potential Effects 

section, non-auditory physical effects, 

stranding, and vessel strike are not 

expected to occur. 

We propose to authorize a limited 

number of instances of Level A 

harassment of 21 marine mammal 

species (Tables 11, 12, 13 and 14). 

However, we believe that any PTS 

incurred in marine mammals as a result 

of the proposed activity would be in the 

form of only a small degree of PTS, not 

total deafness, and would be unlikely to 

affect the fitness of any individuals, 

because of the constant movement of 

both the Langseth and of the marine 

mammals in the project area, as well as 

the fact that the vessel is not expected 

to remain in any one area in which 

individual marine mammals would be 

expected to concentrate for an extended 

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

exposure to loud sounds will be 

relatively short). Also, as described 

above, we expect that marine mammals 

would be likely to move away from a 

sound source that represents an aversive 

stimulus, especially at levels that would 

be expected to result in PTS, given 

sufficient notice of the Langseth’s 

approach due to the vessel’s relatively 

low speed when conducting seismic 

surveys. We expect that the majority of 

takes would be in the form of short-term 

Level B behavioral harassment in the 

form of temporary avoidance of the area 

or decreased foraging (if such activity 

were occurring), reactions that are 

considered to be of low severity and 

with no lasting biological consequences 

(e.g., Southall et al., 2007). 

Potential impacts to marine mammal 

habitat were discussed previously in 

this document (see Potential Effects of 

the Specified Activity on Marine 

Mammals and their Habitat). Marine 

mammal habitat may be impacted by 

elevated sound levels, but these impacts 

would be temporary. Feeding behavior 

is not likely to be significantly 

impacted, as marine mammals appear to 

be less likely to exhibit behavioral 

reactions or avoidance responses while 

engaged in feeding activities 

(Richardson et al., 1995). Prey species 

are mobile and are broadly distributed 

throughout the project 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, the 

availability of similar habitat and 

resources in the surrounding area, and 

the lack of important or unique marine 

mammal habitat, the impacts to marine 

mammals and the food sources that they 

utilize are not expected to cause 

significant or long-term consequences 

for individual marine mammals or their 

populations. In addition, there are no 

mating or calving areas known to be 

biologically important to marine 

mammals within the proposed project 

area. 

The activity is expected to impact a 

small percentage of all marine mammal 

stocks that would be affected by L– 

DEO’s proposed survey (less than 9 

percent for dusky dolphin and less than 

2 percent for all other marine mammal 

species). Additionally, the acoustic 

‘‘footprint’’ of the proposed survey 

would be small relative to the ranges of 

the marine mammals that would 

potentially be affected. Sound levels 

would increase in the marine 

environment in a relatively small area 

surrounding the vessel compared to the 

range of the marine mammals within the 

proposed survey area. 

The proposed mitigation measures are 

expected to reduce the number and/or 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Notices 45151 

severity of takes by allowing for 

detection of marine mammals in the 

vicinity of the vessel by visual and 

acoustic observers, and by minimizing 

the severity of any potential exposures 

via power downs and/or shutdowns of 

the airgun array. Based on previous 

monitoring reports for substantially 

similar activities that have been 

previously authorized by NMFS, we 

expect that the proposed mitigation will 

be effective in preventing at least some 

extent of potential PTS in marine 

mammals that may otherwise occur in 

the absence of the proposed mitigation. 

The ESA-listed marine mammal 

species under our jurisdiction that are 

likely to be taken by the proposed 

project include the southern right, sei, 

fin, blue, and sperm whale (listed as 

endangered) and the South Island 

Hector’s dolphin (listed as threatened). 

We propose to authorize very small 

numbers of takes for these species 

(Tables 11, 12, 13 and 14), relative to 

their population sizes, therefore we do 

not expect population-level impacts to 

any of these species. The other marine 

mammal species that may be taken by 

harassment during the proposed survey 

are not listed as threatened or 

endangered under the ESA. There is no 

designated critical habitat for any ESAlisted marine mammals within the 

project area; and of the non-listed 

marine mammals for which we propose 

to authorize take, none are considered 

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

under the MMPA. 

NMFS concludes that exposures to 

marine mammal species and stocks due 

to L–DEO’s proposed survey would 

result in only short-term (temporary and 

short in duration) effects to individuals 

exposed. Animals may temporarily 

avoid the immediate area, but are not 

expected to permanently abandon the 

area. Major shifts in habitat use, 

distribution, or foraging success are not 

expected. NMFS does not anticipate the 

proposed take estimates to impact 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

In summary and as described above, 

the following factors primarily support 

our preliminary determination that the 

impacts resulting from this activity are 

not expected to adversely affect the 

marine mammal species or stocks 

through effects on annual rates of 

recruitment or survival: 

b No serious injury or mortality is 

anticipated or authorized; 

b The anticipated impacts of the 

proposed activity on marine mammals 

would primarily be temporary 

behavioral changes due to avoidance of 

the area around the survey vessel; 

b The number of instances of PTS 

that may occur are expected to be very 

small in number (Tables 11, 12, 13 and 

14). Instances of PTS that are incurred 

in marine mammals would be of a low 

level, due to constant movement of the 

vessel and of the marine mammals in 

the area, and the nature of the survey 

design (not concentrated in areas of high 

marine mammal concentration); 

b The availability of alternate areas 

of similar habitat value for marine 

mammals to temporarily vacate the 

survey area during the proposed survey 

to avoid exposure to sounds from the 

activity; 

b The proposed project area does not 

contain known areas of significance for 

mating or calving; 

b The potential adverse effects on 

fish or invertebrate species that serve as 

prey species for marine mammals from 

the proposed survey would be 

temporary and spatially limited; 

b The proposed mitigation measures, 

including visual and acoustic 

monitoring, power-downs, and 

shutdowns, are expected to minimize 

potential impacts to marine mammals. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the likely effects of the 

specified activity on marine mammals 

and their habitat, and taking into 

consideration the implementation of the 

proposed monitoring and mitigation 

measures, NMFS preliminarily finds 

that the total marine mammal take from 

the proposed activity will have a 

negligible impact on all affected marine 

mammal species or stocks. 

Small Numbers 

As noted above, only small numbers 

of incidental take may be authorized 

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

for specified activities other than 

military readiness activities. The MMPA 

does not define small numbers; so, in 

practice, where estimated numbers are 

available, NMFS compares the number 

of individuals taken to the most 

appropriate estimation of abundance of 

the relevant species or stock in our 

determination of whether an 

authorization is limited to small 

numbers of marine mammals. 

Additionally, other qualitative factors 

may be considered in the analysis, such 

as the temporal or spatial scale of the 

activities. Tables 11, 12, 13 and 14 

provide numbers of take by Level A 

harassment and Level B harassment 

proposed for authorization. These are 

the numbers we use for purposes of the 

small numbers analysis. 

The numbers of marine mammals that 

we propose for authorization to be taken 

would be considered small relative to 

the relevant populations (less than 9 

percent for all species) for the species 

for which abundance estimates are 

available. No known current worldwide 

or regional population estimates are 

available for ten species under NMFS’ 

jurisdiction that could be incidentally 

taken as a result of the proposed 

surveys: The pygmy right whale; pygmy 

sperm whale; True’s beaked whale; 

short-finned pilot whale; false killer 

whale; bottlenose dolphin; short-beaked 

common dolphin; southern right whale 

dolphin; Risso’s dolphin; and 

spectacled porpoise. 

NMFS has reviewed the geographic 

distributions and habitat preferences of 

these species in determining whether 

the numbers of takes proposed for 

authorization herein are likely to 

represent small numbers. Pygmy right 

whales have a circumglobal distribution 

and occur throughout coastal and 

oceanic waters in the Southern 

Hemisphere (between 30 to 55° South) 

(Jefferson et al., 2008). Pygmy sperm 

whales occur in deep waters on the 

outer continental shelf and slope in 

tropical to temperate waters of the 

Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific Oceans. 

True’s beaked whales occur in the 

Southern hemisphere from the western 

Atlantic Ocean to the Indian Ocean to 

the waters of southern Australia and 

possibly New Zealand (Jefferson et al., 

2008). False killer whales generally 

occur in deep offshore tropical to 

temperate waters (between 50° North to 

50° South) of the Atlantic, Indian, and 

Pacific Oceans (Jefferson et al., 2008). 

Southern right whale dolphins have a 

circumpolar distribution and generally 

occur in deep temperate to subAntarctic waters in the Southern 

Hemisphere (between 30 to 65° South) 

(Jefferson et al., 2008). Short-finned 

Pilot Whales are found in warm 

temperate to tropical waters throughout 

the world, generally in deep offshore 

areas (Olson and Reilly, 2002). 

Bottlenose dolphins are distributed 

worldwide through tropical and 

temperate inshore, coastal, shelf, and 

oceanic waters (Leatherwood and 

Reeves 1990, Wells and Scott 1999, 

Reynolds et al. 2000). Spectacled 

porpoises are believed to have a range 

that is circumpolar in the sub-Antarctic 

zone (with water temperatures of at least 

1–10° C) (Goodall 2002). The Risso’s 

dolphin is a widely-distributed species, 

inhabiting primarily deep waters of the 

continental slope and outer shelf 

(especially with steep bottom 

topography), from the tropics through 

the temperate regions in both 

hemispheres (Kruse et al. 1999). The 

short-beaked common dolphin is an 

oceanic species that is widely 

distributed in tropical to cool temperate 

waters of the Atlantic and Pacific 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
45152 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Notices 

Oceans (Perrin 2002), from nearshore 

waters to thousands of kilometers 

offshore. 

Based on the broad spatial 

distributions and habitat preferences of 

these species relative to the areas where 

the proposed surveys would occur, 

NMFS preliminarily concludes that the 

authorized take of these species likely 

represent small numbers relative to the 

affected species’ overall population 

sizes, though we are unable to quantify 

the proposed take numbers as a 

percentage of population. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of the proposed activity 

(including the proposed mitigation and 

monitoring measures) and the 

anticipated take of marine mammals, 

NMFS preliminarily finds that small 

numbers of marine mammals will be 

taken relative to the population size of 

the affected species. 

Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis 

and Determination 

There are no relevant subsistence uses 

of the affected marine mammal stocks or 

species implicated by this action. 

Therefore, NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that the total taking of 

affected species or stocks would not 

have an unmitigable adverse impact on 

the availability of such species or stocks 

for taking for subsistence purposes. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered 

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

1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal 

agency insure that any action it 

authorizes, funds, or carries out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any endangered or 

threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. To ensure 

ESA compliance for the issuance of 

IHAs, NMFS consults internally, in this 

case with the ESA Interagency 

Cooperation Division, whenever we 

propose to authorize take for 

endangered or threatened species. 

The NMFS Permits and Conservation 

Division is proposing to authorize the 

incidental take of six species of marine 

mammals which are listed under the 

ESA (the southern right, sei, fin, blue, 

and sperm whale and South Island 

Hector’s dolphin). We have requested 

initiation of Section 7 consultation with 

the Interagency Cooperation Division for 

the issuance of this IHA. NMFS will 

conclude the ESA section 7 consultation 

prior to reaching a determination 

regarding the proposed issuance of the 

authorization. 

Proposed Authorization 

As a result of these preliminary 

determinations, NMFS proposes to issue 

an IHA to L–DEO for conducting a 

seismic survey in the Pacific Ocean 

offshore New Zealand in 2017/2018, 

provided the previously mentioned 

mitigation, monitoring, and reporting 

requirements are incorporated. This 

section contains a draft of the IHA itself. 

The wording contained in this section is 

proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if 

issued). 

1. This incidental harassment 

authorization (IHA) is valid for a period 

of one year from the date of issuance. 

2. This IHA is valid only for marine 

geophysical survey activity, as specified 

in L–DEO’s IHA application and using 

an array aboard the R/V Langseth with 

characteristics specified in the IHA 

application, in the Pacific Ocean 

offshore New Zealand. 

3. General Conditions. 

(a) A copy of this IHA must be in the 

possession of L–DEO, the vessel 

operator and other relevant personnel, 

the lead protected species observer 

(PSO), and any other relevant designees 

of L–DEO operating under the authority 

of this IHA. 

(b) The species authorized for taking 

are listed in Table 14. The taking, by 

Level A and Level B harassment only, 

is limited to the species and numbers 

listed in Table 14. Any taking exceeding 

the authorized amounts listed in Table 

14 is prohibited and may result in the 

modification, suspension, or revocation 

of this IHA. 

(c) The taking by serious injury or 

death of any species of marine mammal 

is prohibited and may result in the 

modification, suspension, or revocation 

of this IHA. 

(d) During use of the airgun(s), if 

marine mammal species other than 

those listed in Table 1 are detected by 

PSOs, the acoustic source must be shut 

down to avoid unauthorized take. 

(e) L–DEO shall ensure that the vessel 

operator and other relevant vessel 

personnel are briefed on all 

responsibilities, communication 

procedures, marine mammal monitoring 

protocol, operational procedures, and 

IHA requirements prior to the start of 

survey activity, and when relevant new 

personnel join the survey operations. 

4. Mitigation Requirements. 

The holder of this Authorization is 

required to implement the following 

mitigation measures: 

(a) L–DEO must use at least five 

dedicated, trained, NMFS-approved 

Protected Species Observers (PSOs), 

including at least four visual PSOs and 

one acoustic PSO. The PSOs must have 

no tasks other than to conduct 

observational effort, record 

observational data, and communicate 

with and instruct relevant vessel crew 

with regard to the presence of marine 

mammals and mitigation requirements. 

PSO resumes shall be provided to 

NMFS for approval. 

(b) At least two PSOs must have a 

minimum of 90 days at-sea experience 

working as PSOs during a high energy 

seismic survey, with no more than 

eighteen months elapsed since the 

conclusion of the at-sea experience. At 

least one of these must have relevant 

experience as a visual PSO and at least 

one must have relevant experience as an 

acoustic PSO. One ‘‘experienced’’ visual 

PSO shall be designated as the lead for 

the entire protected species observation 

team. The lead shall coordinate duty 

schedules and roles for the PSO team 

and serve as primary point of contact for 

the vessel operator. The lead PSO shall 

devise the duty schedule such that 

‘‘experienced’’ PSOs are on duty with 

those PSOs with appropriate training 

but who have not yet gained relevant 

experience, to the maximum extent 

practicable. 

(c) Visual Observation. 

(i) During survey operations (e.g., any 

day on which use of the acoustic source 

is planned to occur; whenever the 

acoustic source is in the water, whether 

activated or not), two PSOs must be on 

duty and conducting visual observations 

at all times during daylight hours (i.e., 

from 30 minutes prior to sunrise 

through 30 minutes following sunset) 

with the limited exception of meal times 

during which one PSO may be on duty. 

PSOs shall monitor the entire extent of 

the estimated Level B harassment zone 

(or, as far as they can see, if they cannot 

see to the extent of the estimated Level 

B harassment zone). 

(ii) Visual monitoring must begin not 

less than 30 minutes prior to ramp-up, 

including for nighttime ramp-ups of the 

airgun array, and must continue until 

one hour after use of the acoustic source 

ceases or until 30 minutes past sunset. 

(iii) Visual PSOs shall coordinate to 

ensure 360° visual coverage around the 

vessel from the most appropriate 

observation posts and shall conduct 

visual observations using binoculars 

and the naked eye while free from 

distractions and in a consistent, 

systematic, and diligent manner. 

(iv) Visual PSOs shall communicate 

all observations to the acoustic PSO, 

including any determination by the PSO 

regarding species identification, 

distance, and bearing and the degree of 

confidence in the determination. 

(v) Visual PSOs may be on watch for 

a maximum of four consecutive hours 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Notices 45153 

followed by a break of at least one hour 

between watches and may conduct a 

maximum of 12 hours observation per 

24 hour period. 

(vi) During good conditions (e.g., 

daylight hours; Beaufort sea state 3 or 

less), visual PSOs shall conduct 

observations when the acoustic source 

is not operating for comparison of 

sighting rates and behavior with and 

without use of the acoustic source and 

between acquisition periods, to the 

maximum extent practicable. 

(d) Acoustic Observation—The R/V 

Langseth must use a towed passive 

acoustic monitoring (PAM) system, 

which must be monitored beginning at 

least 30 minutes prior to ramp-up and 

at all times during use of the acoustic 

source. 

(i) One acoustic PSO (in addition to 

the four visual PSOs) must be on board 

to operate and oversee PAM operations. 

Either the acoustic PSO or a visual PSO 

with training in the PAM system must 

monitor the PAM system at all times 

while airguns are operating, and when 

possible during periods when the 

airguns are not operating, in shifts 

lasting no longer than six hours. 

(ii) Acoustic PSOs shall communicate 

all detections to visual PSOs, when 

visual PSOs are on duty, including any 

determination by the PSO regarding 

species identification, distance, and 

bearing and the degree of confidence in 

the determination. 

(iii) Survey activity may continue for 

brief periods of time if the PAM system 

malfunctions or is damaged. Activity 

may continue for 30 minutes without 

PAM while the PAM operator diagnoses 

the issue. If the diagnosis indicates that 

the PAM system must be repaired to 

solve the problem, operations may 

continue for an additional two hours 

without acoustic monitoring under the 

following conditions: 

(A) Daylight hours and sea state is less 

than or equal to Beaufort sea state 4; 

(B) No marine mammals (excluding 

small delphinids) detected solely by 

PAM in the exclusion zone in the 

previous two hours; 

(C) NMFS is notified via email as soon 

as practicable with the time and 

location in which operations began 

without an active PAM system; and 

(D) Operations with an active acoustic 

source, but without an operating PAM 

system, do not exceed a cumulative total 

of four hours in any 24 hour period. 

(e) Exclusion Zone and buffer zone— 

PSOs shall establish and monitor a 500 

m exclusion zone (EZ) and 1,000 m 

buffer zone. The zones shall be based 

upon radial distance from any element 

of the airgun array (rather than being 

based on the center of the array or 

around the vessel itself). During use of 

the acoustic source, occurrence of 

marine mammals outside the EZ but 

within 1,000 m from any element of the 

airgun array shall be communicated to 

the operator to prepare for potential 

further mitigation measures as described 

below. During use of the acoustic 

source, occurrence of marine mammals 

within the EZ, or on a course to enter 

the EZ, shall trigger further mitigation 

measures as described below. 

(i) Ramp-up—A ramp-up procedure, 

involving a step-wise increase in the 

number of airguns firing and total array 

volume until all operational airguns are 

activated and the full volume is 

achieved, is required at all times as part 

of the activation of the acoustic source, 

including following a power down or 

shutdown of the array, except as 

described under 4.(e)(v). Ramp-up shall 

begin by activating a single airgun of the 

smallest volume in the array and shall 

continue in stages by doubling the 

number of active elements at the 

commencement of each stage, with each 

stage of approximately the same 

duration. 

(ii) If the airgun array has been 

powered down or shut down due to a 

marine mammal detection, ramp-up 

shall not occur until all marine 

mammals have cleared the EZ. A marine 

mammal is considered to have cleared 

the EZ if: 

(A) It has been visually observed to 

have left the EZ; or 

(B) It has not been observed within 

the EZ, for 15 minutes (in the case of 

small odontocetes and pinnipeds) or for 

30 minutes (in the case of mysticetes 

and large odontocetes including sperm, 

pygmy sperm, dwarf sperm, and beaked 

whales). 

(iii) Thirty minutes of pre-clearance 

observation of the 500 m EZ and 1,000 

m buffer zone are required prior to 

ramp-up for any power down, 

shutdown, or combination of power 

down and shutdown of longer than 30 

minutes. This pre-clearance period may 

occur during any vessel activity. If any 

marine mammal (including delphinids) 

is observed within or approaching the 

500 m EZ during the 30 minute preclearance period, ramp-up may not 

begin until the animal(s) has been 

observed exiting the buffer zone or until 

an additional time period has elapsed 

with no further sightings (i.e., 15 

minutes for small odontocetes and 

pinnipeds, and 30 minutes for 

mysticetes and large odontocetes 

including sperm, pygmy sperm, dwarf 

sperm, and beaked whales). 

(iv) During ramp-up, PSOs shall 

monitor the 500 m EZ and 1,000 m 

buffer zone. Ramp-up may not be 

initiated if any marine mammal 

(including delphinids) is observed 

within or approaching the 500 m EZ. If 

a marine mammal is observed within or 

approaching the 500 m EZ during rampup, a power down or shutdown shall be 

implemented as though the full array 

were operational. Ramp-up may not 

begin again until the animal(s) has been 

observed exiting the 500 m EZ or until 

an additional time period has elapsed 

with no further sightings (i.e., 15 

minutes for small odontocetes and 

pinnipeds, and 30 minutes for 

mysticetes and large odontocetes 

including sperm, pygmy sperm, dwarf 

sperm, and beaked whales). 

(v) Ramp-up shall only occur at night 

and at times of poor visibility where 

operational planning cannot reasonably 

avoid such circumstances. Ramp-up 

may occur at night and during poor 

visibility if the 500 m EZ and 1,000 m 

buffer zone have been continually 

monitored by visual PSOs for 30 

minutes prior to ramp-up with no 

marine mammal detections and if 

acoustic monitoring has occurred for 30 

minutes prior to ramp-up with no 

acoustic detections during that period. 

(vi) If the airgun array has been shut 

down for reasons other than mitigation 

(e.g., mechanical difficulty) for a period 

of less than 30 minutes, it may be 

activated again without ramp-up if PSOs 

have maintained constant visual and 

acoustic observation and no visual 

detections of any marine mammal have 

occurred within the buffer zone and no 

acoustic detections have occurred. 

(vii) The vessel operator must notify 

a designated PSO of the planned start of 

ramp-up as agreed-upon with the lead 

PSO; the notification time should not be 

less than 60 minutes prior to the 

planned ramp-up. A designated PSO 

must be notified again immediately 

prior to initiating ramp-up procedures 

and the operator must receive 

confirmation from the PSO to proceed. 

(f) Power Down Requirements—L– 

DEO shall power down the airgun array 

if a PSO detects a marine mammal 

within, approaching, or entering the 500 

m EZ. A power down involves a 

decrease in the number of operational 

airguns. During a power down, one 40- 

in3 airgun shall be continuously 

operated. 

(i) Any PSO on duty has the authority 

to call for power down of the airgun 

array (visual PSOs on duty should be in 

agreement on the need for power down 

before requiring such action). When 

there is certainty regarding the need for 

mitigation action on the basis of either 

visual or acoustic detection alone, the 

relevant PSO(s) must call for such 

action immediately. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
45154 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Notices 

(ii) When both visual and acoustic 

PSOs are on duty, all detections must be 

immediately communicated to the 

remainder of the on-duty PSO team for 

potential verification of visual 

observations by the acoustic PSO or of 

acoustic detections by visual PSOs and 

initiation of dialogue as necessary. 

(iii) The operator must establish and 

maintain clear lines of communication 

directly between PSOs on duty and 

crew controlling the airgun array to 

ensure that power down commands are 

conveyed swiftly while allowing PSOs 

to maintain watch. 

(iv) When power down is called for by 

a PSO, the power down must occur and 

any dispute resolved only following 

power down. 

(v) The power down requirement is 

waived for dolphins of the following 

genera: Tursiops, Delphinus and 

Lissodelphis. This power down waiver 

only applies if animals are traveling, 

including approaching the vessel. If 

animals are stationary and the vessel 

approaches the animals, the power 

down requirement applies. If there is 

uncertainty regarding identification (i.e., 

whether the observed animal(s) belongs 

to the group described above) or 

whether the animals are traveling, 

power down must be implemented. 

(vi) Upon implementation of a power 

down, the source may be reactivated 

under the conditions described at 4(e). 

Where there is no relevant zone (e.g., 

power down due to observation of a 

calf), a 30-minute clearance period must 

be observed following the last 

observation of the animal(s). 

(vii) When only the acoustic PSO is 

on duty and a detection is made, if there 

is uncertainty regarding species 

identification or distance to the 

vocalizing animal(s), the airgun array 

must be powered down as a precaution. 

(viii) Power down shall occur for no 

more than a maximum of 30 minutes at 

any given time. If, after 30 minutes of 

the array being powered down, marine 

mammals have not cleared the 500 m 

Exclusion Zone as described under 

4(e)(iv), the array shall be shut down. 

Operation of the single 40-in3 airgun 

(i.e., a power-down state) shall not occur 

for any purpose other than in response 

to a marine mammal in the exclusion 

zone (pursuant to relevant requirements 

herein). 

(g) Shutdown requirements—An 

exclusion zone of 100 m for the single 

40-in3 airgun shall be established and 

monitored by PSOs. If a marine mammal 

is observed within, entering, or 

approaching the 100 m exclusion zone 

for the single 40-in3 airgun, whether 

during implementation of a power down 

or during operation of the full airgun 

array, all airguns including the 40-in3

airgun shall be shut down. 

(h) If, after 30 minutes of the array 

being powered down, marine mammals 

have not cleared the 500 m Exclusion 

Zone as described under 4(e)(iv), the 

full array shall be shut down. 

(i) Upon implementation of a 

shutdown, the source may be 

reactivated under the conditions 

described at 4(e). 

(ii) Measures described for power 

downs under 4(f)(i-v) shall also apply in 

the case of a shutdown. 

(iii) Shutdown of the acoustic source 

is required upon observation of a large 

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

whale) with calf at any distance, with 

‘‘calf’’ defined as an animal less than 

two-thirds the body size of an adult 

observed to be in close association with 

an adult. Ramp up shall not begin until 

the whale with calf has not been 

observed for at least 30 minutes, at any 

distance. 

(iv) Shutdown of the acoustic source 

is required upon observation of a beaked 

whale or kogia spp., at any distance. 

Ramp up shall not begin until the 

beaked whale or kogia has not been 

observed for at least 30 minutes, at any 

distance. 

(v) Shutdown of the acoustic source is 

required upon observation of a Hector’s 

dolphin, at any distance, during the 

North Island 2–D survey and North 

Island 3–D survey. Ramp up shall not 

begin until the Hector’s dolphin has not 

been observed for at least 15 minutes, at 

any distance. 

(i) Vessel Strike Avoidance—Vessel 

operator and crew must maintain a 

vigilant watch for all marine mammals 

and slow down or stop the vessel or 

alter course to avoid striking any marine 

mammal. These requirements do not 

apply in any case where compliance 

would create an imminent and serious 

threat to a person or vessel or to the 

extent that a vessel is restricted in its 

ability to maneuver and, because of the 

restriction, cannot comply. A visual 

observer aboard the vessel must monitor 

a vessel strike avoidance zone around 

the vessel according to the parameters 

stated below. Visual observers 

monitoring the vessel strike avoidance 

zone can be either third-party observers 

or crew members, but crew members 

responsible for these duties must be 

provided sufficient training to 

distinguish marine mammals from other 

phenomena. Vessel strike avoidance 

measures shall be followed during 

surveys and while in transit. 

(i) The vessel must maintain a 

minimum separation distance of 100 m 

from large whales (i.e., baleen whales 

and sperm whales). The following 

avoidance measures must be taken if a 

large whale is within 100 m of the 

vessel: 

(A) The vessel must reduce speed and 

shift the engine to neutral, and must not 

engage the engines until the whale has 

moved outside of the vessel’s path and 

the minimum separation distance has 

been established. 

(B) If the vessel is stationary, the 

vessel must not engage engines until the 

whale(s) has moved out of the vessel’s 

path and beyond 100 m. 

(ii) The vessel must maintain a 

minimum separation distance of 50 m 

from all other marine mammals, with an 

exception made for animals described in 

4(f)(v) that approach the vessel. If an 

animal is encountered during transit, 

the vessel shall attempt to remain 

parallel to the animal’s course, avoiding 

excessive speed or abrupt changes in 

course. 

(iii) Vessel speeds must be reduced to 

10 knots or less when mother/calf pairs, 

pods, or large assemblages of cetaceans 

are observed near the vessel. 

(j) Miscellaneous Protocols. 

(i) The airgun array must be 

deactivated when not acquiring data or 

preparing to acquire data, except as 

necessary for testing. Unnecessary use 

of the acoustic source shall be avoided. 

Notified operational capacity (not 

including redundant backup airguns) 

must not be exceeded during the survey, 

except where unavoidable for source 

testing and calibration purposes. All 

occasions where activated source 

volume exceeds notified operational 

capacity must be noticed to the PSO(s) 

on duty and fully documented. The lead 

PSO must be granted access to relevant 

instrumentation documenting acoustic 

source power and/or operational 

volume. 

(ii) Testing of the acoustic source 

involving all elements requires normal 

mitigation protocols (e.g., ramp-up). 

Testing limited to individual source 

elements or strings does not require 

ramp-up but does require pre-clearance. 

5. Monitoring Requirements. 

The holder of this Authorization is 

required to conduct marine mammal 

monitoring during survey activity. 

Monitoring shall be conducted in 

accordance with the following 

requirements: 

(a) The operator must provide bigeye 

binoculars (e.g., 25 x 150; 2.7 view 

angle; individual ocular focus; height 

control) of appropriate quality (i.e., 

Fujinon or equivalent) solely for PSO 

use. These shall be pedestal-mounted on 

the deck at the most appropriate vantage 

point that provides for optimal sea 

surface observation, PSO safety, and 

safe operation of the vessel. The 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Notices 45155 

operator must also provide a nightvision device suited for the marine 

environment for use during nighttime 

ramp-up pre-clearance, at the discretion 

of the PSOs. At minimum, the device 

should feature automatic brightness and 

gain control, bright light protection, 

infrared illumination, and optics suited 

for low-light situations. 

(b) PSOs must also be equipped with 

reticle binoculars (e.g., 7 x 50) of 

appropriate quality (i.e., Fujinon or 

equivalent), GPS, digital single-lens 

reflex camera of appropriate quality 

(i.e., Canon or equivalent), compass, and 

any other tools necessary to adequately 

perform necessary tasks, including 

accurate determination of distance and 

bearing to observed marine mammals. 

(c) PSO Qualifications. 

(i) PSOs must have successfully 

completed relevant training, including 

completion of all required coursework 

and passing a written and/or oral 

examination developed for the training 

program. 

(ii) PSOs must have successfully 

attained a bachelor’s degree from an 

accredited college or university with a 

major in one of the natural sciences and 

a minimum of 30 semester hours or 

equivalent in the biological sciences and 

at least one undergraduate course in 

math or statistics. The educational 

requirements may be waived if the PSO 

has acquired the relevant skills through 

alternate experience. Requests for such 

a waiver must include written 

justification. Alternate experience that 

may be considered includes, but is not 

limited to (1) secondary education and/ 

or experience comparable to PSO duties; 

(2) previous work experience 

conducting academic, commercial, or 

government-sponsored marine mammal 

surveys; or (3) previous work experience 

as a PSO. The PSO should demonstrate 

good standing and consistently good 

performance of PSO duties. 

(d) Data Collection—PSOs must use 

standardized data forms, whether hard 

copy or electronic. PSOs shall record 

detailed information about any 

implementation of mitigation 

requirements, including the distance of 

animals to the acoustic source and 

description of specific actions that 

ensued, the behavior of the animal(s), 

any observed changes in behavior before 

and after implementation of mitigation, 

and if shutdown was implemented, the 

length of time before any subsequent 

ramp-up of the acoustic source to 

resume survey. If required mitigation 

was not implemented, PSOs should 

submit a description of the 

circumstances. NMFS requires that, at a 

minimum, the following information be 

reported: 

(i) PSO names and affiliations. 

(ii) Dates of departures and returns to 

port with port name. 

(iii) Dates and times (Greenwich Mean 

Time) of survey effort and times 

corresponding with PSO effort. 

(iv) Vessel location (latitude/ 

longitude) when survey effort begins 

and ends; vessel location at beginning 

and end of visual PSO duty shifts. 

(v) Vessel heading and speed at 

beginning and end of visual PSO duty 

shifts and upon any line change. 

(vi) Environmental conditions while 

on visual survey (at beginning and end 

of PSO shift and whenever conditions 

change significantly), including wind 

speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, 

Beaufort wind force, swell height, 

weather conditions, cloud cover, sun 

glare, and overall visibility to the 

horizon. 

(vii) Factors that may be contributing 

to impaired observations during each 

PSO shift change or as needed as 

environmental conditions change (e.g., 

vessel traffic, equipment malfunctions). 

(viii) Survey activity information, 

such as acoustic source power output 

while in operation, number and volume 

of airguns operating in the array, tow 

depth of the array, and any other notes 

of significance (i.e., pre-ramp-up survey, 

ramp-up, shutdown, testing, shooting, 

ramp-up completion, end of operations, 

streamers, etc.). 

(ix) If a marine mammal is sighted, 

the following information should be 

recorded: 

(A) Watch status (sighting made by 

PSO on/off effort, opportunistic, crew, 

alternate vessel/platform). 

(B) PSO who sighted the animal. 

(C) Time of sighting. 

(D) Vessel location at time of sighting. 

(E) Water depth. 

(F) Direction of vessel’s travel 

(compass direction). 

(G) Direction of animal’s travel 

relative to the vessel. 

(H) Pace of the animal. 

(I) Estimated distance to the animal 

and its heading relative to vessel at 

initial sighting. 

(J) Identification of the animal (e.g., 

genus/species, lowest possible 

taxonomic level, or unidentified); also 

note the composition of the group if 

there is a mix of species. 

(K) Estimated number of animals 

(high/low/best). 

(L) Estimated number of animals by 

cohort (adults, yearlings, juveniles, 

calves, group composition, etc.). 

(M) Description (as many 

distinguishing features as possible of 

each individual seen, including length, 

shape, color, pattern, scars or markings, 

shape and size of dorsal fin, shape of 

head, and blow characteristics). 

(N) Detailed behavior observations 

(e.g., number of blows, number of 

surfaces, breaching, spyhopping, diving, 

feeding, traveling; as explicit and 

detailed as possible; note any observed 

changes in behavior). 

(O) Animal’s closest point of 

approach (CPA) and/or closest distance 

from the center point of the acoustic 

source;. 

(P) Platform activity at time of 

sighting (e.g., deploying, recovering, 

testing, shooting, data acquisition, 

other). 

(Q) Description of any actions 

implemented in response to the sighting 

(e.g., delays, shutdown, ramp-up, speed 

or course alteration, etc.); time and 

location of the action should also be 

recorded. 

(x) If a marine mammal is detected 

while using the PAM system, the 

following information should be 

recorded: 

(A) An acoustic encounter 

identification number, and whether the 

detection was linked with a visual 

sighting. 

(B) Time when first and last heard. 

(C) Types and nature of sounds heard 

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

pulses, continuous, sporadic, strength of 

signal, etc.). 

(D) Any additional information 

recorded such as water depth of the 

hydrophone array, bearing of the animal 

to the vessel (if determinable), species 

or taxonomic group (if determinable), 

and any other notable information. 

6. Reporting. 

(a) L–DEO shall submit a draft 

comprehensive report on all activities 

and monitoring results within 90 days 

of the completion of the survey or 

expiration of the IHA, whichever comes 

sooner. The report must describe all 

activities conducted and sightings of 

marine mammals near the activities, 

must provide full documentation of 

methods, results, and interpretation 

pertaining to all monitoring, and must 

summarize the dates and locations of 

survey operations and all marine 

mammal sightings (dates, times, 

locations, activities, associated survey 

activities). Geospatial data regarding 

locations where the acoustic source was 

used must be provided. In addition to 

the report, all raw observational data 

shall be made available to NMFS. The 

report must summarize the data 

collected as required under condition 

5(d) of this IHA. The report must also 

provide an estimate of the number (by 

species) of marine mammals with 

known exposures to seismic survey 

activity at received levels greater than or 

equal to thresholds for Level A and 

Level B harassment (based on visual 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
45156 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 186 / Wednesday, September 27, 2017 / Notices 

observation) including an estimate of 

those on the trackline but not detected. 

The draft report must be accompanied 

by a certification from the lead PSO as 

to the accuracy of the report, and the 

lead PSO may submit directly to NMFS 

a statement concerning implementation 

and effectiveness of the required 

mitigation and monitoring. A final 

report must be submitted within 30 days 

following resolution of any comments 

from NMFS on the draft report. 

(b) Reporting injured or dead marine 

mammals: 

(i) In the event that the specified 

activity clearly causes the take of a 

marine mammal in a manner not 

permitted by this IHA, such as serious 

injury or mortality, L–DEO shall 

immediately cease the specified 

activities and immediately report the 

incident to the NMFS Office of 

Protected Resources (301–427–8401) 

and the New Zealand Department of 

Conservation (0800–362–468). The 

report must include the following 

information: 

(A) Time, date, and location (latitude/ 

longitude) of the incident; 

(B) Vessel’s speed during and leading 

up to the incident; 

(C) Description of the incident; 

(D) Status of all sound source use in 

the 24 hours preceding the incident; 

(E) Water depth; 

(F) Environmental conditions (e.g., 

wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea 

state, cloud cover, and visibility); 

(G) Description of all marine mammal 

observations in the 24 hours preceding 

the incident; 

(H) Species identification or 

description of the animal(s) involved; 

(I) Fate of the animal(s); and 

(J) Photographs or video footage of the 

animal(s). 

Activities shall not resume until 

NMFS is able to review the 

circumstances of the prohibited take. 

NMFS will work with L–DEO to 

determine what measures are necessary 

to minimize the likelihood of further 

prohibited take and ensure MMPA 

compliance. L–DEO may not resume 

their activities until notified by NMFS. 

(ii) In the event that L–DEO discovers 

an injured or dead marine mammal, and 

the lead observer determines that the 

cause of the injury or death is unknown 

and the death is relatively recent (e.g., 

in less than a moderate state of 

decomposition), L–DEO shall 

immediately report the incident to the 

NMFS Office of Protected Resources 

(301–427–8401) and the New Zealand 

Department of Conservation (0800–362– 

468). The report must include the same 

information identified in condition 

6(b)(i) of this IHA. Activities may 

continue while NMFS reviews the 

circumstances of the incident. NMFS 

will work with L–DEO to determine 

whether additional mitigation measures 

or modifications to the activities are 

appropriate. 

(iii) In the event that L–DEO discovers 

an injured or dead marine mammal, and 

the lead observer determines that the 

injury or death is not associated with or 

related to the specified activities (e.g., 

previously wounded animal, carcass 

with moderate to advanced 

decomposition, or scavenger damage), 

L–DEO shall report the incident to the 

NMFS Office of Protected Resources 

(301–427–8401) and the New Zealand 

Department of Conservation (0800–362– 

468) within 24 hours of the discovery. 

L–DEO shall provide photographs or 

video footage or other documentation of 

the sighting to NMFS. 

7. This Authorization may be 

modified, suspended or withdrawn if 

the holder fails to abide by the 

conditions prescribed herein, or if 

NMFS determines the authorized taking 

is having more than a negligible impact 

on the species or stock of affected 

marine mammals. 

Dated: September 22, 2017. 

Catherine Marzin, 

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–20696 Filed 9–26–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES