Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Geophysical Surveys in the Atlantic Ocean, 26244-26334 [2017-11542]
Download as PDF
26244
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XE283
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to
Specified Activities; Taking Marine
Mammals Incidental to Geophysical
Surveys in the Atlantic Ocean
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; five proposed incidental
harassment authorizations; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
NMFS has received five
requests for authorization to take marine
mammals incidental to conducting
geophysical survey activity in the
Atlantic Ocean. Pursuant to the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS
is requesting comments on its proposal
to issue incidental harassment
authorizations (IHA) to incidentally take
marine mammals during the specified
activities.
SUMMARY:
Comments and information must
be received no later than July 6, 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.Laws@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 25megabyte 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/oilgas.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.
Information Solicited: NMFS is
seeking public input on these requests
for authorization as outlined below and
request that interested persons submit
information, suggestions, and comments
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
DATES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
concerning the applications. We will
only consider comments that are
relevant to marine mammal species that
occur in U.S. waters of the Mid- and
South Atlantic and the potential effects
of geophysical survey activities on those
species and their habitat.
Comments indicating general support
for or opposition to hydrocarbon
exploration or any comments relating to
hydrocarbon development (e.g., leasing,
drilling) are not relevant to this request
for comments and will not be
considered. Comments should indicate
whether they are general to the
proposed authorizations described
herein or are specific to one or more of
the five proposed authorizations, and
should be supported by data or
literature citations as appropriate.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben
Laws, Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS, (301) 427–8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability
Electronic copies of the applications
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/oilgas.htm. In case of
problems accessing these documents,
please call the contact listed above.
National Environmental Policy Act
In 2014, the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management (BOEM) produced a
Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement (PEIS) to evaluate potential
significant environmental effects of
geological and geophysical (G&G)
activities on the Mid- and South
Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS),
pursuant to requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). These activities include
geophysical surveys in support of
hydrocarbon exploration, as are
proposed in the MMPA applications
before NMFS. The PEIS is available
online at: www.boem.gov/Atlantic-G-GPEIS/. NMFS participated in
development of the PEIS as a
cooperating agency and believes it
appropriate to adopt the analysis in
order to assess the impacts to the human
environment of issuance of the subject
IHAs. Information in the IHA
applications, BOEM’s PEIS, and this
notice collectively provide the
environmental information related to
proposed issuance of these IHAs for
public review and comment.
We will review all comments
submitted in response to this notice as
we complete the NEPA process,
including a final decision of whether to
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
adopt BOEM’s PEIS and sign a Record
of Decision related to issuance of IHAs,
prior to a final decision on the
incidental take authorization requests.
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the
MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct
the Secretary of Commerce to allow,
upon request, the incidental, but not
intentional, taking of small numbers of
marine mammals by U.S. citizens who
engage in a specified activity (other than
commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region if certain findings
are made and either regulations are
issued or, if the taking is limited to
harassment, a notice of a proposed
authorization is provided to the public
for review.
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.’’
Except with respect to certain
activities not pertinent here, the MMPA
defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i)
has the potential to injure a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has
the potential to disturb a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild by causing disruption of behavioral
patterns, including, but not limited to,
migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering (Level B
harassment).
Summary of Requests
In 2014–15, we received five separate
requests for authorization for take of
marine mammals incidental to
geophysical surveys in support of
hydrocarbon exploration in the Atlantic
Ocean. The applicants are companies
that provide services, such as
geophysical data acquisition, to the oil
and gas industry. Upon review of these
requests, we submitted questions,
comments, and requests for additional
information to the individual applicant
companies. As a result of these
interactions, the applicant companies
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
provided revised versions of the
applications that we determined were
adequate and complete.
On August 18, 2014, we received an
application from Spectrum Geo Inc.
(Spectrum), followed by revised
versions on November 25, 2014, May 14,
2015, and July 6, 2015. TGS–NOPEC
Geophysical Company (TGS) submitted
an application on August 25, 2014,
followed by revised versions on
November 17, 2014, and July 21, 2015.
We also received a request from ION
GeoVentures (ION) on September 5,
2014, followed by a revised version on
June 24, 2015.
We subsequently posted these
applications for public review and
sought public input (80 FR 45195; July
29, 2015), stating that we would only
consider comments relevant to marine
mammal species that occur in U.S.
waters of the Mid- and South Atlantic
and the potential effects of geophysical
survey activities on those species. We
stated further that any comments should
be supported by data or literature
citations as appropriate, that comments
indicating general support for or
opposition to oil and gas exploration
and development would not be
considered inasmuch as such comments
are not relevant to our consideration of
the requests under the MMPA, and that
we were particularly interested in
information addressing the following
topics:
1. Best available scientific information
and appropriate use of such information
in assessing potential effects of the
specified activities on marine mammals
and their habitat;
2. Application approaches to
estimating acoustic exposure and take of
marine mammals; and,
3. Appropriate mitigation measures
and monitoring requirements for these
activities.
We note that this notice for proposed
IHAs does not concern one additional
company (TDI-Brooks International, Inc.
(TDI Brooks)) whose application was
referenced in our July 29, 2015, Federal
Register notice, and includes two other
companies (WesternGeco, LLC
(Western) and CGG) whose applications
were not included in our July 29, 2015,
notice. TDI-Brooks International, Inc.
submitted a request for authorization
related to a proposed survey to conduct
deep water multibeam bathymetry and
sub-bottom profiler data acquisition on
October 22, 2014. However, public
comment indicated that this application
was improperly considered adequate
and complete, and we subsequently
concurred with this assessment and
returned the application to TDI-Brooks
for revision. We will provide separate
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
notice of any proposed authorization
related to this applicant upon receipt of
an adequate and complete application,
if appropriate.
The comments and information
received during this public review
period informed development of the
proposed IHAs discussed in this notice,
and all letters received are available
online at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
permits/incidental/oilgas.htm.
Following the close of the public
review period, we received revised
versions of several applications: From
Spectrum on September 18, 2015, and
from TGS on February 10, 2016. We
received additional information from
ION on February 29, 2016. Spectrum
revised the scope of their proposed
survey effort, while TGS and ION
revised their estimates of the number of
potential incidents of marine mammal
exposure to underwater noise. Western
submitted a request for authorization on
March 3, 2015, followed by a revised
version on February 17, 2016, that we
determined was adequate and complete.
CGG submitted a request for
authorization on December 21, 2015,
followed by revised versions on
February 18, 2016, April 6, 2016, and
May 26, 2016. These applications are
adequate and complete at this time and
are substantially similar to other
applications previously released for
public review. We do not anticipate
offering additional discretionary public
review of applications should we
receive further requests for
authorization related to proposed
geophysical survey activity in the
Atlantic Ocean.
All requested authorizations would be
valid for the statutory maximum of one
year from the date of effectiveness. All
applicants propose to conduct twodimensional (2D) marine seismic
surveys using airgun arrays. Generally
speaking, these surveys may occur
within the U.S. Exclusive Economic
Zone (i.e., to 200 nautical miles (nmi))
from Delaware to approximately Cape
Canaveral, Florida and corresponding
with BOEM’s Mid- and South Atlantic
OCS planning areas, as well as
additional waters out to 350 nmi from
shore (Figure 1). Please see the
applications for specific details of
survey design. The use of airgun arrays
is expected to produce underwater
sound at levels that have the potential
to result in harassment of marine
mammals. Multiple cetacean species
with the expected potential to be
present during all or a portion of the
proposed surveys are described below.
Because the specified activity,
specified geographic region, and
proposed dates of activity are
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
26245
substantially similar for the five
separate requests for authorization, we
have determined it appropriate to
provide a joint notice for the five
proposed authorizations. However,
while we provide relevant information
together, we consider the potential
impacts of the specified activities
independently and make preliminary
determinations specific to each request
for authorization, as required by the
MMPA.
Description of the Specified Activities
In this section, we provide a
generalized discussion that is broadly
applicable to all five requests for
authorization, with project-specific
portions indicated.
Overview
The five applicants propose to
conduct deep penetration seismic
surveys using airgun arrays as an
acoustic source. Seismic surveys are one
method of obtaining geophysical data
used to characterize the subsurface
structure, in this case in support of
hydrocarbon exploration. The proposed
surveys would be 2D surveys, designed
to acquire data over large areas in order
to screen for potential hydrocarbon
prospectivity. To contrast, threedimensional surveys may use similar
acoustic sources but are designed to
cover smaller areas with greater
resolution (e.g., with closer survey line
spacing). A deep penetration survey
uses an acoustic source suited to
provide data on geological formations
that may be thousands of meters (m)
beneath the seafloor, as compared with
a survey that may be intended to
evaluate shallow subsurface formations
or the seafloor itself (e.g., for hazards).
An airgun is a device used to emit
acoustic energy pulses into the seafloor,
and generally consists of a steel cylinder
that is charged with high-pressure air.
Release of the compressed air into the
water column generates a signal that
reflects (or refracts) off of the seafloor
and/or subsurface layers having acoustic
impedance contrast. When fired, a brief
(∼0.1 second (s)) pulse of sound is
emitted by all airguns nearly
simultaneously. The airguns are silent
during the intervening periods, with the
array typically fired on a fixed distance
(or shot point) interval. This interval
may vary depending on survey
objectives, but a typical interval for a 2D
survey in relatively deep water might be
25 m (approximately every 10 s,
depending on vessel speed). The return
signal is recorded by a listening device
and later analyzed with computer
interpretation and mapping systems
used to depict the subsurface. In this
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
26246
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
case, towed streamers contain
hydrophones that would record the
return signal.
Individual airguns are available in
different volumetric sizes and, for deep
penetration seismic surveys, are towed
in arrays (i.e., a certain number of
airguns of varying sizes in a certain
arrangement) designed according to a
given company’s method of data
acquisition, seismic target, and data
processing capabilities. A typical large
airgun array, as was considered in
BOEM’s PEIS (BOEM, 2014a), may have
a total volume of approximately 5,400
in3. The notional array modeled by
BOEM consists of 18 airguns in three
identical strings of six airguns each,
with individual airguns ranging in
volume from 105–660 in3. Sound levels
for airgun arrays are typically modeled
or measured at some distance from the
source and a nominal source level then
back-calculated. Because these arrays
constitute a distributed acoustic source
rather than a single point source (i.e.,
the ‘‘source’’ is actually comprised of
multiple sources with some predetermined spatial arrangement), the
highest sound levels measurable at any
location in the water will be less than
the nominal source level. A common
analogy is to an array of light bulbs; at
sufficient distance the array will appear
to be a single point source of light but
individual sources, each with less
intensity than that of the whole, may be
discerned at closer distances. In
addition, the effective source level for
sound propagating in near-horizontal
directions (i.e., directions likely to
impact most marine mammals in the
vicinity of an array) is likely to be
substantially lower than the nominal
source level applicable to downward
propagation because of the directional
nature of the sound from the airgun
array. The horizontal propagation of
sound is reduced by noise cancellation
effects created when sound from
neighboring airguns on the same
horizontal plane partially cancel each
other out.
Survey protocols generally involve a
predetermined set of survey, or track,
lines. The seismic acquisition vessel
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
(source vessel) will travel down a linear
track for some distance until a line of
data is acquired, then turn and acquire
data on a different track. In addition to
the line over which data acquisition is
desired, full-power operation may
include run-in and run-out. Run-in is
approximately 1 kilometer (km) of fullpower source operation before starting a
new line to ensure equipment is
functioning properly, and run-out is
additional full-power operation beyond
the conclusion of a trackline (typically
half the distance of the acquisition
streamer behind the source vessel) to
ensure that all data along the trackline
are collected by the streamer. Line turns
typically require two to three hours due
to the long trailing streamers (e.g., 10
km). Spacing and length of tracks varies
by survey. Survey operations often
involve the source vessel, supported by
a chase vessel. Chase vessels typically
support the source vessel by protecting
the long hydrophone streamer from
damage (e.g., from other vessels) and
otherwise lending logistical support
(e.g., returning to port for fuel, supplies,
or any necessary personnel transfers).
Chase vessels do not deploy acoustic
sources for data acquisition purposes;
the only potential effects of the chase
vessels are those associated with normal
vessel operations.
Dates and Duration
All companies requested IHAs
covering the statutory maximum of one
year from the date of issuance, but the
expected temporal extent of survey
activity varies by company and may be
subject to unpredictability due to
inclement weather days, equipment
maintenance and/or repair, transit to
and from ports to survey locations, and
other contingencies. Spectrum plans a
six-month data acquisition program,
consisting of an expected 165 days of
seismic operations. TGS plans a full
year data acquisition program, with an
estimated 308 days of seismic
operations. ION plans a six-month data
acquisition program, with an estimated
70 days of seismic data collection.
Western plans a full year data
acquisition program, with an estimated
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
208 days of seismic operations. CGG
plans a six-month data acquisition
program (July–December), with an
estimated 155 days of seismic
operations. Seismic operations would
typically occur 24 hours per day.
Specific Geographic Region
The proposed survey activities would
occur off the Atlantic coast of the U.S.,
within BOEM’s Mid-Atlantic and South
Atlantic OCS planning areas (i.e., from
Delaware to Cape Canaveral, FL), and
out to 350 nmi (648 km) (see Figure 1,
reproduced from BOEM, 2014a). The
seaward limit of the region is based on
the maximum constraint line for the
extended continental shelf (ECS) under
the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea. Until such time as an
ECS is established by the U.S., the
region between the U.S. exclusive
economic zone (EEZ) boundary and the
ECS maximum constraint line (i.e., 200–
350 nmi from shore) is part of the global
commons, and BOEM determined it
appropriate to include this area within
the area of interest for geophysical
survey activity.
The specific survey areas differ within
this region; please see maps provided in
the individual applications (Spectrum:
Figure 1; Western: Figures 1–1 to 1–4;
TGS: Figures 1–1 to 1–4; ION: Figure 1;
CGG: Figure 3). A map of all proposed
surveys may be viewed online at:
www.boem.gov/Atlantic-G-and-GPermitting/ (accessed on October 18,
2016); however, note that this map
displays all permits requested from
BOEM, including potential surveys for
companies who have not yet requested
authorization under the MMPA. The
survey shown as ‘‘GXTechnology’’ on
the referenced map is the same as what
we describe here as being proposed by
ION. In addition to general knowledge
and other citations contained herein,
this section relies upon the descriptions
found in Sherman and Hempel (2009)
and Wilkinson et al. (2009). As referred
to here, productivity refers to fixated
carbon (i.e., g C/m2/yr) which relates to
the carrying capacity of an ecosystem.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
26247
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
The entire U.S. Atlantic coast region
extends from the Gulf of Maine past
Cape Hatteras to Florida. The region is
characterized by its temperate climate
and proximity to the Gulf Stream
Current, and is generally considered to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
be of moderately high productivity,
although the portion of the region from
Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras is one of the
most productive areas in the world due
to upwellings along the shelf break
created by the western edge of the Gulf
Stream. Sea surface temperatures (SST)
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
exhibit a broad range across this region,
with winter temperatures ranging from
2–20 °C in the north and 15–22 °C in the
south, while summer temperatures,
consistent in the south at approximately
28 °C, range from 15–27 °C in the
northern portion.
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
EN06JN17.000
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Figure 1. Specific Geographic Region
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
26248
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
The northern portion of this region
(i.e., north of Cape Hatteras) is more
complex, with four major sub-areas,
only one of which is within the
specified geographic region: The MidAtlantic Bight (MAB). South of Cape
Cod, there is strong stratification along
the coast where large estuaries occur
(e.g., Chesapeake Bay, Pamlico Sound).
The Gulf Stream is highly influential on
both the northern and southern portions
of the region, but in different ways.
Meanders of the current directly affect
the southern portion of the region,
where the Gulf Stream is closer to shore,
while warm-core rings indirectly affect
the northern portion (Belkin et al.,
2009). In addition, subarctic influences
can reach as far south as the MAB, but
the convergence of the Gulf Stream with
the coast near Cape Hatteras does not
allow for significant northern influence
into waters of the South Atlantic Bight.
The MAB includes the continental
shelf and slope waters from Georges
Bank to Cape Hatteras, NC. The retreat
of the last ice sheet shaped the
morphology and sediments of this area.
The continental shelf south of New
England is broad and flat, dominated by
fine grained sediments (sand and silt).
The shelf slopes gently away from the
shore out to approximately 100 to 200
km offshore, where it transforms into
the continental slope at the shelf break
(at water depths of 100 to 200 m). Along
the shelf break, numerous deep-water
canyons incise the slope and shelf. The
sediments and topography of the
canyons are much more heterogeneous
than the predominantly sandy top of the
shelf, with steep walls and outcroppings
of bedrock and deposits of clay.
The southwestern flow of cold shelf
water feeding out of the Gulf of Maine
and off Georges Bank dominates the
circulatory patterns in this area. The
countervailing Gulf Stream provides a
source of warmer water along the coast
as warm-core rings and meanders break
off from the Gulf Stream and move
shoreward, mixing with the colder shelf
and slope water. As the shelf plain
narrows to the south (the extent of the
continental shelf is narrowest at Cape
Hatteras), the warmer Gulf Stream
waters run closer to shore.
The southeast continental shelf area
extends approximately 1,500 km from
Cape Hatteras, NC south to the Straits of
Florida (Yoder, 1991). The continental
shelf in the region reaches up to
approximately 200 km offshore. The
Gulf Stream influences the region with
minor upwelling occurring along the
Gulf Stream front. The area is
approximately 300,000 km2, includes
several protected areas and coral reefs
(Aquarone, 2008); numerous estuaries
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
and bays, nearshore and barrier islands;
and extensive coastal marshes that
provide habitats for numerous marine
and estuarine species. A 10–20 km wide
coastal zone is characterized by high
levels of primary production throughout
the year, while offshore, on the middle
and outer shelf, upwelling along the
Gulf Stream front and intrusions from
the Gulf Stream cause seasonal
phytoplankton blooms. Because of its
high productivity, this sub-region
supports active commercial and
recreational fisheries (Shertzer et al.,
2009).
Detailed Description of Activities
Detailed survey descriptions, as given
in specific applications, are provided
here without regard for the mitigation
measures proposed by NMFS. In some
cases, our proposed mitigation measures
may affect the proposed survey plan
(e.g., distance from coast, areas to be
avoided at certain times of year). Please
see ‘‘Proposed Mitigation,’’ later in this
document, for details on those proposed
mitigation requirements. Please see
Table 1 for a summary of airgun array
characteristics.
ION—ION proposes to conduct a 2D
marine seismic survey off the U.S. east
coast from Delaware to northern Florida
(∼38.5° N. to ∼27.9° N.), and from 20 km
from the coast to >600 km from the
coast (see Figure 1 of ION’s application).
The survey would involve one source
vessel, the M/V Discoverer, and one
chase vessel, the M/V Octopus, or
similar (see ION’s application for vessel
details). The Discoverer has a cruising
speed of 9.5 knots (kn), maximum speed
of 10 kn, and would tow gear during
data acquisition at ∼4 kn. The survey
plan consists of five widely-spaced
transect lines (∼20–190 km apart)
roughly parallel to the coast and 14
widely-spaced transect lines (∼30–220
km apart) in the onshore-offshore
direction totaling ∼13,062 km of data
acquisition line. Effort planned by depth
bin is as follows: ∼48 percent >3,000 m;
∼18 percent 1,000–3,000 m; ∼22 percent
100–1,000 m; ∼12 percent <100 m.
There would be limited additional
operations associated with equipment
testing, startup, line changes, and repeat
coverage of any areas where initial data
quality is sub-standard. Therefore, there
could be some small amount of use of
the acoustic source not accounted for in
the total estimated line-km; however,
this activity is difficult to quantify in
advance and would represent an
insignificant increase in effort.
The acoustic source planned for
deployment is a 36-airgun array with a
total volume of 6,420 in3. The source
vessel would tow a single hydrophone
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
streamer, up to 12 km long. The 36airgun array would consist of a mixture
of Bolt 1500LL and sleeve airguns
ranging in volume from 40 in3 to 380
in3; the larger (300–380 in3) airguns
would be Bolt airguns, and the smaller
(40–150 in3) airguns would be sleeve
airguns. The difference between the two
types of airguns is in the mechanical
parts that release the pressurized air;
however, the bubble and acoustic
energy released by the two types of
airguns are effectively the same. The
airguns would be configured as four
identical linear arrays or ‘‘strings’’ (see
Figure 3 of ION’s application). Each
string would have nine airguns; the first
and last airguns in the strings would be
spaced ∼15.5 m apart.
The four airgun strings would be
distributed across an approximate area
of 34 x 15.5 m behind the vessel and
would be towed ∼50–100 m behind the
vessel at 10-m depth. The firing
pressure of the array would be 2,000
pounds per square inch (psi). The
airgun array would fire every 50 m or
20–24 s, depending on exact vessel
speed—a longer interval than is typical
of most industry seismic surveys. ION
provided modeling results for their
array, including notional source
signatures, 1/3-octave band source
levels as a function of azimuth angle,
and received sound levels as a function
of distance and direction at 16
representative sites in the proposed
survey area. For more detail, please see
‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental
Harassment,’’ later in this document, as
well as Figures 4–6 and Appendix A of
ION’s application.
Spectrum—Spectrum proposes to
conduct a 2D marine seismic survey off
the U.S. east coast from Delaware to
northern Florida, extending throughout
BOEM’s Mid- and South Atlantic OCS
planning areas. The survey would be
conducted on an approximately 25 x 32
km grid; grid size may vary to minimize
overall survey distance (see Figure 1 of
Spectrum’s application). The closest
trackline to shore would be
approximately 35 km (off Cape
Hatteras). The survey would involve one
source vessel and one chase vessel (see
Spectrum’s application for vessel
details). The survey plan includes a
total of approximately 21,635 km of data
acquisition line, including allowance for
lines expected to be resurveyed due to
environmental or technical reasons.
Water depths range from 30 to 5,410 m.
There would be limited additional
operations associated with equipment
testing, startup, and repeat coverage of
any areas where initial data quality is
sub-standard.
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
The acoustic source planned for
deployment is a 32-airgun array with a
total volume of 4,920 in3. The source
vessel would tow a single 12-km
hydrophone streamer. The 32-airgun
array would consist of individual
airguns ranging in volume from 50 in3
to 250 in3. The firing pressure of the
array would be 2,000 psi. The airguns
would be configured as four subarrays
(see Figure 2 in Appendix A of
Spectrum’s application). Each string
would have eight to ten airguns and
strings would be spaced 10 m apart; the
total array dimensions would be 40 m
wide x 30 m long.
The four airgun strings would be
towed at 6 to 10-m depth and the airgun
array would fire every 25 m or 10 s,
depending on exact vessel speed
(expected to be 4–5 kn). Spectrum
provided modeling results for their
array, including notional source
signatures, 1/3-octave band source
levels as a function of azimuth angle,
and received sound levels as a function
of distance and direction at 16
representative sites in the proposed
survey area. For more detail, please see
Appendix A of Spectrum’s application,
as well as ‘‘Estimated Take by Incidental
Harassment,’’ later in this document.
TGS—TGS proposes to conduct a 2D
marine seismic survey off the U.S. east
coast from Delaware to northern Florida,
extending throughout BOEM’s Mid- and
South Atlantic OCS planning areas (see
Figure 1–1 of TGS’s application). The
survey would involve two source
vessels operating independently of one
another (expected to operate at least 100
km apart), with each attended by one
chase vessel. This approach was
selected to allow TGS to complete the
survey plan within one year rather than
spread over multiple years. The survey
plan consists of two contiguous survey
grids with differently spaced lines (see
Figures 1–1 to 1–4 of TGS’s
application). Lines are spaced 100 km
apart in approximately the eastern half
of the project area and approximately 25
km apart in the western portion of the
survey area. A third, more detailed grid
(6–10 km spacing) covers the
continental shelf drop-off,
approximately near the center of the
proposed survey area from north to
south. The closest trackline to the coast
would be 25 km. The survey plan
includes a total of 55,133 km of data
acquisition line plus an additional 3,167
km of trackline expected for run-in/runout, for a total of 58,300 km. Water
depths range from 25–5,500 m. There
would be limited additional operations
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
associated with equipment testing,
startup, line changes, and repeat
coverage of any areas where initial data
quality is sub-standard.
The acoustic sources planned for
deployment are 48-airgun arrays with a
total volume of 4,808 in3. However, only
40 individual airguns would be used at
any given time, with remaining airguns
held in reserve in case of equipment
failure. The source vessels would tow a
single 12-km long hydrophone streamer.
The airgun array would use Sodera Ggun II airguns ranging in volume from
22 in3 to 250 in3. The airguns would be
configured as four identical subarrays
(see Figure 3 in Appendix B of TGS’s
application), with individual elements
spaced 8 m apart and arranged such that
the largest elements are in the middle of
each subarray and smaller sources at the
front and end. The four airgun strings
would be towed behind the vessel at 7m depth. The airgun array would fire
every 25 m (approximately every 10 s,
depending on vessel speed), with
expected transit speed of 4–5 kn. More
detail regarding TGS’s acoustic source
and modeling related to TGS’s
application is provided in ‘‘Estimated
Take by Incidental Harassment,’’ later in
this document, as well as Appendix B
of TGS’s application.
Western—Western proposes to
conduct a 2D marine seismic survey off
the U.S. east coast from Maryland to
northern Florida, extending through the
majority of BOEM’s Mid- and South
Atlantic OCS planning areas (see Figure
1–1 of Western’s application). The
survey plan consists of a survey grid
with differently spaced lines (see
Figures 1–1 to 1–4 of Western’s
application). Lines are spaced 25 km
apart in approximately the southwestern
third of the project area and
approximately 6 km apart in the
remainder of the survey area. The
closest trackline to the coast would be
30 km. The survey plan includes a total
of 26,641 km of data acquisition line
plus an additional 689 km of lines
expected for run-in/run-out, for a total
of 27,330 km. Water depths range from
20–4,700 m. The survey would involve
one source vessel, the M/V Western
Pride, as well as two chase vessels, the
M/V Michael Lawrence and M/V Amber
G, and a supply vessel, the M/V Melinda
B. Adams or similar (see Appendix B of
Western’s application for vessel details).
There would be limited additional
operations associated with equipment
testing, startup, and repeat coverage of
any areas where initial data quality is
sub-standard.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
26249
The seismic source planned for
deployment is a 24-airgun array with a
total volume of 5,085 in3. The source
vessel would tow a single 10.5-km
hydrophone streamer. The 24-airgun
array would consist of individual Bolt
v5085 airguns. The airguns would be
configured as three identical subarrays
of eight airguns each with 8 m spacing
between strings. The three airgun strings
would be towed at 10-m depth and the
airgun array would fire every 37.5 m
(approximately every 16 s, depending
on vessel speed), with expected transit
speed of 4–5 kn. More detail regarding
Western’s acoustic source and modeling
related to Western’s application is
provided in ‘‘Estimated Take by
Incidental Harassment,’’ later in this
document, as well as Appendix B of
Western’s application.
CGG—CGG proposes to conduct a 2D
marine seismic survey off the U.S. east
coast from Virginia to Georgia,
extending through the majority of
BOEM’s Mid- and South Atlantic OCS
planning areas (see Figure 3 of CGG’s
application). The survey plan consists of
53 survey tracklines in a 20 km by 20
km orthogonal grid (see Figure 3 of
CGG’s application). The tracklines
would be 300 to 750 km in length, with
the closest trackline to the coast at 80
km. The survey plan includes a total of
28,670 km of data acquisition line, in
water depths ranging from 100–5,000 m.
The survey would involve one source
vessel, as well as two support vessels.
There would be limited additional
operations associated with equipment
testing, startup, and repeat coverage of
any areas where initial data quality is
sub-standard.
The seismic source planned for
deployment is a 36-airgun array with a
total volume of 5,400 in.3 The source
vessel would tow a single 10 to 12-km
hydrophone streamer. The 36-airgun
array would consist of individual Bolt
1900/1500 airguns. The airguns would
be configured as four subarrays of nine
airguns each (see Figure 2 in CGG’s
application), with total dimensions of
24 m width by 16.5 m length and 8 m
separation between strings. The four
airgun strings would be towed at 7-m
depth and the airgun array would fire
every 25 m (approximately every 16 s,
depending on vessel speed), with
expected transit speed of 4.5 kn. More
detail regarding CGG’s acoustic source
and modeling related to CGG’s
application is provided in ‘‘Estimated
Take by Incidental Harassment,’’ later in
this document, as well as CGG’s
application.
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
26250
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
TABLE 1—SURVEY AND AIRGUN ARRAY CHARACTERISTICS
Total
planned
survey
(km)
Company
ION ........................................................
Spectrum ...............................................
TGS .......................................................
Western .................................................
CGG ......................................................
BOEM 2 ..................................................
Total
volume
(in3)
13,062
21,635
58,300
27,330
28,670
n/a
6,420
4,920
4,808
5,085
5,400
5,400
Number
of
guns
36
32
40
24
36
18
Number
of
strings
4
4
4
3
4
3
Nominal source output
(downward) 1
0-pk
pk-pk
rms
257
266
255
263
272
3
262
259
3
3
3
247
Shot
interval
(m)
4 247
243
240
235
3 4 243
233
50
25
25
37.5
25
n/a
Tow
depth
(m)
10
6–10
7
10
7
6.5
1 See
‘‘Description of Active Acoustic Sound Sources,’’ later in this document, for discussion of these concepts.
array characteristics modeled and source characterization outputs from BOEM’s PEIS (2014a) provided for comparison.
not given; however, SPL (pk-pk) is usually considered to be approximately 6 dB higher than SPL (0-pk) (Greene, 1997).
4 Value decreased from modeled 0-pk value by minimum 10 dB (Greene, 1997).
2 Notional
3 Values
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
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. 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)). Here we provide a
single description of proposed
mitigation measures, including those
contained in the applicants’ requests, as
we propose to require the same
measures of all applicants.
We reviewed the applicants’
proposals, the requirements specified in
BOEM’s PEIS, seismic mitigation
protocols required or recommended
elsewhere (e.g., DOC, 2013; IBAMA,
2005; Kyhn et al., 2011; JNCC, 2010;
DEWHA, 2008; BOEM, 2016a; DFO,
2008; MMOA, 2015; Nowacek and
Southall, 2016), and the available
scientific literature. We also considered
recommendations given in a number of
review articles (e.g., Weir and Dolman,
2007; Compton et al., 2008; Parsons et
al., 2009; Wright and Cosentino, 2015;
Stone, 2015). The suite of mitigation
measures proposed here differs in some
cases from the measures proposed by
the applicants and/or those specified by
BOEM in their PEIS and Record of
Decision (ROD) in order to reflect what
we believe to be the most appropriate
suite of measures to satisfy the
requirements of the MMPA. In carrying
out the MMPA’s mandate, we apply a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
context-specific balance between the
manner in which and the degree to
which measures are expected to reduce
impacts to the affected species or stocks
and their habitat and practicability for
the applicant. (The framework for such
an evaluation is explained further in 82
FR 19460, 19502 (April 27, 2017)
(Proposed Rule for Take of Marine
Mammals Incidental to U.S. Navy
Operation of Surveillance Towed Array
Sensor System Low Frequency Active
(SURTASS LFA) Sonar.) Both of these
facets point to the need for a basic
system of seismic mitigation protocols
(which may be augmented as necessary)
that may be implemented in the field,
reduce subjective decision-making for
observers to the extent possible, and
appropriately weighs a range of
potential outcomes from sound
exposure in determining what should be
avoided or minimized where possible.
Past mitigation protocols for
geophysical survey activities using
airgun arrays have focused on avoidance
of exposures to received sound levels
exceeding NMFS’s historical injury
criteria (e.g., 180 dB rms), rather than
also weighing the potentially
detrimental effects of increased input of
sound at lower levels into the
environment (e.g., through use of
mitigation guns or extended periods on
the water to reshoot lines following
shutdowns of the acoustic source),
while also unrealistically assuming that
shutdown protocols are capable of
avoiding all potential for auditory
injury. In addition to a basic suite of
seismic mitigation protocols, we also
include measures that might not be
required for other activities (e.g., timearea closures specific to the proposed
surveys discussed here) but that are
warranted here given the proposed
spatiotemporal scope of these specified
activities and associated potential for
population-level effects and/or take of
large numbers of individuals of certain
species.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
Mitigation-Related Monitoring
Monitoring by independent,
dedicated, trained marine mammal
observers is required. Note that,
although we propose requirements
related only to observation of marine
mammals, we hereafter use the generic
term ‘‘protected species observer’’ (PSO)
to avoid confusion with protocols that
may be required of the applicants
pursuant to other relevant statutes.
Independent observers are employed by
a third-party observer provider; vessel
crew may not serve as PSOs. Dedicated
observers are those who have no tasks
other than to conduct observational
effort, record observational data, and
communicate with and instruct the
seismic survey operator (i.e., vessel
captain and crew) with regard to the
presence of marine mammals and
mitigation requirements.
Communication with the operator may
include brief alerts regarding maritime
hazards. Trained PSOs have
successfully completed an approved
PSO training course (see ‘‘Proposed
Monitoring and Reporting’’), and
experienced PSOs have additionally
gained a minimum of 90 days at-sea
experience working as a PSO during a
deep penetration seismic survey, with
no more than 18 months elapsed since
the conclusion of the at-sea experience.
Both visual and acoustic monitoring is
required; training and experience is
specific to either visual or acoustic PSO
duties. An experienced visual PSO must
have completed approved, relevant
training and gained the requisite
experience working as a visual PSO. An
experienced acoustic PSO must have
completed a passive acoustic
monitoring (PAM) operator training
course and gained the requisite
experience working as an acoustic PSO
(i.e., PAM operator).
NMFS does not currently approve
specific training courses; observers may
be considered appropriately trained by
having satisfactorily completed training
that meets all the requirements specified
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
herein (see ‘‘Proposed Monitoring and
Reporting’’). In order for PSOs to be
approved, NMFS must review and
approve PSO resumes accompanied by
a relevant training course information
packet that includes the name and
qualifications (i.e., experience, training
completed, or educational background)
of the instructor(s), the course outline or
syllabus, and course reference material
as well as a document stating successful
completion of the course. A PSO may be
trained and/or experienced as both a
visual PSO and PAM operator and may
perform either duty, pursuant to
scheduling requirements. PSO watch
schedules shall be devised in
consideration of the following
restrictions: (1) A maximum of two
consecutive hours on watch followed by
a break of at least one hour between
watches for visual PSOs; (2) a maximum
of four consecutive hours on watch
followed by a break of at least two
consecutive hours between watches for
PAM operators; and (3) a maximum of
12 hours observation per 24-hour
period. Further information regarding
PSO requirements may be found in the
‘‘Proposed Monitoring and Reporting’’
section, later in this document.
Visual—All source vessels must carry
a minimum of one experienced visual
PSO, who shall be designated as the
lead PSO, coordinate duty schedules
and roles, and serve as primary point of
contact for the operator. While it is
desirable for all PSOs to be qualified
through experience, we do not wish to
foreclose opportunity for newly trained
PSOs to gain the requisite experience.
Therefore, the lead PSO shall devise the
duty schedule such that experienced
PSOs are on duty with trained PSOs
(i.e., those PSOs with appropriate
training but who have not yet gained
relevant experience) to the maximum
extent practicable in order to provide
necessary mentorship. 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),
a minimum of 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)
and 30 minutes prior to and during
nighttime ramp-ups of the airgun array
(see ‘‘Ramp-ups’’ below). PSOs should
use NOAA’s solar calculator
(www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/)
to determine sunrise and sunset times at
their specific location. We recognize
that certain daytime conditions (e.g.,
fog, heavy rain) may reduce or eliminate
effectiveness of visual observations;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
however, on-duty PSOs shall remain
alert for marine mammal observational
cues and/or a change in conditions.
With regard to specific observational
protocols, we largely follow those
described in Appendix C of BOEM’s
PEIS (BOEM, 2014a). The lead PSO
shall determine the most appropriate
observation posts that will not interfere
with navigation or operation of the
vessel while affording an optimal,
elevated view of the sea surface. PSOs
shall coordinate to ensure 360° visual
coverage around the vessel, and shall
conduct visual observations using
binoculars and the naked eye while free
from distractions and in a consistent,
systematic, and diligent manner. Within
these broad outlines, the lead PSO and
PSO team will have discretion to
determine the most appropriate vesseland survey-specific system for
implementing effective marine mammal
observational effort. Any observations of
marine mammals by crew members
aboard any vessel associated with the
survey, including chase vessels, should
be relayed to the source vessel and to
the PSO team.
Visual monitoring must begin not less
than 30 minutes prior to ramp-up and
must continue until one hour after use
of the acoustic source ceases or until 30
minutes past sunset. If any marine
mammal is observed at any distance
from the vessel, a PSO would record the
observation and monitor the animal’s
position (including latitude/longitude of
the vessel and relative bearing and
estimated distance to the animal) until
the animal dives or moves out of visual
range of the observer. A PSO would
continue to observe the area to watch for
the animal to resurface or for additional
animals that may surface in the area.
Visual PSOs shall communicate all
observations to PAM operators,
including any determination by the PSO
regarding species identification,
distance, and bearing and the degree of
confidence in the determination.
During good conditions (e.g., daylight
hours; Beaufort sea state (BSS) 3 or less),
PSOs should 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.
Acoustic—All source vessels must use
a towed PAM system for potential
detection of marine mammals. The
system must be monitored at all times
during use of the acoustic source, and
acoustic monitoring must begin at least
30 minutes prior to ramp-up. All source
vessels shall carry a minimum of one
experienced PAM operator. PAM
operators shall communicate all
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
26251
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. We acknowledge
generally that PAM has significant
limitations. For example, animals may
only be detected when vocalizing,
species making directional vocalizations
must vocalize towards the array to be
detected, species identification and
localization may be difficult, etc.
However, we believe that for certain
species and in appropriate
environmental conditions it is a useful
complement to visual monitoring during
good sighting conditions and that it is
the only meaningful monitoring
technique during periods of poor
visibility. Further detail regarding PAM
system requirements may be found in
the ‘‘Proposed Monitoring’’ section,
later in this document. The effectiveness
of PAM depends to a certain extent on
the equipment and methods used and
competency of the PAM operator, but no
established standards are currently in
place. We do offer some specifications
later in this document and each
applicant has provided a PAM plan.
Following protocols described by the
New Zealand Department of
Conservation for seismic surveys
conducted in New Zealand waters
(DOC, 2013), survey activity may
continue for brief periods of time when
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:
• Daylight hours and sea state is less
than or equal to Beaufort sea state (BSS)
4;
• No marine mammals (excluding
small delphinoids; see below) detected
solely by PAM in the exclusion zone
(see below) in the previous two hours;
• NMFS is notified via email as soon
as practicable with the time and
location in which operations began
without an active PAM system; and
• Operations with an active acoustic
source, but without an operating PAM
system, do not exceed a cumulative total
of four hours in any 24-hour period.
As noted previously, all source
vessels must carry a minimum of one
experienced visual PSO and one
experienced PAM operator. Although a
given PSO may carry out either visual
PSO or PAM operator duties during a
survey (assuming appropriate training),
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
26252
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
the required experienced PSOs may not
be the same person. The observer
designated as lead PSO (including the
full team of visual PSOs and PAM
operators) must be an experienced
visual PSO. The applicant may
determine how many PSOs are required
to adequately fulfill the requirements
specified here. To summarize, these
requirements are: (1) Separate
experienced visual PSOs and PAM
operators; (2) 24-hour acoustic
monitoring during use of the acoustic
source; (3) visual monitoring during use
of the acoustic source by two PSOs
during all daylight hours and during
nighttime ramp-ups; (4) maximum of
two consecutive hours on watch
followed by a minimum of one hour off
watch for visual PSOs and a maximum
of four consecutive hours on watch
followed by a minimum of two
consecutive hours off watch for PAM
operators; and (5) maximum of 12 hours
of observational effort per 24-hour
period for any PSO, regardless of duties.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Buffer Zone and Exclusion Zone
The PSOs shall establish and monitor
a 500-m exclusion zone and a 1,000-m
buffer zone. These 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 within the buffer zone
(but outside the exclusion zone) should
be communicated to the operator to
prepare for the potential shutdown of
the acoustic source. Use of the buffer
zone in relation to ramp-up is discussed
under ‘‘Ramp-up.’’ Further detail
regarding the exclusion zone and
shutdown requirements is given under
‘‘Exclusion Zone and Shutdown
Requirements.’’
Ramp-Up
Ramp-up of an acoustic source is
intended to provide a gradual increase
in sound levels, enabling animals to
move away from the source if the signal
is sufficiently aversive prior to its
reaching full intensity. We infer on the
basis of behavioral avoidance studies
and observations that this measure
results in some reduced potential for
auditory injury and/or more severe
behavioral reactions. Dunlop et al.
(2016) studied the effect of ramp-up
during a seismic airgun survey on
migrating humpback whales, finding
that although behavioral response
indicating potential avoidance was
observed, there was no evidence that
ramp-up was more effective at causing
aversion than was a constant source.
Regardless, the majority of whale groups
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
did avoid the source vessel at distances
greater than the radius of most
mitigation zones (Dunlop et al., 2016).
Although this measure is not proven
and some arguments have been made
that use of ramp-up may not have the
desired effect of aversion (which is itself
a potentially negative impact assumed
to be better than the alternative), rampup remains a relatively low cost,
common sense component of standard
mitigation. Ramp-up is most likely to be
effective for more sensitive species (e.g.,
beaked whales) with known behavioral
responses at greater distances from an
acoustic source (e.g., Tyack et al., 2011;
DeRuiter et al., 2013; Miller et al., 2015).
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 is required at all
times as part of the activation of the
acoustic source (including source tests;
see ‘‘Miscellaneous Protocols’’ for more
detail) and may occur at times of poor
visibility, assuming appropriate acoustic
monitoring with no detections in the 30
minutes prior to beginning ramp-up.
Acoustic source activation should only
occur at night where operational
planning cannot reasonably avoid such
circumstances. For example, a nighttime
initial ramp-up following port departure
is reasonably avoidable and may not
occur. Ramp-up may occur at night
following acoustic source deactivation
due to line turn or mechanical
difficulty. The operator must notify a
designated PSO of the planned start of
ramp-up as agreed-upon with the lead
PSO; the notification time should not be
less than 60 minutes prior to the
planned ramp-up. 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.
Ramp-up procedures follow the
recommendations of IAGC (2015).
Ramp-up would begin by activating a
single airgun (i.e., array element) of the
smallest volume in the array. Ramp-up
continues in stages by doubling the
number of active elements at the
commencement of each stage, with each
stage of approximately the same
duration. Total duration should be
approximately 20 minutes. There will
generally be one stage in which
doubling the number of elements is not
possible because the total number is not
even. This should be the last stage of the
ramp-up sequence. These requirements
may be modified on the basis of any
new information presented that justifies
a different protocol. The operator must
provide information to the PSO
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
documenting that appropriate
procedures were followed. Ramp-ups
should be scheduled so as to minimize
the time spent with source activated
prior to reaching the designated run-in.
We adopt this approach to ramp-up
(increments of array elements) because
it is relatively simple to implement for
the operator as compared with more
complex schemes involving activation
by increments of array volume, or
activation on the basis of element
location or size. Such approaches may
also be more likely to result in irregular
leaps in sound output due to variations
in size between individual elements
within an array and their geometric
interaction as more elements are
recruited. It may be argued whether
smooth incremental increase is
necessary, but stronger aversion than is
necessary should be avoided. The
approach proposed here is intended to
ensure a perceptible increase in sound
output per increment while employing
increments that produce similar degrees
of increase at each step.
PSOs must monitor a 1,000-m buffer
zone for a minimum of 30 minutes prior
to ramp-up (i.e., pre-clearance). The preclearance period may occur during any
vessel activity (i.e., transit, line turn).
Ramp-up should be planned to occur
during periods of good visibility when
possible; operators should not target the
period just after visual PSOs have gone
off duty. Following deactivation of the
source for reasons other than mitigation,
the operator must communicate the
near-term operational plan to the lead
PSO with justification for any planned
nighttime ramp-up. Any suspected
patterns of abuse should be reported by
the lead PSO and would be investigated
by NMFS. Ramp-up may not be initiated
if any marine mammal (including small
delphinoids) is within the designated
buffer zone. If a marine mammal is
observed within the buffer zone during
the pre-clearance 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 30
minutes for all other species). PSOs will
monitor the buffer zone during ramp-up,
and ramp-up must cease and the source
shut down upon observation of marine
mammals within or approaching the
buffer zone.
Exclusion Zone and Shutdown
Requirements
An exclusion zone is a defined area
within which occurrence of a marine
mammal triggers mitigation action
intended to reduce potential for certain
outcomes, e.g., auditory injury,
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
disruption of critical behaviors. The
PSOs must establish a minimum
exclusion zone with a 500 m radius as
a perimeter around the airgun array
(rather than being centered on the array
or around the vessel itself). If a marine
mammal appears within, enters, or
appears on a course to enter this zone,
the acoustic source must be shut down
(i.e., power to the acoustic source must
be immediately turned off). If a marine
mammal is detected acoustically, the
acoustic source must be shut down,
unless the PAM operator is confident
that the animal detected is outside the
exclusion zone or that the detected
species is not subject to the shutdown
requirement (see below).
This shutdown requirement is 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 shutdown
requirement applies solely to specific
genera of small dolphins—Steno,
Tursiops, Stenella, Delphinus,
Lagenodelphis, and Lagenorhynchus
(see Table 4)—and only applies if the
animals are 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 shutdown 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, shutdown must be
implemented. We do not require that a
PSO determine the intent of the
animal(s)—an inherently subjective
proposition—but simply whether any
potential intersection of the animal with
the 500-m exclusion zone would be
caused due to the vessel’s approach
towards relatively stationary animals.
We propose this small delphinoid
exception because a shutdown
requirement for small delphinoids
under all circumstances is of known
concern regarding practicability for the
applicant due to increased shutdowns,
without likely commensurate benefit for
the animals in question. Small
delphinoids are generally the most
commonly observed marine mammals
in the specific geographic region and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
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’’ later in
this document 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 increased
shutdowns resulting from such a
measure would require source vessels 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 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 shutdown requirement for large
delphinoids in that it simplifies
somewhat the total array 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.
BOEM’s PEIS (BOEM, 2014a)
provided modeling results for auditory
injury zones on the basis of auditory
injury criteria described by Southall et
al. (2007). These zones were less than 10
m on the basis of maximum peak
pressure, and a maximum of 18 m on
the basis of cumulative sound exposure
level (including application of relevant
M-weighting filters). However, the
recent finalization of NMFS’s new
technical acoustic guidance made these
predictions irrelevant (NMFS, 2016). We
calculated potential radial distances to
auditory injury zones on the basis of
maximum peak pressure using values
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
26253
provided by the applicants (Table 1) and
assuming a simple model of spherical
spreading propagation. These are as
follows: Low-frequency cetaceans, 50–
224 m; mid-frequency cetaceans, 14–63
m; and high-frequency cetaceans, 355–
1,585 m. The 500-m radial distance of
the standard exclusion zone is intended
to be precautionary in the sense that it
would be expected to contain sound
exceeding peak pressure injury criteria
for all hearing groups other than highfrequency cetaceans, while also
providing a consistent, reasonably
observable zone within which PSOs
would typically be able to conduct
effective observational effort. 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 exclusion zone based
on cumulative sound exposure level
(cSEL) 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, it is likely that
exclusion zone radii would be larger for
low-frequency cetaceans, because their
most susceptible hearing range overlaps
the low frequencies produced by
airguns, but that the zones would
remain very small for mid-frequency
cetaceans (i.e., including the ‘‘small
delphinoids’’ described above), whose
range of best hearing largely does not
overlap with frequencies produced by
airguns. In order to more realistically
incorporate the technical guidance’s
weighting functions over a seismic
array’s full acoustic band, we obtained
unweighted spectrum data (modeled in
1 Hz bands) for a reasonably equivalent
acoustic source (i.e., a 36-airgun array
with total volume of 6,600 in3. Using
these data, we made adjustments (dB) to
the unweighted spectrum levels, by
frequency, according to the weighting
functions for each relevant marine
mammal hearing group. We then
converted these adjusted/weighted
spectrum levels 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 NMFS’s
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
26254
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
User Spreadsheet (i.e., 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, a source velocity
of 4.5 kn, shot intervals specified by the
applicants, and pulse duration of 100
ms, we then calculated potential radial
distances to auditory injury zones.
These distances were smaller than those
calculated on the basis of the peak
pressure criterion, with the exception of
the low-frequency cetacean hearing
group (calculated zones range from 80–
4,766 m). Therefore, our proposed 500m exclusion zone contains the entirety
of any potential injury zone for midfrequency cetaceans, while the zones
within which injury could occur may be
larger for high-frequency cetaceans (on
the basis of peak pressure and
depending on the specific array) and for
low-frequency cetaceans (on the basis of
cumulative sound exposure). Only three
species of high-frequency cetacean
could occur in the proposed survey
areas: the harbor porpoise and two
species of the Family Kogiidae. Harbor
porpoise are expected to occur rarely
and only in the northern portion of the
survey area. However, we propose a
shutdown measure for Kogia spp. to
address these potential injury concerns
(described later in this section).
However, it is important to note that
consideration of 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 consideration of peak
pressure thresholds is most relevant, as
compared with cumulative sound
exposure level thresholds, as the latter
requires that an animal accumulate
some level of sound energy exposure
over some period of time (e.g., 24
hours). 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.
Therefore, definition of an exclusion
zone based on cSEL thresholds is of
questionable relevance given relative
motion of the source and receiver (i.e.,
the animal). Cumulative SEL thresholds
are likely more relevant for purposes of
modeling the potential for auditory
injury than they are for informing real-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
time mitigation. 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
and high-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
zone is not based directly on any
quantitative understanding of the range
at which auditory injury would be
entirely precluded or any range
specifically related to disruption of
behavioral patterns. Rather, we believe
it is a reasonable combination of factors.
This zone would contain all potential
auditory injury for mid-frequency
cetaceans, would contain all potential
auditory injury for both low- and midfrequency cetaceans as assessed against
peak pressure thresholds (NMFS, 2016),
and has been proven as a feasible
measure through past implementation
by operators in the Gulf of Mexico
(GOM; 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
this has the advantage of familiarity and
simplicity while still providing in most
cases a zone larger than relevant
auditory injury zones, given realistic
movement of source and receiver.
Increased shutdowns, without a firm
idea of the outcome the measure seeks
to avoid, simply displace seismic
activity in time and increase the total
duration of acoustic influence as well as
total sound energy in the water (due to
additional ramp-up and overlap where
data acquisition was interrupted).
Shutdown of the acoustic source is
also required (at any distance) in other
circumstances:
• Upon observation of a right whale
at any distance. Recent data concerning
the North Atlantic right whale, one of
the most endangered whale species
(Best et al., 2001), indicate uncertainty
regarding the population’s recovery and
a possibility of decline (Kraus et al.,
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
2005; Waring et al., 2016; Pettis and
Hamilton, 2016). We believe it
appropriate to eliminate potential
effects to individual right whales to the
extent possible.
• For TGS only, due to a high
predicted amount of exposures (Table
10), we propose that shutdown be
required upon observation of a fin
whale at any distance. If the observed
fin whale is within the behavioral
harassment zone, it would still be
considered to have experienced
harassment, but by immediately
shutting down the acoustic source the
duration of harassment is minimized
and the significance of the harassment
event reduced as much as possible. This
measure is not proposed for
implementation by Spectrum, ION,
CGG, or Western.
• 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 twothirds the body size of an adult observed
to be in close association with an adult.
Disturbance of cow-calf pairs, for
example, could potentially result in
separation of vulnerable calves from
adults. Given the endangered status of
most large whale species and the
difficulty of correctly identifying some
rorquals at greater distances, as well as
the functional sensitivity of the
mysticete whales to frequencies
associated with the subject geophysical
survey activity, we believe this measure
is necessary.
• Upon observation of a diving sperm
whale at any distance centered on the
forward track of the source vessel.
Disturbance of deep-diving species such
as sperm whales could result in
avoidance behavior such as diving and,
given their diving capabilities, it is
possible that the vessel’s course could
take it closer to the submerged animals.
As noted by Weir and Dolman (2007), a
whale diving ahead of the source vessel
within 2 km may remain on the vessel
trackline until the ship approaches the
whale’s position before beginning
horizontal movement. If undetected by
PAM, it is possible that a shutdown
might not be triggered and a severe
behavioral response caused.
• Upon any observation (visual or
acoustic) of a beaked whale or Kogia
spp. Similar to the sperm whale
measure described above, these species
are deep divers and it is possible that
disturbance could provoke a severe
behavioral response leading to injury.
Unlike the sperm whale, we recognize
that there are generally low detection
probabilities for beaked whales and
Kogia spp., meaning that many animals
of these species may go undetected. For
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
example, Barlow and Gisiner (2006)
predict a roughly 24–48 percent
reduction in the probability of detecting
beaked whales during seismic
mitigation monitoring efforts as
compared with typical research survey
efforts (Barlow (1999) estimates such
probabilities at 0.23 to 0.45 for Cuvier’s
and Mesoplodont beaked whales,
respectively). Similar detection
probabilities have been noted for Kogia
spp., though they typically travel in
smaller groups and are less vocal, thus
making detection more difficult (Barlow
and Forney, 2007). As discussed later in
this document (see ‘‘Estimated Take by
Incidental Harassment’’), there are high
levels of predicted exposures for beaked
whales in particular. Because it is likely
that only a small proportion of beaked
whales and Kogia spp. potentially
affected by the proposed surveys would
actually be detected, it is important to
avoid potential impacts when possible.
Additionally for Kogia spp.—the one
species of high-frequency cetacean
likely to be encountered—auditory
injury zones relative to peak pressure
thresholds may range from
approximately 350–1,500 m from the
acoustic source, depending on the
specific array characteristics (NMFS,
2016).
• Upon observation of an aggregation
of marine mammals of any species that
does not appear to be traveling. Under
these circumstances, we assume that the
animals are engaged in some important
behavior (e.g., feeding, socializing) that
should not be disturbed. By convention,
we define an aggregation as six or more
animals. This definition may be
modified on the basis of any new
information presented that justifies a
different assumption.
Any PSO on duty has the authority to
delay the start of survey operations or to
call for shutdown of the acoustic source
(visual PSOs on duty should be in
agreement on the need for delay or
shutdown before requiring such action).
When shutdown is called for by a PSO,
the acoustic source must be
immediately deactivated and any
dispute resolved only following
deactivation. The operator must
establish and maintain clear lines of
communication directly between PSOs
on duty and crew controlling the
acoustic source to ensure that shutdown
commands are conveyed swiftly while
allowing PSOs to maintain watch; handheld UHF radios are recommended.
When both visual PSOs and PAM
operators are on duty, all detections
must be immediately communicated to
the remainder of the on-duty team for
potential verification of visual
observations by the PAM operator or of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
acoustic detections by visual PSOs and
initiation of dialogue as necessary.
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. When only the
PAM operator is on duty and a detection
is made, if there is uncertainty regarding
species identification or distance to the
vocalizing animal(s), the acoustic source
must be shut down as a precaution.
Upon implementation of shutdown,
the source may be reactivated after the
animal(s) has been observed exiting the
exclusion zone or following a 30-minute
clearance period with no further
observation of the animal(s). Where
there is no relevant zone (e.g.,
shutdowns at any distance), a 30-minute
clearance period must be observed
following the last observation of the
animal(s). We recognize that BOEM may
require a longer clearance period (e.g.,
60 minutes). However, at typical survey
speed of approximately 4.5 kn, the
vessel would cover greater than 4 km
during the 30-minute clearance period.
Although some deep-diving species are
capable of remaining submerged for
periods up to an hour, it is unlikely that
they would do so both while
experiencing potential adverse reaction
to the acoustic stimulus and remaining
within the exclusion zone of the moving
vessel. Extending the clearance period
would not appreciably increase the
likelihood of detecting the animals prior
to reactivating the acoustic source.
If the acoustic source is shut down for
reasons other than mitigation (e.g.,
mechanical difficulty) for brief periods
(i.e., 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 exclusion zone and
no acoustic detections have occurred.
We define ‘‘brief periods’’ in keeping
with other clearance watch periods and
to avoid unnecessary complexity in
protocols for PSOs. For any longer
shutdown (e.g., during line turns), preclearance watch and ramp-up are
required. For any shutdown at night or
in periods of poor visibility (e.g., BSS 4
or greater), ramp-up is required but if
the shutdown period was brief and
constant observation maintained, preclearance watch is not required.
Power-Down
Power-down can be used either as a
reverse ramp-up or may simply involve
reducing the array to a single element or
‘‘mitigation source,’’ and has been
allowed in past MMPA authorizations
as a substitute for full shutdown. We
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
26255
address use of a mitigation source
below. In a power-down scenario, it is
assumed that turning off power to
individual array elements reduces the
size of the ensonified area such that an
observed animal is then outside some
designated area. However, we have no
information as to the effect of powering
down the array on the resulting sound
field. In 2012, NMFS and BOEM held a
monitoring and mitigation workshop
focused on seismic survey activity.
Industry representatives indicated that
the end result may ultimately be
increased sound input to the marine
environment due to the need to re-shoot
the trackline to prevent gaps in data
acquisition (unpublished workshop
report, 2012). For this reason and
because a power-down may not actually
be useful, our proposal requires full
shutdown in all applicable
circumstances; power-down is not
allowed.
Mitigation Source
Mitigation sources may be separate
individual airguns or may be an airgun
of the smallest volume in the array, and
are often used when the full array is not
being used (e.g., during line turns) in
order to allow ramp-up during poor
visibility. The general premise is that
this lower-intensity source, if operated
continuously, would be sufficiently
aversive to marine mammals to ensure
that they are not within an exclusion
zone, and therefore, ramp-up may occur
at times when pre-clearance visual
watch is minimally effective. There is
no information to suggest that this is an
effective protective strategy, yet we are
certain that this technique involves
input of extraneous sound energy into
the marine environment, even when use
of the mitigation source is limited to
some maximum time period. For these
reasons, we do not believe use of the
mitigation source is appropriate and do
not propose to allow its use. However,
as noted above, ramp-up may occur
under periods of poor visibility
assuming that no acoustic or visual
detections are made during a 30-minute
pre-clearance period. This is a change
from how mitigation sources have been
considered in the past in that the visual
pre-clearance period is typically
assumed to be highly effective during
good visibility conditions and viewed as
critical to avoiding auditory injury and,
therefore, maintaining some likelihood
of aversion through use of mitigation
sources during poor visibility
conditions is valuable.
In light of the available information,
we think it more appropriate to
acknowledge the limitations of visual
observations—even under good
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
26256
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
conditions, not all animals will be
observed and cryptic species may not be
observed at all—and recognize that
while visual observation is a common
sense mitigation measure its presence
should not be determinative of when
survey effort may occur. Given the lack
of proven efficacy of visual observation
in preventing auditory injury, its
absence should not imply such
potentially detrimental impacts on
marine mammals, nor should use of a
mitigation source be deemed a sensible
substitute component of seismic
mitigation protocols. We also believe
that consideration of mitigation sources
in the past has reflected an outdated
balance, in which the possible
prevention of relatively few instances of
auditory injury is outweighed by many
more instances of unnecessary
behavioral disturbance of animals and
degradation of acoustic habitat.
Miscellaneous Protocols
The acoustic source must be
deactivated when not acquiring data or
preparing to acquire data, except as
necessary for testing. Unnecessary use
of the acoustic source should be
avoided. Firing of the acoustic source at
any volume above the stated production
volume is not authorized for these
proposed IHAs; the operator must
provide information to the lead PSO at
regular intervals confirming the firing
volume.
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.
We encourage the applicant
companies and operators to pursue the
following objectives in designing,
tuning, and operating acoustic sources:
(1) Use the minimum amount of energy
necessary to achieve operational
objectives (i.e., lowest practicable
source level); (2) minimize horizontal
propagation of sound energy; and (3)
minimize the amount of energy at
frequencies above those necessary for
the purpose of the survey. However, we
are not aware of available specific
measures by which to achieve such
certifications. In fact, BOEM recently
announced that an expert panel
convened to determine whether it
would be feasible to develop standards
to determine a lowest practicable source
level has determined that it would not
be reasonable or practicable to develop
such metrics (see Appendix L in BOEM,
2016b). Minimizing production of
sound at frequencies higher than are
necessary would likely require design,
testing, and use of wholly different
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
airguns than are proposed for use by the
applicants. At minimum, 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 for reporting. The lead PSO
must be granted access to relevant
instrumentation documenting acoustic
source power and/or operational
volume.
There has been some attention paid to
the establishment of minimum
separation distances between operating
source vessels, and BOEM may require
a minimum 40-km geographic
separation distance (BOEM, 2014b). The
premise regarding this measure is either
to provide a relatively noise-free
corridor between vessels conducting
simultaneous surveys such that animals
may pass through rather than traveling
larger distances to go around the source
vessels or to reduce the cumulative
sound exposure for an animal in a given
location. There is no information
supporting the effectiveness of this
measure, and participants in a 2012
monitoring and mitigation workshop
focused on seismic survey activity held
by NMFS and BOEM were skeptical
regarding potential efficacy of this
measure (unpublished workshop report,
2012). Unintended consequences were a
concern of some participants, including
the possibility that converging sound
fields could confuse animals and/or
prevent egress from an area. In fact, it
may be more effective as a protective
measure to group acoustic sources as
closely together as possible, in which
case the SEL exposure would not be
appreciably louder and an animal
would have a better chance of avoiding
exposure than through the supposed
corridor (thus also potentially
shortening total duration of sound
exposure).
The desired effect of such a measure
is too speculative and would impose
additional burden on applicants.
Therefore, we do not propose to require
any minimum separation distance
between source vessels. Operators do
typically maintain a minimum
separation of about 17.5 km between
concurrent surveys to avoid interference
(i.e., overlapping reflections received
from multiple source arrays) (BOEM,
2014a). As noted previously, TGS (the
only company proposing to use two
source vessels) plans to maintain a
minimum separation of approximately
100 km between their own source
vessels.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
Closure Areas
Coastal Restriction—No seismic
survey effort may occur within 30 km of
the coast. The intent of this restriction
is to provide additional protection for
coastal stocks of bottlenose dolphin, all
of which are designated as depleted
under the MMPA because they were
determined to be below their optimum
sustainable population level (i.e., the
number of animals that will result in the
maximum productivity of the
population, keeping in mind the
carrying capacity of their ecosystem).
Already designated as depleted, an
Unusual Mortality Event (UME) affected
bottlenose dolphins along the Atlantic
coast, from New York to Florida, from
2013–15. Genetic analyses performed to
date indicate that 99 percent of dolphins
impacted were of the coastal ecotype,
which may be expected to typically
occur within 20 km of the coast. A 10
km buffer is provided to encompass the
area within which sound exceeding 160
dB rms would reasonably be expected to
occur (see additional discussion in next
section). Further discussion of this UME
is provided under ‘‘Description of
Marine Mammals in the Area of the
Specified Activity,’’ later in this
document.
The coastal form of bottlenose
dolphin is known to occur further
offshore than 20 km, but available
information suggests that exclusion of
harassing sound from a 20 km coastal
zone would avoid the vast majority of
impacts. There is generally a
discontinuity in bottlenose dolphin
distribution between nearshore areas
inhabited by coastal ecotype dolphins
and the deeper offshore waters
inhabited by offshore ecotype dolphins
(Kenney, 1990; Roberts et al., 2016),
with some possibility that this
discontinuity represents habitat
partitioning between bottlenose
dolphins and Atlantic spotted dolphins
(which occur in high density on the
shelf in areas where there is generally
low density of bottlenose dolphin). The
separation between offshore and coastal
morphotypes varies depending on
location and season, with the ranges
overlapping to some degree south of
Cape Hatteras. Coastwide, systematic
biopsy collection surveys were
conducted during the summer and
winter to evaluate the degree of spatial
overlap between the two morphotypes.
North of Cape Lookout, North Carolina,
there was a clear discontinuity with
coastal ecotype dolphins found in
waters less than 20 m depth and
offshore ecotype dolphins found in
waters greater than 40 m depth. South
of Cape Lookout, spatial overlap was
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
found although the probability of a
sampled group being from the coastal
ecotype decreased with increasing
depth (Garrison et al., 2003). Prior to
these surveys, coastal ecotype dolphins
were provisionally assumed to occur
within a spatial boundary of 27 km from
shore for the region south of Cape
Hatteras during winter and a boundary
of 12 km from shore for the region north
of Cape Hatteras during summer
(Garrison, 2001 in Garrison et al., 2003).
Here, we adopt a coastwide 20 km
spatial boundary for simplicity and
under the assumption that it would
contain the vast majority of coastal
bottlenose dolphins.
Proposal of this measure should not
be interpreted as NMFS’s determination
that harassment of coastal bottlenose
dolphins cannot be authorized.
However, when considering the likely
benefit to the species against the impact
to applicants, we believe that inclusion
of this measure is warranted.
Approximately 1,650 dolphin carcasses
were recovered during the UME, and it
is likely that many more dolphins died
whose carcasses were not recovered.
Considering just the known dead could
represent greater than five percent of the
pre-UME abundance for all coastal
ecotype dolphins within the affected
area. Ongoing areas of research related
to the UME include understanding its
impacts on the status of the affected
stocks, as well as continuing monitoring
and modeling designed to inform
understanding of impacts on the
surviving population. Given this
uncertainty, a precautionary approach is
warranted. We note that three
applicants, Spectrum, CGG, and
Western, do not propose to conduct
survey effort within 30 km of the coast,
and effort within 30 km for the other
two applicants would represent a small
fraction of overall survey effort.
North Atlantic Right Whale—We
propose seasonal restriction of survey
effort such that particular areas of
expected importance for North Atlantic
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
right whales are not ensonified by levels
of sound expected to result in
behavioral harassment, including
designated critical habitat, vessel speed
limit seasonal management areas
(SMAs), a coastal strip containing
SMAs, and vessel speed limit dynamic
management areas (DMAs). Although
right whales may also use areas farther
offshore, these areas are expected to
provide substantial protection of right
whales within the migratory corridor
and calving and nursery grounds and,
when coupled with the absolute
shutdown provision described
previously for right whales, may
reasonably be expected to eliminate
most potential for behavioral
harassment of right whales.
The North Atlantic right whale was
severely depleted by historical whaling,
and currently has a small population
abundance (i.e., less than 500
individuals) that is considered to be
extremely low relative to the optimum
sustainable population (Waring et al.,
2016). Surveys in recent years have
detected an important shift in habitat
use patterns, with fewer whales
observed in feeding areas and counts for
calves and adults on the southeastern
calving grounds the lowest recorded
since those surveys began (Waring et al.,
2016). At the same time, the current
estimate of the minimum number of
whales alive (as described in NMFS’s
draft 2016 stock assessment report)
suggests that abundance has declined.
While the authors caution that this
apparent decrease should be interpreted
with caution and in conjunction with
apparent shifts in habitat use, it is
possible that the population has
declined. An increased number of
carcasses were recovered in 2004–05,
including six adult females. Kraus et al.
(2005) determined that this mortality
rate increase would reduce population
growth by approximately ten percent
per year, a trend not detected in
subsequent years. Furthermore, the
current annual estimate of
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
26257
anthropogenic mortality is over five
times the potential biological removal
level (see ‘‘Description of Marine
Mammals in the Area of the Specified
Activity’’ for further discussion of these
concepts). The small population size
and low annual reproductive rate of
right whales suggest that human sources
of mortality may have a greater effect
relative to population growth rates than
for other whales (Waring et al., 2016).
Given these considerations, and the
likelihood that any disturbance of right
whales is consequential, here we take a
precautionary approach to mitigation.
Mid-Atlantic SMAs for vessel speed
limits are in effect from November 1
through April 30, while southeast SMAs
are in effect from November 15 through
April 15 (see 50 CFR 224.105). However,
as a precautionary approach all areas
discussed here for proposed mitigation
would be in effect from November 1
through April 30. Because we intend to
use these areas to reduce the likelihood
of exposing right whales to noise from
airgun arrays that might result in
harassment, we require that source
vessels maintain a minimum standoff of
10 km from the area. Sound propagation
modeling results provided for a notional
large airgun array in BOEM’s PEIS
indicate that a 10 km distance would
likely contain received levels of sound
exceeding 160 dB rms under a wide
variety of conditions (e.g., 21 scenarios
encompassing four depth regimes, four
seasons, two bottom types). See
Appendix D of BOEM’s PEIS for more
detail. The 95 percent ranges (i.e., the
radius of a circle encompassing 95
percent of grid points equal to or greater
than the 160 dB threshold value)
provided in Table D–22 of BOEM’s PEIS
range from 4,959–9,122 m, with mean of
6,838 m. Restricting scenario results to
fall/winter and water depths <1,000 m
reduces the number of relevant
scenarios to six, with the range of radial
distances from 8,083–8,896 m (mean of
8,454 m).
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
26258
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
Atlantic Right Whale Critical Habitat
nn1eas•ter·n U.S. Calving Area
.... .,.FT"'"
Unit 2
GEORGfA
FLORIDA
Detail
of North Atlantic
whale critical habitat.
refer to the narretlve delilcriintlnn.
nal~ttatt~ O!l&all;e
Figure 2. North Atlantic Right Whale Critical Habitat, Southeast U.S.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
The portion of critical habitat within
the proposed survey area includes
nearshore and offshore waters of the
southeastern U.S., extending from Cape
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
Fear, North Carolina south to 28° N. The
specific area designated as critical
habitat, as defined by regulation (81 FR
4838; January 27, 2016), is demarcated
by rhumb lines connecting the specific
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
points identified in Table 2. This area is
depicted in Figure 2, and the restriction
on survey effort within 10 km of this
area would be in effect from November
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
EN06JN17.001
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
critical
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
through April, when right whales are
known to use the area.
A coastal strip containing all SMAs
would also be avoided by a minimum
standoff distance of 10 km, as would
DMAs. These are areas in which right
whales are likely to be present when
such areas are in effect; mandatory or
voluntary speed restrictions for certain
vessels are in place in these areas
respectively when in effect to reduce the
risk of ship strike. Because these areas
are intended to reduce the risk of ship
strike involving right whales, they are
designated in consideration of both right
whale presence during migratory
periods and commercial shipping
traffic. Our concern is not limited to
ship strike; therefore the standoff areas
based on the SMAs are extended to a
continuous coastal strip with a 10 km
buffer. Mid-Atlantic SMAs (from
Delaware to northern Georgia) are
intended to protect whales on the
migratory route and are generally
defined as a 20 nmi (37 km) radial
distance around the entrance to certain
ports. Therefore, no survey effort may
occur within 47 km of the coast between
November and April. This strip is
superseded where either designated
critical habitat or the southeast SMA
provides a larger restricted area. The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
southeast SMA, intended to protect
whales on the calving and nursery
grounds, includes the area bounded to
the north by 31°27′ N., to the south by
29°45′ N., and to the east by 80°51′36″
W. No survey effort may occur within
10 km of this area between November
and April. The combined area of our
proposed restriction—composed of the
greater of designated critical habitat, the
20 nmi coastal strip, and the
southeastern SMA (all buffered by 10
km)—is depicted in Figure 3.
TABLE 2—BOUNDARIES OF DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR
NORTH ATLANTIC RIGHT WHALES
Latitude
Longitude
Latitude
Longitude
33°51′ N.
29°08′ N.
80°51′ W.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
At shoreline
77°43′ W.
77°47′ W.
78°33′ W.
78°50′ W.
79°53′ W.
80°33′ W.
80°49′ W.
81°01′ W.
81°01′ W.
28°50′
28°38′
28°28′
28°24′
28°21′
28°16′
28°11′
28°00′
28°00′
80°39′ W.
80°30′ W.
80°26′ W.
80°27′ W.
80°31′ W.
80°31′ W.
80°33′ W.
80°29′ W.
At shoreline.
29°15′ N.
DMAs are also associated with a
scheme established by the final rule for
vessel speed limits (73 FR 60173;
October 10, 2008; extended by 78 FR
73726; December 9, 2013) to reduce the
risk of ship strike for right whales. In
association with those regulations,
NMFS established a program whereby
vessels are requested, but not required,
to abide by speed restrictions or avoid
locations when certain aggregations of
right whales are detected outside SMAs.
Generally, the DMA construct is
intended to acknowledge that right
whales can occur outside of areas where
they predictably and consistently occur
due to, e.g., varying oceanographic
conditions that dictate prey
concentrations. NMFS establishes
DMAs by surveying right whale habitat
and, when a specific aggregation is
sighted, creating a temporary zone (i.e.,
DMA) around the aggregation. DMAs are
in effect for 15 days when designated
and automatically expire at the end of
the period, but may be extended if
whales are re-sighted in the same area.
80°55′ W.
33°42′
33°37′
33°28′
32°59′
32°17′
31°31′
30°43′
30°30′
29°45′
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
Reproduced from 50 CFR 226.203(b)(2).
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
26259
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
26260
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
OO"O'O"W
70"0'0"W
0
100
0
I
150
200
400 Miles
300
600 Kilometers
I
I
0
Figure 3. Proposed Time-area Restriction for North Atlantic Right Whale.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
Designation of DMAs follows certain
protocols identified in 73 FR 60173
(October 10, 2008):
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
1. A circle with a radius of at least 3
nmi (5.6 km) is drawn around each
observed group. This radius is adjusted
for the number of right whales seen in
the group such that the density of four
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
right whales per 100 nmi2 (185 km2) is
maintained. The length of the radius is
determined by taking the inverse of the
four right whales per 100 nmi2 density
(24 nmi2 per whale). That figure is
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
EN06JN17.002
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Coordinate System: GCS North American Datum 1983
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
equivalent to an effective radial distance
of 3 nmi for a single right whale sighted,
4 nmi for two whales, 5 nmi for three
whales, etc.
2. If any circle or group of contiguous
circles includes three or more right
whales, this core area and its
surrounding waters become a candidate
temporary zone. After NMFS identifies
a core area containing three or more
right whales, as described here, it will
expand this initial core area to provide
a buffer area in which the right whales
could move and still be protected.
NMFS determines the extent of the
DMA zone by:
3. Establishing a 15-nmi (27.8-km)
radius from the sighting location used to
draw a larger circular zone around each
core area encompassing a concentration
of right whales. The sighting location is
the geographic center of all sightings on
the first day of an event; and
4. Identifying latitude and longitude
lines drawn outside but tangential to the
circular buffer zone(s).
NMFS issues announcements of
DMAs to mariners via its customary
maritime communication media (e.g.,
NOAA Weather radio, Web sites, email
and fax distribution lists) and any other
available media outlets. Information on
the possibility of establishment of such
zones is provided to mariners through
written media such as U.S. Coast Pilots
and Notice to Mariners including, in
particular, information on the media
mariners should monitor for notification
of the establishment of a DMA. Upon
notice via the above media of DMA
designation, survey operators must
cease operation if within 10 km of the
boundary of a designated DMA and may
not conduct survey operations within 10
km of a designated DMA during the
period in which the DMA is active. It is
the responsibility of the survey
operators to monitor appropriate media
and to be aware of designated DMAs.
Proposal of this measure should not
be interpreted as NMFS’s determination
that harassment of right whales cannot
be authorized. However, when
considering the current status of the
species, likely benefit of the measure to
the species, and likely impact to
applicants, we believe that inclusion of
this measure is warranted.
Other Species—Predicted acoustic
exposures are moderate to high for
certain potentially affected marine
mammal species (see Table 10) and,
regardless of the absolute numbers of
predicted exposures, the scope of
proposed activities (i.e., proposed
survey activity throughout substantial
portions of many species range and for
substantial portions of the year) gives
rise to concern regarding the impact on
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
certain potentially affected stocks.
Therefore, we take the necessary step of
identifying additional spatiotemporal
restrictions on survey effort, as
described here (Figure 4 and Table 3).
Our qualitative assessment leads us to
believe that implementation of these
measures is expected to provide both
meaningful control on the numbers of
animals affected as well as biologically
meaningful benefit for the affected
animals by restricting survey activity
and the effects of the sound produced in
areas of residency and/or preferred
habitat that support higher densities for
the stocks during substantial portions of
the year.
The restrictions described here are
primarily targeted towards protection of
sperm whales, beaked whales (i.e.,
Cuvier’s beaked whale or Mesoplodon
spp. but not the northern bottlenose
whale; see ‘‘Description of Marine
Mammals in the Area of the Specified
Activity’’), Atlantic spotted dolphin,
and pilot whales. For all four species or
guilds, the amount of predicted
exposures is moderate to high. For the
Atlantic spotted dolphin, our impetus in
delineating a restriction on survey effort
is solely due to this high amount of
predicted exposures to survey noise. For
other species, the moderate to high
amount of predicted exposures in
conjunction with other contextual
elements provides the impetus to
develop appropriate restrictions. Beaked
whales are considered to be a
particularly acoustically sensitive
species. The sperm whale is an
endangered species, also considered to
be acoustically sensitive and potentially
subject to significant disturbance of
important foraging behavior. Pilot whale
populations in U.S. waters of the
Atlantic are considered vulnerable due
to high levels of mortality in
commercial fisheries, and are therefore
likely to be less resilient to other
stressors, such as disturbance from the
proposed surveys.
In some cases, we expect substantial
subsidiary benefit for additional species
that also find preferred habitat in the
designated area of restriction. In
particular, Area #5 (Figure 4), although
delineated in order to specifically
provide an area of anticipated benefit to
beaked whales, sperm whales, and pilot
whales, is expected to host a diverse
cetacean fauna (e.g., McAlarney et al.,
2015). Our analysis (described below)
indicates that species most likely to
derive subsidiary benefit from this timearea restriction include the bottlenose
dolphin, Risso’s dolphin, and common
dolphin. For species with density
predicted through stratified models,
similar analysis is not possible and
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
26261
assumptions regarding potential benefit
of time-area restrictions are based on
known ecology of the species and
sightings patterns and are less robust.
Nevertheless, subsidiary benefit for
Areas #2–4 (Figure 4) should be
expected for species known to be
present in these areas (e.g., assumed
affinity for slope/abyss areas off Cape
Hatteras): Kogia spp., pantropical
spotted dolphin, Clymene dolphin, and
rough-toothed dolphin.
In order to consider potential
restriction of survey effort in time and
space, we considered the outputs of
habitat-based predictive density models
(Roberts et al., 2016) as well as available
information concerning focused marine
mammal studies within the proposed
survey areas, e.g., photo-identification,
telemetry, acoustic monitoring. The
latter information was used primarily to
provide verification for some of the
areas and times considered, and helps to
confirm that areas of high predicted
density are in fact preferred habitat for
these species. Please see ‘‘Marine
Mammal Density Information,’’ later in
this document, for a full description of
the density models. We used the density
model outputs by creating core
abundance areas, i.e., an area that
contains some percentage of predicted
abundance for a given species or species
group. The purpose of a core abundance
area is to represent the smallest area
containing some percentage of the
predicted abundance of each species.
Summing all the cells (pixels) in the
species distribution product gives the
total predicted abundance. Core area is
calculated by ranking cells by their
abundance value from greatest to least,
then summing cells with the highest
abundance values until the total is equal
to or greater than the specified
percentage of the total predicted
abundance. For example, if a 50 percent
core abundance area is produced, half of
the predicted abundance falls within the
identified core area, and half occurs
outside of it. In creating core abundance
areas, we considered data outputs over
the entire Atlantic coast scale rather
than limiting to the proposed survey
areas. This is appropriate because we
are concerned with impacts to a stock as
a whole, and therefore were interested
in core abundance based on total
predicted abundance rather than just
abundance predicted over some subset
of a stock’s range. We were not able to
consider core abundance areas for
species with stratified models showing
uniform density; however, this
information informs us as to whether
those species may receive subsidiary
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
26262
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
benefit from a given time-area
restriction.
To determine core abundance areas,
we follow a three-step process:
• Determine the predicted total
abundance of a species/time period by
adding up all cells of the density raster
(grid) for the species/time period. For
the Roberts et al. (2016) density rasters,
density is specified as the number of
animals per 100 km2 cell.
• Sort the cells of the species/time
period density raster from highest
density to the lowest.
• Sum and select the raster cells from
highest to lowest until a certain
percentage of the total abundance is
reached.
The selected cells represent the
smallest area that represents a given
percentage of abundance. We created a
range of core abundance areas for each
species of interest, but ultimately
determined that 25 percent core
abundance area was appropriate in most
cases for our purpose. The larger the
percentage of abundance captured, the
larger the area. Generally speaking, we
found that 25 percent core abundance
provided the best balance between the
areas given by larger (impracticably
large areas for purposes of restricting
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
survey effort) and smaller (ineffective
areas for purposes of providing
meaningful protection) areas. However,
for sperm whales, our analysis showed
that the 25 percent core abundance area
covered a large portion of slope waters
in the northern mid-Atlantic region and,
therefore, what we believe to be an
impracticably large area for potential
restriction of survey effort. Although
sperm whales are broadly distributed on
the slope throughout the year, at the five
percent core abundance threshold we
found that the model predictions
indicate a relatively restricted area of
preferred habitat across all seasons in
the vicinity of the shelf break to the
north of Cape Hatteras. This area,
together with spatially separated canyon
features contained within the 25 percent
core abundance areas and previously
identified as preferred habitat for
beaked whales, form the basis for our
proposed time-space restriction for
sperm whales. Core abundance maps are
provided online at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
pr/permits/incidental/oilgas.htm.
In summary, we propose the
following closure areas (depicted in
Figure 4):
• In order to protect coastal
bottlenose dolphins, a 30-km coastal
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
strip (20 km plus 10 km buffer) would
be closed to use of the acoustic source
year-round.
• An area proposed for protection of
the North Atlantic right whale (Figure
3). The area is comprised of the furthest
extent at any location of three distinct
components: (1) A 47-km coastal strip
(20-nmi plus 10 km buffer) throughout
the entire Mid- and South Atlantic OCS
planning areas; (2) designated critical
habitat, buffered by 10 km; and (3) the
designated southeastern seasonal
management area, buffered by 10 km.
This area would be closed to use of the
acoustic source from November through
April. Dynamic management areas
(buffered by 10 km) are also closed to
use of the acoustic source when in
effect.
The 10-km buffer (intended to
reasonably prevent sound output from
the acoustic source exceeding received
levels expected to result in behavioral
harassment from entering the proposed
closure areas) is built into the areas
defined below and in Table 3.
Therefore, we do not separately mention
the addition of the buffer.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
26263
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
100
0
0
150
I
200
400 Miles
300
600 Kilometers
I
I
()
Figure 4. Proposed Time-area Restrictions.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
• An area proposed for protection of
Atlantic spotted dolphin (Area #1,
Figure 4). The area contains the on-shelf
portion of a 25 percent core abundance
area for the species, and is comprised of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
lines that demarcate the northern and
southern extent of this area, connected
by a line marking 100 km distance from
shore (as indicated in Table 3). This area
would be closed to use of the acoustic
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
source from June through August. This
restriction would not be required for
ION or CGG.
• Deepwater canyon areas. Areas #2–
4 (Figure 4) are proposed as defined in
Table 3 and would be closed to use of
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
EN06JN17.003
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Coordinate System: GCS North American Datum 1983
26264
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
the acoustic source year-round.
Although they may be protective of
additional species (e.g., Kogia spp.),
Area #2 is expected to be particularly
beneficial for beaked whales and Areas
#3–4 are expected to be particularly
beneficial for both beaked whales and
sperm whales.
• Shelf break off Cape Hatteras and to
the north, including slope waters
around ‘‘The Point.’’ Area #5 is
proposed as defined in Table 3 and
would be closed to use of the acoustic
source from July through September.
Although this closure is expected to be
beneficial for a diverse species
assemblage, Area #5 is expected to be
particularly beneficial for beaked
whales, sperm whales, and pilot whales.
Beaked Whale
Beaked whales are typically deep
divers, foraging for mesopelagic squid
and fish, and are often found in deep
water near high-relief bathymetric
features, such as slopes, canyons, and
escarpments where these prey are found
(e.g., Madsen et al., 2014; MacLeod and
D’Amico, 2006; Moors-Murphy, 2014).
Sightings of Cuvier’s beaked whale are
almost exclusively in the continental
shelf edge and continental slope areas,
while Mesoplodon spp. sightings have
occurred principally along the shelfedge and deeper oceanic waters
(CETAP, 1982; Waring et al., 1992;
Tove, 1995; Waring et al., 2001;
Hamazaki, 2002; Palka, 2006; Waring et
al., 2014). Roberts et al. (2016)’s results
suggest that beaked whales do not
undertake large seasonal migrations,
and are therefore associated with
significant habitat features year-round
or with some degree of residency
(Roberts et al., 2015l; Gowans et al.,
2000; MacLeod and D’Amico, 2006). In
support of patterns seen in the density
model outputs, MacLeod and D’Amico
(2006) state that beaked whale
occurrence is linked particularly to
features such as slopes, canyons,
escarpments and oceanic islands.
Northern bottlenose whales and
Sowerby’s beaked whales were found to
preferentially occur in a marine canyon
rather than the neighboring shelf, slope
and abyssal areas (Hooker et al., 1999,
2002). Cuvier’s beaked whales are also
known to associate with canyons
(D’Amico et al., 2003; Williams et al.,
1999), and Blainville’s beaked whales
were also found to preferentially occur
over the upper reaches of a canyon
(MacLeod and Zuur, 2005). Sighting
rates of beaked whales in the western
North Atlantic are significantly higher
within canyon areas than non-canyon
areas (Waring et al., 2001). It is possible,
however, that such occurrence patterns
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
are linked more strongly to
oceanographic features influencing prey
distribution, which may or may not be
permanently linked to seabed
topography (MacLeod and D’Amico,
2006).
Submarine canyons are important
features of the shelf and slope region
from Cape Hatteras to the north, with
both major and minor canyons abundant
in the region. Roberts et al. (2016)
predicted beaked whale density at yearround temporal resolution, with model
predictions showing concentrated
distribution in deep waters over highrelief bathymetry where high prey
density would be expected due to
entrainment of nutrient-rich sediments
and organic material (Moors-Murphy,
2014). Highest densities were predicted
in areas along the continental slope and
in and around submarine canyons
(Roberts et al., 2016). The core
abundance area analysis highlighted
three such submarine canyon areas as
being of year-round importance to
beaked whales (Areas #2–4, see Figure
4). Area #3 is centered on Hatteras
Canyon, a major canyon system that
cuts a deep valley across the upper
continental rise before terminating on
the lower rise. Area #2, in deeper water,
encompasses the Hatteras Transverse
Canyon (HTC). HTC is downslope of
and fed by both Hatteras and Albemarle
Canyons (which dissect the slope) and
their channel extensions, as well as
smaller unnamed canyons and canyon
channels, and is bounded by the
Hatteras Ridge, which is a major
transverse barrier deflecting turbidity
currents into the HTC (Gardner et al.,
2016). Area #4 is centered on a large,
deepwater valley system that is fed by
a complex series of canyons and gullies
incising the slope between Hendrickson
and Baltimore Canyons (note that the
entire shelf break north of Cape
Hatteras, including many of these
canyons and gullies, is included in our
Area #5 (Figure 4) which is discussed
below). In delineating the actual area
proposed for restriction on survey effort,
we expanded from 10 x 10 km grid cells
specifically predicted as being within
the beaked whale 25 percent core
abundance area to include adjacent cells
that also cover the relevant bathymetric
feature. Assuming that beaked whales
are present in these areas, their use of
these habitat areas would not be
expected to be restricted within the
feature and we delineate the proposed
closure areas accordingly. We assume
that beaked whales associate with these
features year-round, and each of the
three areas is proposed as a year-round
closure.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
Area #5 (Figure 4) was designed as a
multi-species area, primarily focused on
pilot whales, beaked whales, and sperm
whales. This area is focused on a
particularly dynamic and highly
productive environment off of Cape
Hatteras (sometimes referred to as
‘‘Hatteras Corner’’ or ‘‘The Point’’) and
the shelf break environment running to
the north (to the boundary of BOEM’s
Mid-Atlantic OCS planning area) and to
the south. This environment off of Cape
Hatteras is created through the
confluence of multiple currents and
water masses, including the Gulf Stream
(SAFMC, 2003), over complex bottom
topography and hosts a high density and
diversity of cetaceans (e.g., McAlarney
et al., 2015). For beaked whales, our
core abundance area analysis predicts
that the shelf break area running from
The Point to the southern extent of Area
#5 would be within the 25 percent core
abundance area, while the remainder of
the shelf break to the north would be
within the 50 percent core abundance
area. This finding is supported by
passive acoustic monitoring effort,
which detected echolocation signals
from Cuvier’s beaked whales
consistently throughout the year (95
percent of 741 recording days across all
seasons), suggesting that beaked whales
are resident to this area (Stanistreet et
al., 2015). Gervais’ beaked whales were
detected more sporadically (33 percent
of recording days). Monthly aerial
surveys conducted from 2011–2014 in
the same region, from shallow
continental shelf waters across the
continental shelf break and into deep
pelagic waters, also detected beaked
whales in all months of the year
(McLellan et al., 2015). All beaked
whale sightings occurred along the
continental shelf break. Baird et al.
(2015) reported results from three tagged
Cuvier’s beaked whales, which largely
remained in slope waters off the coasts
of North Carolina, Virginia, and
Maryland. Although this limited
number of tags makes it difficult to draw
conclusions, the authors hypothesize
that the observed movements may be
representative of a resident population.
Although beaked whales are likely
present in this area year-round, there is
significant overlap between this
proposed restriction and the area of
highest interest by the applicant
companies. Therefore, we determined
that practicability concerns dictate that
we establish a temporal component to
this closure rather than designate this
area as a year-round closure (as is the
case for Areas #2–4). Roberts et al.
(2016) predicted density for pilot
whales and beaked whales at year-round
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
temporal resolution; therefore, the
output of those models does not help to
designate a temporal aspect to this
proposed restriction. However, the
model produced for sperm whales
predicts density at a monthly resolution
and informed our delineation of
temporal bounds for this closure. The
model predicts the greatest density of
sperm whales in this region from June
through October, with the highest
overall abundance predicted for July
through September (Roberts et al.,
2015n). Therefore, we propose that Area
#5 be in effect as a seasonal area closure
from July through September.
Sperm Whale
Although sperm whales are one of the
most widely distributed marine
mammals, they are typically more
abundant in areas of high primary
productivity (Jaquet et al., 1996) and
thus may be expected to occur in greater
numbers in areas where physiographic
and oceanographic features serve to
aggregate prey (e.g., squid). Sperm
whales are in fact commonly associated
with submarine canyons (MoorsMurphy, 2014) and, specifically in this
region, have been found to be associated
with canyons (Whitehead et al., 1992),
the north wall of the Gulf Stream
(Waring et al., 1993), and temperature
fronts and warm-core eddies (Waring et
al., 2001; Griffin, 1999). Areas #3–4
(Figure 4), described above for beaked
whales, were also identified as areas of
high predicted density for sperm
whales. Roberts et al. (2016) predicted
sperm whale density at monthly
temporal resolution, and core
abundance analysis conducted at a
monthly time-step predicts that Area #3
is of year-round importance for sperm
whales, while Area #4 is within the
sperm whale 25 percent core abundance
area for seven months of the year (JunDec). CETAP (1982) reported sightings
of sperm whales north of Cape Hatteras
off the shelf and along the shelf break
during all four seasons, while acoustic
monitoring detected sperm whales every
month of the year off the shelf near
Onslow Bay, North Carolina (Stanistreet
et al., 2012; Hodge and Read, 2014;
Debich et al., 2014; Hodge et al., 2015).
As noted above, Area #5 (Figure 4) is
a multi-species area, primarily focused
on pilot whales, beaked whales, and
sperm whales, and is proposed to be in
effect from July through September. In
particular, Area #5’s ‘‘bulge’’ to the
north and east of Cape Hatteras was
indicated as high-density sperm whale
habitat contained within the five
percent core abundance area in all
months, but as a larger area and with
higher predicted density during July
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
26265
through September, as discussed above.
During these months, the 25 percent
core abundance area for sperm whales is
predicted as covering a large swath of
the region from the region of The Point
off and to the south of Cape Hatteras
north to the planning area boundary and
including shelf break waters east over
the entire slope and into abyssal waters
in some locations. As described
previously, due to the large size of this
area, we based this component of Area
#5 on the relevant portion of the five
percent core abundance are for sperm
whales. This area, predicted to host the
highest density of sperm whales, was
contiguous to and somewhat
overlapping with the shelf break strip
suggested by core abundance area
analysis for beaked whales and pilot
whales. We believe this reflects the
appropriate balance between necessary
protective measures for this species and
practicability for the applicant
companies, which would be severely
restricted in their ability to survey the
area of interest were our proposed
closure larger in terms of either space or
time.
their habitat use relative to
environmental variables. Results
showed that pilot whales have a strong
affinity for the shelf break, with more
than 90 percent of locations occurring
within 20 km of the shelf break (i.e.,
1,000 m depth contour) and more than
65 percent occurring within 5 km of the
shelf break, and highlight the
importance of static habitat features for
the species. As a result of similar
tagging work, Foley et al. (2015) found
that, despite long-distance movements,
pilot whales displayed a high degree of
site fidelity off Cape Hatteras. Intra- and
inter-annual as well as intra- and interseasonal matches to an existing photoidentification catalog were made, and
some individuals were matched over
periods of up to eight years. The authors
hypothesize that that the shelf break
offshore of Cape Hatteras is an
important area for this species, to which
individuals return frequently. Area #5
(Figure 4) was designed accordingly to
encompass these important pilot whale
habitat areas and, as described
previously, is proposed to be in effect
from July through September.
Pilot Whale
Pilot whales are distributed primarily
along the continental shelf edge,
occupying areas of high relief or
submerged banks, and are also
associated with the Gulf Stream wall
and thermal fronts along the shelf edge
(Waring et al., 2016). Roberts et al.
(2016) predicted pilot whale density at
year-round temporal resolution. High
pilot whale density was predicted
throughout the year at an area of the
shelf break and continental slope north
of where the Gulf Stream separates from
the shelf at Cape Hatteras. Sightings
were reported in this vicinity in nearly
every month of the year (Roberts et al.,
2015c).The entire shelf break area from
Cape Hatteras north to the boundary of
the planning area was predicted as
being within the pilot whale 25 percent
core abundance area. However, within
this predicted core abundance area, the
region immediately offshore of the Cape
Hatteras shelf break and to the north
extending into waters over the slope
was predicted as containing notably
higher density of pilot whales. This area
is retained within the core abundance
area even when the threshold is reduced
to 5 percent, indicating that it is one of
the most important areas in the region
for any species. These patterns are
supported by observation, including
telemetry. Thorne et al. (2015) tracked
the movements of 18 short-finned pilot
whales off Cape Hatteras between May
and December 2014 (mean tag
deployment of 57 days) and quantified
Atlantic Spotted Dolphin
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
Atlantic spotted dolphins are widely
distributed in tropical and warm
temperate waters of the western North
Atlantic, and regularly occur in
continental shelf waters south of Cape
Hatteras and in continental shelf edge
and continental slope waters north of
this region (Payne et al., 1984; Mullin
and Fulling, 2003). Sightings have also
been made along the north wall of the
Gulf Stream and warm-core ring features
(Waring et al., 1992). This disjunct
distribution may be due to the
occurrence of two ecotypes of the
species: A larger form that inhabits the
continental shelf and is usually found
inside or near the 200-m isobath and a
smaller offshore form (Mullin and
Fulling, 2003; Waring et al., 2014).
Morphometric, genetic, and acoustic
data support the suggestion that two
ecotypes inhabit this region (Baron et
al., 2008; Viricel and Rosel, 2014) and
observational data are consistent with
this distribution pattern. Existing data
show a dense cluster of observations
along the continental shelf between
Florida and Virginia and a second, more
dispersed cluster off the shelf and north
of the Gulf Stream (north of Cape
Hatteras) (Roberts et al., 2015o). As
would be expected from these patterns,
results from Roberts et al. (2016) predict
the following density pattern: Low near
the shore, high in the mid-shelf, low
near the shelf break, then higher again
offshore.
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
26266
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
Although there are no relevant
considerations with regard to
population context or specific stressors
that lead us to develop mitigation
focused on Atlantic spotted dolphins,
the predicted amount of acoustic
exposure for the species is among the
highest for all species across three of the
five applicant companies. Therefore, we
believe it appropriate to delineate a
time-area restriction for the sole purpose
of reducing likely acoustic exposures for
the species, for those three companies
(i.e., we propose that this restriction be
implemented for Spectrum, TGS, and
Western but not for CGG or ION). As
noted above, observational data indicate
that the area of likely highest density for
Atlantic spotted dolphin is on-shelf
south of Cape Hatteras. This is also an
area of relatively little interest to the
applicant companies (in contrast with
the second area of relatively high
density for Atlantic spotted dolphin, off
the shelf to the north of the Gulf
Stream). Our core abundance area
analysis indeed suggests that the two
areas comprise the 25 percent core
abundance area for the species, with the
on-shelf region roughly contained by the
100-m isobath offshore of Georgia and
South Carolina. We thus delineate our
proposed closure area by the northern
and southern extent of the predicted onshelf component of the 35 percent core
abundance area, bounded by a line 100
km from shore (which roughly
corresponds with the 100-m isobath).
We assume that this may present a
simpler, more practicable way for vessel
operators to mark the area to be avoided,
but invite public comment regarding
operators’ capacity to mark areas to be
avoided using different methods (e.g.,
coordinates, depth contours, specific
distances from shore, shapefiles).
Our assumption here is that given the
absence of other contextual factors
demanding special protection of spotted
dolphins, a seasonal restriction would
be sufficient to guarantee that the
species is afforded some protection from
harassment in one of the areas most
important for it. Because there is little
information about the species migration
patterns, and Roberts et al. (2016)
predicted density at a year-round
temporal resolution, we delineate the
proposed closure on the basis of NMFS’
observational data. Current shipboard
observational data was collected during
June-August 2011 (Waring et al., 2014).
Although Roberts et al. (2015o) suggest
that monthly model results should not
be relied upon, we note that these
results do show likely highest
abundance in this portion of the
proposed survey areas in the summer
months (June through September).
Therefore, we propose that Area #1 be
in effect from June through August.
TABLE 3—BOUNDARIES OF PROPOSED TIME-AREA RESTRICTIONS DEPICTED IN FIGURE 4
Area
Latitude
1 ......................................
1 1 ....................................
1 1 ....................................
1 ......................................
2 ......................................
2 ......................................
2 ......................................
2 ......................................
2 ......................................
2 ......................................
2 ......................................
2 ......................................
2 ......................................
3 ......................................
3 ......................................
3 ......................................
3 ......................................
4 ......................................
4 ......................................
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
1 These
30°
30°
33°
33°
33°
33°
33°
33°
33°
34°
34°
34°
33°
34°
34°
34°
34°
36°
36°
20′
22′
17′
45′
31′
10′
11′
43′
59′
15′
14′
03′
53′
13′
00′
38′
53′
41′
43′
50″
25″
03″
01″
16″
05″
23″
34″
43″
10″
02″
33″
00″
21″
07″
40″
24″
17″
20″
Longitude
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
At shoreline
80° 19′ 55″ W.
78° 04′ 00″ W.
At shoreline
72° 52′ 07″ W.
72° 59′ 59″ W.
73° 19′ 36″ W.
73° 17′ 43″ W.
73° 10′ 16″ W.
72° 55′ 37″ W.
72° 36′ 00″ W.
72° 37′ 27″ W.
72° 44′ 31″ W.
74° 07′ 33″ W.
74° 26′ 41″ W.
75° 05′ 52″ W.
74° 51′ 11″ W.
71° 25′ 47″ W.
72° 13′ 25″ W.
Area
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Latitude
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
......................................
36°
37°
37°
37°
37°
36°
37°
36°
35°
34°
33°
33°
34°
35°
36°
37°
37°
38°
38°
55′
52′
43′
43′
09′
52′
08′
15′
53′
23′
47′
48′
23′
22′
32′
05′
27′
23′
11′
20″
21″
53″
54″
52″
01″
30″
12″
14″
07″
37″
31″
57″
29″
31″
39″
53″
15″
17″
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
N.
Longitude
72°
72°
72°
72°
72°
71°
74°
73°
73°
75°
75°
75°
75°
74°
74°
74°
74°
73°
73°
26′
22′
00′
00′
04′
24′
01′
48′
49′
21′
27′
52′
52′
51′
49′
45′
32′
45′
06′
18″
31″
32″
40″
31″
31″
42″
37″
02″
33″
25″
58″
50″
50″
31″
37″
40″
06″
36″
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
W.
two points are connected by a line marking 100 km distance from shoreline.
National Marine Sanctuaries—As a
result of consultation between BOEM
and NOAA’s Office of National Marine
Sanctuaries, all surveys would maintain
a minimum buffer of 15 km around the
boundaries of the Gray’s Reef and
Monitor National Marine Sanctuaries.
Gray’s Reef NMS is located
approximately 26 km off the Georgia
coast and protects 57 km2. The Monitor
NMS is located approximately 26 km off
the North Carolina coast and protects
the wreck of the USS Monitor. Any
benefit to marine mammals from these
restrictions would likely be minimal.
Coastal Zone Management Act—As a
result of coordination with relevant
states pursuant to the Coastal Zone
Management Act, Spectrum agreed to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
certain closure requirements (which
may be partially or entirely subsumed
by proposed closures described above):
• No survey operations within 125
nmi (232 km) of Maryland’s coast from
April 15 to November 15.
• No survey operations within the 30m depth isobath off the South Carolina
coast.
• No survey operations within 20 nmi
(37 km) of Georgia’s coast from April 1
to September 15 and within 30 nmi (56
km) of Georgia’s coast from November
15 to April 15.
Vessel Strike Avoidance
These proposed measures generally
follow those described in BOEM’s PEIS.
These measures apply to all vessels
associated with the proposed survey
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
activity (e.g., source vessels, chase
vessels, supply vessels) and include the
following:
1. Vessel operators and crews must
maintain a vigilant watch for all marine
mammals and slow down or stop their
vessel or alter course, as appropriate
and regardless of vessel size, to avoid
striking any marine mammal. A visual
observer aboard the vessel must monitor
a vessel strike avoidance zone around
the vessel, according to the parameters
stated below, to ensure the potential for
strike is minimized. Visual observers
monitoring the vessel strike avoidance
zone can be either third-party observers
or crew members, but crew members
responsible for these duties must be
provided sufficient training to
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
distinguish marine mammals from other
phenomena and broadly to identify a
marine mammal as a right whale, other
whale, or other marine mammal (i.e.,
non-whale cetacean or pinniped). In this
context, ‘‘other whales’’ includes sperm
whales and all baleen whales other than
right whales.
2. All vessels, regardless of size, must
observe the 10 kn speed restriction in
DMAs, the Mid-Atlantic SMA (from
November 1 through April 30), and
critical habitat and the Southeast SMA
(from November 15 through April 15).
See www.fisheries.noaa.gov/pr/
shipstrike/ for more information on
these areas.
3. Vessel speeds must also be reduced
to 10 kn or less when mother/calf pairs,
pods, or large assemblages of cetaceans
are observed near a vessel. A single
cetacean at the surface may indicate the
presence of submerged animals in the
vicinity of the vessel; therefore,
precautionary measures should be
exercised when an animal is observed.
4. All vessels must maintain a
minimum separation distance of 500 m
from right whales. If a whale is observed
but cannot be confirmed as a species
other than a right whale, the vessel
operator must assume that it is a right
whale and take appropriate action. The
following avoidance measures must be
taken if a right whale is within 500 m
of any vessel:
a. While underway, the vessel
operator must steer a course away from
the whale at 10 kn or less until the
minimum separation distance has been
established.
b. If a whale is spotted in the path of
a vessel or within 500 m of a vessel
underway, the operator shall reduce
speed and shift engines to neutral. The
operator shall re-engage engines only
after the whale has moved out of the
path of the vessel and is more than 500
m away. If the whale is still within 500
m of the vessel, the vessel must select
a course away from the whale’s course
at a speed of 10 kn or less. This
procedure must also be followed if a
whale is spotted while a vessel is
stationary. Whenever possible, a vessel
should remain parallel to the whale’s
course while maintaining the 500-m
distance as it travels, avoiding abrupt
changes in direction until the whale is
no longer in the area.
5. All vessels must maintain a
minimum separation distance of 100 m
from other whales. The following
avoidance measures must be taken if a
whale other than a right whale is within
100 m of any vessel:
a. The vessel underway must reduce
speed and shift the engine to neutral,
and must not engage the engines until
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
the whale has moved outside of the
vessel’s path and the minimum
separation distance has been
established.
b. If a 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.
6. All vessels must maintain a
minimum separation distance of 50 m
from all other marine mammals, with an
exception made for those animals that
approach the vessel. If an animal is
encountered during transit, a vessel
shall attempt to remain parallel to the
animal’s course, avoiding excessive
speed or abrupt changes in course.
General Measures
All vessels associated with survey
activity (e.g., source vessels, chase
vessels, supply vessels) must have a
functioning Automatic Identification
System (AIS) onboard and operating at
all times, regardless of whether AIS
would otherwise be required. Vessel
names and call signs must be provided
to NMFS, and applicants must notify
NMFS when survey vessels are
operating.
We have carefully evaluated the suite
of mitigation measures described here to
preliminarily determine whether they
are likely to effect the least practicable
impact on the affected marine mammal
species and stocks and their habitat. Our
evaluation of potential measures
included consideration of the following
factors in relation to one another: (1)
The manner in which, and the degree to
which, the successful implementation of
the measure is expected to minimize
adverse impacts to marine mammals, (2)
the proven or likely efficacy of the
specific measure to minimize adverse
impacts as planned; and (3) the
practicability of the measure for
applicant implementation.
Any mitigation measure(s) we
prescribe should be able to accomplish,
have a reasonable likelihood of
accomplishing (based on current
science), or contribute to the
accomplishment of one or more of the
general goals listed below:
(1) Avoidance or minimization of
injury or death of marine mammals
wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may
contribute to this goal).
(2) A reduction in the number (total
number or number at biologically
important time or location) of
individual marine mammals exposed to
stimuli expected to result in incidental
take (this goal may contribute to 1,
above, or to reducing takes by
behavioral harassment only).
(3) A reduction in the number (total
number or number at biologically
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
26267
important time or location) of times any
individual marine mammal would be
exposed to stimuli expected to result in
incidental take (this goal may contribute
to 1, above, or to reducing takes by
behavioral harassment only).
(4) A reduction in the intensity of
exposure to stimuli expected to result in
incidental take (this goal may contribute
to 1, above, or to reducing the severity
of behavioral harassment only).
(5) Avoidance or minimization of
adverse effects to marine mammal
habitat, paying particular attention to
the prey base, blockage or limitation of
passage to or from biologically
important areas, permanent destruction
of habitat, or temporary disturbance of
habitat during a biologically important
time.
(6) For monitoring directly related to
mitigation, an increase in the
probability of detecting marine
mammals, thus allowing for more
effective implementation of the
mitigation.
Based on our evaluation of these
measures, we have preliminarily
determined that they provide the means
of effecting the least practicable impact
on marine mammal species or stocks
and their habitat, paying particular
attention to rookeries, mating grounds,
and areas of similar significance.
We recognize that BOEM may require
more stringent measures through
survey-specific permits issued to
applicant companies under its
authorities pursuant to the OCSLA (43
U.S.C. 1331–1356). NMFS’s Endangered
Species Act Interagency Cooperation
Division (Interagency Cooperation
Division) may also require that more
stringent or additional measures be
included in any issued IHAs via any
required consultation pursuant to
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
Please see ‘‘Proposed Authorizations,’’
below, for requirements specific to each
proposed IHA.
Description of Marine Mammals in the
Area of the Specified Activity
We have reviewed the applicants’
species descriptions—which summarize
available information regarding status
and trends, distribution and habitat
preferences, behavior and life history,
and auditory capabilities of the
potentially affected species—for
accuracy and completeness and refer the
reader to Sections 3 and 4 of the
applications, as well as to NMFS’s Stock
Assessment Reports (SAR;
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/), instead of
reprinting the information here.
Additional general information about
these species (e.g., physical and
behavioral descriptions) may be found
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
26268
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
on NMFS’s Web site
(www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/
mammals/), in BOEM’s PEIS, or in the
U.S. Navy’s Marine Resource
Assessments (MRA) for relevant
operating areas (i.e., Virginia Capes,
Cherry Point, and Charleston/
Jacksonville (DoN, 2008a,b,c)). The
MRAs are available online at:
www.navfac.navy.mil/products_and_
services/ev/products_and_services/
marine_resources/marine_resource_
assessments.html. Table 4 lists all
species with expected potential for
occurrence in the mid- and south
Atlantic and summarizes information
related to the population or stock,
including potential biological removal
(PBR). For taxonomy, we follow
Committee on Taxonomy (2016). 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, is
considered in concert with known
sources of ongoing anthropogenic
mortality (as described in NMFS’s
SARs). Species that could potentially
occur in the proposed survey areas but
are not expected to have reasonable
potential to be harassed by any
proposed survey are described briefly
but omitted from further analysis. These
include extralimital species, which are
species that do not normally occur in a
given area but for which there are one
or more occurrence records that are
considered beyond the normal range of
the species. For status of species, we
provide information regarding U.S.
regulatory status under the MMPA and
ESA.
Marine mammal abundance estimates
presented in this document represent
the total number of individuals that
make up a given stock or the total
number estimated within a particular
study area. NMFS’s stock abundance
estimates for most species represent the
total estimate of individuals within the
geographic area, if known, that
comprises that stock. For some species,
this geographic area may extend beyond
U.S. waters. Survey abundance (as
compared to stock or species
abundance) is the total number of
individuals estimated within the survey
area, which may or may not align
completely with a stock’s geographic
range as defined in the SARs. These
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
surveys may also extend beyond U.S.
waters.
In some cases, species are treated as
guilds. In general ecological terms, a
guild is a group of species that have
similar requirements and play a similar
role within a community. However, for
purposes of stock assessment or
abundance prediction, certain species
may be treated together as a guild
because they are difficult to distinguish
visually and many observations are
ambiguous. For example, NMFS’s
Atlantic SARs assess Mesoplodon spp.
and Kogia spp. as guilds. Here, we
consider pilot whales, beaked whales
(excluding the northern bottlenose
whale), and Kogia spp. as guilds. In the
following discussion, reference to ‘‘pilot
whales’’ includes both the long-finned
and short-finned pilot whale, reference
to ‘‘beaked whales’’ includes the
Cuvier’s, Blainville’s, Gervais,
Sowerby’s, and True’s beaked whales,
and reference to ‘‘Kogia spp.’’ includes
both the dwarf and pygmy sperm whale.
Thirty-four species (with 39 managed
stocks) are considered to have the
potential to co-occur with the proposed
survey activities. Extralimital species or
stocks unlikely to co-occur with survey
activity include nine estuarine
bottlenose dolphin stocks, four
pinniped species, the white-beaked
dolphin (Lagenorhynchus albirostris),
and the beluga whale (Delphinapterus
leucas). The white-beaked dolphin is
generally found only to southern New
England, with sightings concentrated in
the Gulf of Maine and around Cape Cod.
Beluga whales have rarely been sighted
as far south as New Jersey, but are
considered extralimital in New England.
Seals in the western Atlantic are, in
general, occurring more frequently in
areas further south than are considered
typical and increases in pinniped
sightings and stranding events have
been documented in the mid-Atlantic.
However, all seals are considered rare or
extralimital in the mid-Atlantic and,
further, would generally be expected to
occur in relatively shallow nearshore
waters outside the proposed survey
areas (note also that we propose a
restriction on survey activity in coastal
waters ranging from a minimum of 30
km (year-round) out to 47 km
(November–April)). The gray seal’s
(Halichoerus grypus grypus) winter
range extends south to New Jersey,
while the harp seal (Pagophilus
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
groenlandicus) is generally found in
Canada, although individual seals are
observed as far south as New Jersey
during January–May. The harbor seal’s
(Phoca vitulina concolor) winter range
is generally from southern New England
to New Jersey, though it may
occasionally extend south to northern
North Carolina. Unpublished marine
mammal stranding records for the most
recent five-year period (2011–2015) for
the Atlantic coast from Delaware to
Georgia show 38, 24, and 44 strandings
for these three species, respectively
(with one additional record of an
unidentified seal). These occurrences
are generally limited to the mid-Atlantic
(Delaware to North Carolina), with one
harbor seal recorded from South
Carolina and no records from Georgia.
The hooded seal (Cystophora cristata)
generally remains near Newfoundland
in winter and spring, and visits the
Denmark Strait for molting in summer.
However, hooded seals are highly
migratory, preferring deeper water than
other seals, and individuals have been
observed in deep water as far south as
Florida and the Caribbean. Such
observations are rare and unpredictable,
and there were no recorded strandings
of hooded seals during the 2011–2015
period.
Estuarine stocks of bottlenose dolphin
primarily inhabit inshore waters of bays,
sounds, and estuaries, and stocks are
defined adjacent to the proposed survey
area from Pamlico Sound, North
Carolina to Indian River Lagoon,
Florida. However, NMFS’s SARs
generally describe estuarine stock
ranges as including coastal waters to 1
km (though North Carolina stocks are
described as occurring out to 3 km at
certain times of year). Therefore, these
stocks would not be impacted by the
proposed seismic surveys. In addition,
the West Indian manatee (Trichechus
manatus latirostris) may be found in
coastal waters of the Atlantic. However,
manatees are managed by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and are not
considered further in this document. All
managed stocks in this region are
assessed in NMFS’s U.S. Atlantic SARs
(e.g., Waring et al., 2016). All values
presented in Table 4 are the most recent
available at the time of publication and
are available in the 2015 SARs (Waring
et al., 2016) and draft 2016 SARs
(available online at:
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/draft.htm).
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
26269
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
TABLE 4—MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE VICINITY OF PROPOSED SURVEY ACTIVITIES
Common name
Scientific name
ESA/MMPA
status;
strategic
(Y/N) 1
Stock
NMFS stock
abundance
(CV, Nmin, most recent
abundance survey) 2
Predicted
abundance
(CV) 3
Annual M/SI
(CV) 4
PBR
Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
Family Balaenidae
North Atlantic right
whale.
Eubalaena glacialis ..........
Western North Atlantic
(WNA).
E/D; Y
440 (n/a; 440; n/a) .....
* 535 (0.45)
1.0
5.66
Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals)
Humpback whale ..
Bryde’s whale .......
Sei whale ..............
Fin whale ..............
Megaptera novaeangliae
novaeangliae.
Balaenoptera
acutorostrata
acutorostrata.
B. edeni brydei .................
B. borealis borealis ..........
B. physalus physalus .......
Blue whale ............
B. musculus musculus .....
Minke whale .........
Gulf of Maine ....................
-; N
823 (n/a; 823; 2008) ..
* 1,637 (0.07)
13
9.05
Canadian East Coast .......
-; N
2,591 (0.81; 1,425;
2011).
* 2,112 (0.05)
14
8.25
None defined 5 ..................
Nova Scotia ......................
WNA .................................
-; n/a
E/D; Y
E/D; Y
7 (0.58)
* 717 (0.30)
4,633 (0.08)
n/a
0.5
2.5
n/a
0.8
3.8
WNA .................................
E/D; Y
n/a ..............................
357 (0.52; 236; 2011)
1,618 (0.33; 1,234;
2011).
Unknown (n/a; 440; n/
a).
11 (0.41)
0.9
Unk
5,353 (0.12)
3.6
0.8
Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
Family Physeteridae
Sperm whale ........
Physeter macrocephalus ..
North Atlantic ....................
E/D; Y
Pygmy sperm
whale.
Dwarf sperm
whale.
Kogia breviceps ................
WNA .................................
-; N
K. sima .............................
WNA .................................
2,288 (0.28; 1,815;
2011).
-; N
Family Kogiidae
3,785 (0.47; 2,598;
2011) 6.
6 678
(0.23)
21
3.5 (1.0)
6 14,491
(0.17)
50
0.4
46
0.2
90 (0.63)
Undet.
0
532 (0.36)
1.3
0
561
39.4 (0.29)
86
1.0–7.5
63
0–12
31
1.2–1.6
7
0.4
29
0.2
12,515 (0.56)
Undet.
0
55,436 (0.32)
316
0
4,436 (0.33)
17
0
262 (0.93)
75,657 (0.21)
Undet.
428
0
0
86,098 (0.12)
557
409 (0.10)
492 (0.76)
Undet.
0
Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales)
Cuvier’s beaked
whale.
Gervais beaked
whale.
Blainville’s beaked
whale.
Sowerby’s beaked
whale.
True’s beaked
whale.
Northern
bottlenose whale.
Ziphius cavirostris ............
WNA .................................
-; N
Mesoplodon europaeus ....
WNA .................................
-; N
M. densirostris ..................
WNA .................................
-; N
M. bidens ..........................
WNA .................................
-; N
M. mirus ...........................
WNA .................................
-; N
Hyperoodon ampullatus ...
WNA .................................
6,532 (0.32; 5,021;
2011).
7,092 (0.54; 4,632;
2011) 6.
-; N
Unknown ....................
Family Delphinidae
Rough-toothed dolphin.
Common
bottlenose dolphin.
Steno bredanensis ...........
Tursiops truncatus
truncatus.
WNA .................................
-; N
WNA Offshore ..................
-; N
77,532 (0.40; 56,053;
2011).
D; Y
-; N
11,548 (0.36; 8,620;
2010–11).
9,173 (0.46; 6,326;
2010–11).
4,377 (0.43; 3,097;
2010–11).
1,219 (0.67; 730;
2010–11).
4,895 (0.71; 2,851;
2010–11).
6,086 (0.93; 3,132;
1998) 7.
44,715 (0.43; 31,610;
2011).
3,333 (0.91; 1,733;
2011).
Unknown ....................
54,807 (0.3; 42,804;
2011).
70,184 (0.28; 55,690;
2011).
Unknown ....................
Clymene dolphin ..
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
271 (1.0; 134; 2011) ..
Stenella clymene ..............
WNA Coastal, Northern
Migratory.
WNA Coastal, Southern
Migratory.
WNA Coastal, South
Carolina/Georgia.
WNA Coastal, Northern
Florida.
WNA Coastal, Central
Florida.
WNA .................................
Atlantic spotted
dolphin.
Pantropical spotted
dolphin.
Spinner dolphin ....
Striped dolphin .....
S. frontalis ........................
WNA .................................
-; N
S. attenuata attenuata ......
WNA .................................
-; N
S. longirostris longirostris
S. coeruleoalba ................
WNA .................................
WNA .................................
-; N
-; N
Short-beaked common dolphin.
Fraser’s dolphin ....
Delphinus delphis delphis
WNA .................................
-; N
Lagenodelphis hosei ........
WNA .................................
-; N
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
D; Y
D; Y
D; Y
D; Y
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
6 97,476
06JNN2
(0.06)
26270
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
TABLE 4—MARINE MAMMALS POTENTIALLY PRESENT IN THE VICINITY OF PROPOSED SURVEY ACTIVITIES—Continued
ESA/MMPA
status;
strategic
(Y/N) 1
Common name
Scientific name
Stock
Atlantic whitesided dolphin.
Risso’s dolphin .....
Lagenorhynchus acutus ...
WNA .................................
Grampus griseus ..............
WNA .................................
Melon-headed
whale.
Pygmy killer whale
False killer whale
Killer whale ...........
Short-finned pilot
whale.
Long-finned pilot
whale.
Peponocephala electra ....
WNA .................................
-; N
Feresa attenuata ..............
Pseudorca crassidens ......
Orcinus orca .....................
Globicephala
macrorhynchus.
G. melas melas ................
WNA
WNA
WNA
WNA
-;
-;
-;
-;
Harbor porpoise ...
Phocoena phocoena
phocoena.
Gulf of Maine/Bay of
Fundy.
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
WNA .................................
N
Y
N
Y
-; Y
37,180 (0.07)
304
74 (0.2)
7,732 (0.09)
126
53.6 (0.28)
1,175 (0.50)
Undet.
0
Unknown ....................
442 (1.06; 212; 2011)
Unknown ....................
21,515 (0.37; 15,913;
2011).
5,636 (0.63; 3,464;
2011).
-; N
Predicted
abundance
(CV) 3
48,819 (0.61; 30,403;
2011).
18,250 (0.46; 12,619;
2011).
Unknown ....................
-; N
NMFS stock
abundance
(CV, Nmin, most recent
abundance survey) 2
n/a
95 (0.84)
11 (0.82)
6 18,977 (0.11)
Undet.
2.1
Undet.
159
0
Unk
0
192 (0.17)
35
38 (0.15)
706
437 (0.18)
Annual M/SI
(CV) 4
PBR
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises)
-; N
79,833 (0.32; 61,415;
2011).
* 45,089 (0.12)
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
1 Endangered 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.
2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; N
min is the minimum estimate of stock
abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. For the right whale, the abundance value represents a count of individually identifiable animals; therefore there is
only a single abundance estimate with no associated CV. For humpback whales, the stock abundance estimate of 823 is based on photo-identification evidence and
represents the minimum number alive in 2008, specific to the Gulf of Maine stock. The minimum estimate of 440 blue whales represents recognizable photo-identified
individuals.
3 This information represents species- or guild-specific abundance predicted by recent habitat-based cetacean density models (Roberts et al., 2016). These models
provide the best available scientific information regarding predicted density patterns of cetaceans in the U.S. Atlantic Ocean, and we provide the corresponding abundance predictions as a point of reference. Total abundance estimates were produced by computing the mean density of all pixels in the modeled area and multiplying
by its area. Roberts et al. (2016) did not produce a density model for pygmy killer whales off the east coast. For those species marked with an asterisk, the available
information supported development of either two or four seasonal models; each model has an associated abundance prediction. Here, we report the maximum predicted abundance.
4 These values, found in NMFS’s SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated with estimated
mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.
5 Bryde’s whales are occasionally reported off the southeastern U.S. and southern West Indies. NMFS defines and manages a stock of Bryde’s whales believed to
be resident in the northern Gulf of Mexico, but does not define a separate stock in the Atlantic Ocean.
6 Abundance estimates are in some cases reported for a guild or group of species when those species are difficult to differentiate at sea. Similarly, the habitatbased cetacean density models produced by Roberts et al. (2016) are based in part on available observational data which, in some cases, is limited to genus or guild
in terms of taxonomic definition. NMFS’s SARs present pooled abundance estimates for Kogia spp. and Mesoplodon spp., while Roberts et al. (2016) produced density models to genus level for Kogia spp. and Globicephala spp. and as a guild for most beaked whales (Ziphius cavirostris and Mesoplodon spp.). Finally, Roberts et
al. (2016) produced a density model for bottlenose dolphins that does not differentiate between offshore and coastal stocks.
7 NMFS’s abundance estimates for the Clymene dolphin is greater than eight years old and not considered current. PBR is therefore considered undetermined for
this stock, as there is no current minimum abundance estimate for use in calculation. We nevertheless present the most recent abundance estimate.
For the majority of species potentially
present in the specific geographic
region, NMFS has designated only a
single generic stock (e.g., ‘‘western
North Atlantic’’) for management
purposes. This includes the ‘‘Canadian
east coast’’ stock of minke whales,
which includes all minke whales found
in U.S. waters. For the humpback and
sei whales, NMFS defines stocks on the
basis of feeding locations, i.e., Gulf of
Maine and Nova Scotia, respectively.
However, our reference to humpback
whales and sei whales in this document
refers to any individuals of the species
that are found in the specific geographic
region. For the bottlenose dolphin,
NMFS defines an oceanic stock and
multiple coastal stocks.
In Table 4 above, we report two sets
of abundance estimates: Those from
NMFS’s SARs and those predicted by
Roberts et al. (2016). Please see
footnotes 2–3 for more detail. The
estimates found in NMFS’s SARs
remain the best estimates of current
stock abundance in most cases. These
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
estimates are typically generated from
the most recent shipboard and/or aerial
surveys conducted, and often
incorporate correction for detection
bias. However, for purposes of assessing
estimated exposures relative to
abundance—used in this case to
understand the scale of the predicted
takes compared to the population and to
inform our small numbers finding—we
generally believe that the Roberts et al.
(2016) abundance predictions are most
appropriate because the outputs of these
models were used in most cases to
generate the exposure estimates and
therefore provide the most appropriate
comparison. The Roberts et al. (2016)
abundance estimates represent the
output of predictive models derived
from observations and associated
environmental parameters and are in
fact based on substantially more data
than are NMFS’s SAR abundance
estimates, which are typically derived
from only the most recent survey effort.
In some cases, the use of more data to
inform an abundance estimate can lead
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
to a conclusion that there may be a more
appropriate abundance estimate to use
for the specific comparison to exposure
estimates noted above than that
provided in the SARs. For example,
NMFS’s pilot whale abundance
estimates show substantial year-to-year
variability. For the Florida to Bay of
Fundy region, single-year estimates
from 2004 and 2011 (the most recent
offered in the SARs) differed by 21
percent, indicating that it may be more
appropriate to use the model prediction,
as the model incorporates data from
1992–2013.
As a further illustration of the
distinction between the SARs and
model-predicted abundance estimates,
the current NMFS stock abundance
estimate for the Atlantic spotted
dolphin is based on direct observations
from shipboard and aerial surveys
conducted in 2011 and corrected for
detection bias whereas the exposure
estimates presented herein for Atlantic
spotted dolphin are based on the
abundance predicted by a density
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
surface model informed by observations
from 1992–2014 and covariates
associated at the observation level. To
directly compare the estimated
exposures predicted by the outputs of
the Roberts et al. (2016) model to
NMFS’s SAR abundance would
therefore not be meaningful. However,
our use of the Roberts et al. (2016)
abundance predictions for this purpose
should not be interpreted as a statement
that those predictions are considered to
be more accurate than those presented
in NMFS’s SARs; rather they are a
different set of information entirely and
more appropriate, at times, for our
analysis. For the example of Atlantic
spotted dolphin, we make relative
comparisons between the exposures
predicted by the outputs of the model
and the overall abundance predicted by
the model. The best current abundance
estimate for the western North Atlantic
stock of Atlantic spotted dolphins is
still appropriately considered to be that
presented in the SAR. Where there are
other considerations that lead us to
believe that an abundance other than
that predicted by Roberts et al. (2016) is
most appropriate for use here, we
provide additional discussion below.
NMFS’s abundance estimate for the
North Atlantic right whale is based on
a census of individual whales identified
using photo-identification techniques
and is therefore the most appropriate
abundance estimate; the current
estimate represents whales known to be
alive in 2012 (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
sars/draft.htm).
The 2007 Canadian Trans-North
Atlantic Sighting Survey (TNASS),
which provided full coverage of the
Atlantic Canadian coast (Lawson and
Gosselin, 2009), provided abundance
estimates for multiple stocks. The
abundance estimates from this survey
were corrected for perception and
availability bias, when possible. In
general, where the TNASS survey effort
provided superior coverage of a stock’s
range (as compared with NOAA
shipboard survey effort), we elect to use
the resulting abundance estimate over
either the current NMFS abundance
estimate (derived from survey effort
with inferior coverage of the stock
range) or the Roberts et al. (2016)
prediction. The TNASS data were not
made available to the model authors
(Roberts et al., 2015a).
We use the TNASS abundance
estimate for the Canadian North Atlantic
stock of minke whales and for the shortbeaked common dolphin. The TNASS
survey also produced an abundance
estimate of 3,522 (CV = 0.27) fin whales.
Although Waring et al. (2016) suggest
that the current abundance estimate of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
1,618 fin whales, derived from 2011
NOAA shipboard surveys, is the best
because it represents the most current
data (despite not including a significant
portion of the stock’s range), we believe
the TNASS estimate is most appropriate
for use here precisely because it better
covered the stock’s range. Note that,
while the same TNASS survey produced
an abundance estimate of 2,612 (CV =
0.26) humpback whales, the survey did
not provide superior coverage of the
stock’s range in the same way that it did
for minke and fin whales (Waring et al.,
2016; Lawson and Gosselin, 2011). In
addition, based on photo-identification
only 39 percent of individual humpback
whales observed along the mid- and
south Atlantic U.S. coast are from the
Gulf of Maine stock (Barco et al., 2002).
Therefore, we use the Roberts et al.
(2016) prediction for humpback whales.
The TNASS also provided an
abundance estimate for pilot whales
(16,058; CV = 0.79), but covered habitats
expected to contain long-finned pilot
whales exclusively (Waring et al., 2016).
Pilot whale biopsy samples collected
from 1998–2007 and analyzed to
support an analysis of the likelihood
that a sample is from a given species of
pilot whale as a function of sea surface
temperature and water depth showed
that all pilot whales observed in
offshore waters near the Gulf Stream are
most likely short-finned pilot whales,
though there is an area of overlap
between the two species primarily along
the shelf break off the coast of New
Jersey (between 38–40° N.) (Waring et
al., 2016). Therefore, most pilot whales
potentially affected by the proposed
surveys would likely be short-finned
pilot whales.
NMFS’s current abundance estimate
for Kogia spp. is substantially higher
than that provided by Roberts et al.
(2016). However, the data from which
NMFS’s estimate is derived was not
made available to the authors (Roberts et
al., 2015h), and those more recent
surveys reported observing substantially
greater numbers of Kogia spp. than did
earlier surveys (43 sightings, more than
the combined total of 31 reported from
all surveys from 1992–2014 considered
by Roberts et al. (2016)) (NMFS, 2011).
A 2013 NOAA survey, also not available
to the model authors, reported 68
sightings of Kogia spp. (NMFS, 2013a).
In addition, the SARs report an increase
in Kogia spp. strandings (92 from 2001–
05; 187 from 2007–11) (Waring et al.,
2007; 2013). A simultaneous increase in
at-sea observations and strandings
suggests increased abundance of Kogia
spp., though NMFS has not conducted
any trend analysis (Waring et al., 2013).
Therefore, we believe the most
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
26271
appropriate abundance estimate for use
here is that currently reported by NMFS.
In fact, Waring et al. (2013) suggest that
because this estimate was corrected for
perception bias but not availability bias,
the true estimate could be two to four
times larger.
Biologically Important Areas—Several
biologically important areas for marine
mammals are recognized from proposed
survey areas in the mid- and south
Atlantic. As referenced previously
under ‘‘Proposed Mitigation’’, critical
habitat is designated for the North
Atlantic right whale within the
southeast U.S. (81 FR 4838; January 27,
2016). Critical habitat is defined by
section 3 of the ESA as (1) the specific
areas within the geographical area
occupied by the species, at the time it
is listed, on which are found those
physical or biological features (a)
essential to the conservation of the
species and (b) which may require
special management considerations or
protection; and (2) specific areas outside
the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination by the Secretary that such
areas are essential for the conservation
of the species. Critical habitat for the
right whale in the southeast U.S. (i.e.,
Unit 2) encompasses calving habitat and
is designated on the basis of the
following essential features: (1) Calm
sea surface conditions of Force 4 or less
on the Beaufort Wind Scale; (2) sea
surface temperatures from a minimum
of 7 °C, and never more than 17 °C; and
(3) water depths of 6 to 28 m, where
these features simultaneously co-occur
over contiguous areas of at least 231
nmi2 of ocean waters during the months
of November through April. When these
features are available, they are selected
by right whale cows and calves in
dynamic combinations that are suitable
for calving, nursing, and rearing, and
which vary, within the ranges specified,
depending on factors such as weather
and age of the calves. The specific area
associated with such features and
designated as critical habitat was
described previously under ‘‘Proposed
Mitigation.’’ There is no critical habitat
designated for any other species within
the proposed survey area.
Biologically important areas for North
Atlantic right whales in the mid- and
south Atlantic were further described by
LaBrecque et al. (2015). The authors
describe an area of importance for
reproduction that somewhat expands
the boundaries of the critical habitat
designation, including waters out to the
25-m isobath from Cape Canaveral to
Cape Lookout from mid-November to
mid-April, on the basis of habitat
analyses (Good, 2008; Keller et al.,
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
26272
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
2012) and sightings data (e.g., Keller et
al., 2006; Schulte and Taylor, 2012)
indicating that sea surface temperatures
between 13 to 15 °C and water depths
between 10–20 m are critical parameters
for calving. Right whales leave northern
feeding grounds in November and
December to migrate along the
continental shelf to the calving grounds
or to unknown winter areas before
returning to northern areas by late
spring. Right whales are known to travel
along the continental shelf, but it is
unknown whether they use the entire
shelf area or are restricted to nearshore
waters (Schick et al., 2009; Whitt et al.,
2013). LaBrecque et al. (2015) define an
important area for migratory behavior
on the basis of aerial and vessel-based
survey data, photo-identification data,
radio-tracking data, and expert
judgment; we compared our composite
right whale closure area (described
previously under ‘‘Proposed
Mitigation’’) in a GIS to that defined by
the authors and found that it is
contained within our area.
As noted by LaBrecque et al. (2015),
although additional cetacean species are
known to have strong links to
bathymetric features, there is currently
insufficient information to specifically
identify these areas. For example, pilot
whales and Risso’s dolphins aggregate at
the shelf break in the proposed survey
area, and Atlantic spotted dolphins
occupy the shelf region from southern
Virginia to Florida. These and other
locations predicted as areas of high
abundance (Roberts et al., 2016) form
the basis of proposed spatiotemporal
restrictions on survey effort as described
under ‘‘Proposed Mitigation.’’ In
addition, other data indicate potential
areas of importance that are not yet fully
described. Risch et al. (2014) describe
minke whale presence offshore of the
shelf break (evidenced by passive
acoustic recorders), which may be
indicative of a migratory area, while
other data provides evidence that sei
whales aggregate near meandering
frontal eddies over the continental shelf
in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (Newhall et
al., 2012).
Unusual Mortality Events (UME)—A
UME is defined under the MMPA as ‘‘a
stranding that is unexpected; involves a
significant die-off of any marine
mammal population; and demands
immediate response.’’ From 1991 to the
present, there have been approximately
ten formally recognized UMEs affecting
marine mammals in the proposed
survey area and involving species under
NMFS’s jurisdiction. One involves
ongoing investigation. The most recent
of these, which is ongoing, involves
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
humpback whales. A recently ended
UME involved bottlenose dolphins.
Since January 2016, elevated
humpback whale mortalities have
occurred along the Atlantic coast from
Maine through North Carolina. Partial or
full necropsy examinations have been
conducted on approximately half of the
42 known cases. Of the 20 cases
examined, 10 cases had evidence of
blunt force trauma or pre-mortem
propeller wounds indicative of vessel
strike, which is over six times above the
16-year average of 1.5 whales showing
signs of vessel strike in this region.
Because this finding of pre-mortem
vessel strike is not consistent across all
of the whales examined, more research
is needed. NOAA is consulting with
researchers that are conducting studies
on the humpback whale populations,
and these efforts may provide
information on changes in whale
distribution and habitat use that could
provide additional insight into how
these vessel interactions occurred.
Three previous UMEs involving
humpback whales have occurred since
2000, in 2003, 2005, and 2006. More
information is available at
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/
2017humpbackatlanticume.html
(accessed May 22, 2017).
Beginning in July 2013, elevated
strandings of bottlenose dolphins were
observed along the Atlantic coast from
New York to Florida. The investigation
was closed in 2015, with the UME
ultimately being attributed to cetacean
morbillivirus (though additional
contributory factors are under
investigation; www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
health/mmume/
midatldolphins2013.html; accessed June
21, 2016). Dolphin strandings during
2013–15 were greater than six times
higher than the average from 2007–12,
with the most strandings reported from
Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida. A
total of approximately 1,650 bottlenose
dolphins stranded from June 2013 to
March 2015 and, additionally, a small
number of individuals of several other
cetacean species stranded during the
UME and tested positive for
morbillivirus (humpback whale, fin
whale, minke whale, pygmy sperm
whale, and striped dolphin). Only one
offshore ecotype dolphin has been
identified, meaning that over 99 percent
of affected dolphins were of the coastal
ecotype (D. Fauquier; pers. comm.).
Research, to include analyses of
stranding samples and post-UME
monitoring and modeling of surviving
populations, will continue in order to
better understand the impacts of the
UME on the affected stocks. Notably, an
earlier major UME in 1987–88 was also
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
caused by morbillivirus. Over 740
stranded dolphins were recovered
during that event.
Additional recent UMEs include
various localized events with
undetermined cause involving
bottlenose dolphins (e.g., South
Carolina in 2011; Virginia in 2009); an
event affecting common dolphins and
Atlantic white-sided dolphins from
North Carolina to New Jersey (2008;
undetermined); and humpback whales
in the North Atlantic (2006;
undetermined). For more information
on UMEs, please visit: www.nmfs.
noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/.
Take Reduction Planning—Take
reduction plans are designed to help
recover and prevent the depletion of
strategic marine mammal stocks that
interact with certain U.S. commercial
fisheries, as required by Section 118 of
the MMPA. The immediate goal of a
take reduction plan is to reduce, within
six months of its implementation, the
mortality and serious injury of marine
mammals incidental to commercial
fishing to less than the potential
biological removal level. The long-term
goal is to reduce, within five years of its
implementation, the mortality and
serious injury of marine mammals
incidental to commercial fishing to
insignificant levels, approaching a zero
serious injury and mortality rate, taking
into account the economics of the
fishery, the availability of existing
technology, and existing state or
regional fishery management plans.
Take reduction teams are convened to
develop these plans.
There are several take reduction plans
in place for marine mammals in the
proposed survey areas of the mid- and
south Atlantic. We described these here
briefly in order to fully describe, in
conjunction with referenced material,
the baseline conditions for the affected
marine mammal stocks. The Atlantic
Large Whale Take Reduction Plan
(ALWTRP) was implemented in 1997 to
reduce injuries and deaths of large
whales due to incidental entanglement
in fishing gear. The ALWTRP is an
evolving plan that changes as we learn
more about why whales become
entangled and how fishing practices
might be modified to reduce the risk of
entanglement. It has several
components, including restrictions on
where and how gear can be set and
requirements for entangling gears (i.e.,
trap/pot and gillnet gears). The
ALWTRP addresses those species most
affected by fishing gear entanglements,
i.e., North Atlantic right whale,
humpback whale, fin whale, and minke
whale. Annual human-caused mortality
exceeds PBR for the first three of these
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
species, all of which are listed as
endangered under the ESA. More
information is available online at:
www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/
protected/whaletrp/.
NMFS implemented a Harbor
Porpoise Take Reduction Plan (HPTRP)
to reduce interactions between harbor
porpoise and commercial gillnet gear in
both New England and the mid-Atlantic.
The HPTRP has several components
including restrictions on where, when,
and how gear can be set, and in some
areas requires the use of acoustic
deterrent devices. More information is
available online at:
www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/
protected/porptrp/.
The Atlantic Trawl Gear Take
Reduction Team was developed to
address the incidental mortality and
serious injury of pilot whales, common
dolphins, and white-sided dolphins
incidental to Atlantic trawl fisheries.
More information is available online at:
www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/
Protected/mmp/atgtrp/. Separately,
NMFS established a Pelagic Longline
Take Reduction Plan (PLTRP) to address
the incidental mortality and serious
injury of pilot whales in the midAtlantic region of the Atlantic pelagic
longline fishery. The PLTRP includes a
special research area, gear
modifications, outreach material,
observer coverage, and captains’
communications. Pilot whales incur
substantial incidental mortality and
serious injury due to commercial fishing
(annual human-caused mortality equal
to 121 and 109 percent of PBR for shortand long-finned pilot whales,
respectively), and therefore are of
particular concern. More information is
available online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
pr/interactions/trt/pl-trt.html.
Potential Effects of the Specified
Activity on Marine Mammals
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 will include a quantitative
analysis of the number of individuals
that are expected to be taken by this
activity. The ‘‘Negligible Impact
Analyses’’ section will include an
analysis of how these specific activities
will impact marine mammals and will
consider 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
and from that on the affected marine
mammal populations or stocks. In the
following discussion, we provide
general background information on
sound and marine mammal hearing
before considering potential effects to
marine mammals from ship strike and
sound produced through use of airgun
arrays.
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 hertz
(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. Rms is
calculated by squaring all of the sound
amplitudes, averaging the squares, and
then taking the square root of the
average (Urick, 1983). Rms 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, 2005). This
measurement is often used in the
context of discussing behavioral effects,
in part because behavioral effects,
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
26273
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
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
26274
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
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.
The active acoustic sound sources
proposed for use (i.e., airgun arrays)
produce pulsed signals. No other active
acoustic systems are proposed for use
for data acquisition purposes. Airguns
produce sound 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.
Vessel noise, produced largely by
cavitation of propellers and by
machinery inside the hull, is considered
a non-pulsed sound. Sounds emitted by
survey vessels are low frequency and
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
continuous, but would be widely
dispersed in both space and time.
Survey vessel traffic is of very low
density compared to commercial
shipping traffic or commercial fishing
vessels and would therefore be expected
to represent an insignificant incremental
increase in the total amount of
anthropogenic sound input to the
marine environment. We do not
consider vessel noise further in this
analysis.
Acoustic Effects
Here, we first provide background
information on marine mammal hearing
before discussing the potential effects of
the use of active acoustic sources on
marine mammals.
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
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. Pinniped
functional hearing is not discussed here,
as no pinnipeds are expected to be
affected by the specified activity. 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
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
estimated to occur between
approximately 7 Hz and 35 kHz, with
best hearing estimated to be from 100
Hz to 8 kHz;
• 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;
• 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.
For more detail concerning these
groups and associated frequency ranges,
please see NMFS (2016) for a review of
available information. Thirty-four
marine mammal species, all cetaceans,
have the reasonable potential to cooccur with the proposed survey
activities. Please refer to Table 4. Of the
species that may be present, seven are
classified as low-frequency cetaceans
(i.e., all mysticete species), 24 are
classified as mid-frequency cetaceans
(i.e., all delphinid and ziphiid species
and the sperm whale), and three are
classified as high-frequency cetaceans
(i.e., harbor porpoise and Kogia spp.).
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. Note
that, in the following discussion, we
refer in many cases to a recent review
article concerning studies of noiseinduced hearing loss conducted from
1996–2015 (i.e., Finneran, 2015). For
study-specific citations, please see that
work. 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; Gotz et al.,
2009). The degree of effect is
intrinsically related to the signal
characteristics, received level, distance
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
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 effects
certain non-auditory physical or
physiological effects only briefly as we
do not expect that use of airgun arrays
are 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
26275
When a live or dead marine mammal
swims or floats onto shore and is
incapable of returning to sea, the event
is termed a ‘‘stranding’’ (16 U.S.C.
1421h(3)). Marine mammals are known
to 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 (e.g.,
Geraci et al., 1999). However, the cause
or causes of most strandings are
unknown (e.g., Best, 1982).
Combinations of dissimilar stressors
may combine to kill an animal or
dramatically reduce its fitness, even
though one exposure without the other
would not be expected to produce the
same outcome (e.g., Sih et al., 2004). For
further description of specific stranding
events see, e.g., Southall et al., 2006,
2013; Jepson et al., 2013; Wright et al.,
2013.
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.
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
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
26276
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
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 peak-pressure 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 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
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 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
(Neophocoena asiaeorientalis)) 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
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
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
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
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
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
26277
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
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
26278
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
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 cSEL 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
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).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
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).
Forney et al. (2017) detail the
potential effects of noise on marine
mammal populations with high site
fidelity, including displacement and
auditory masking, noting that a lack of
observed response does not imply
absence of fitness costs and that
apparent tolerance of disturbance may
have population-level impacts that are
less obvious and difficult to document.
As we discuss in describing our
proposed mitigation earlier in this
document, avoidance of overlap
between disturbing noise and areas and/
or times of particular importance for
sensitive species may be critical to
avoiding population-level impacts and
because, particularly for animals with
high site fidelity, there may be a strong
motivation to remain in the area despite
negative impacts. Forney et al. (2017)
state that, for these animals, remaining
in a disturbed area may reflect a lack of
alternatives rather than a lack of effects.
Among other case studies, the authors
discuss beaked whales off Cape
Hatteras, noting the apparent
importance of this area to the species
and citing studies indicating long-term,
year-round fidelity. This information
leads the authors to conclude that
failure to appropriately address
potential effects in this particular area
could lead to severe biological
consequences for these beaked whales,
in part because displacement may
adversely affect foraging rates,
reproduction, or health, while an
overriding instinct to remain could lead
to more severe acute effects (Forney et
al., 2017).
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
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
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
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
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
26279
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),
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
26280
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
contribute to elevated ambient sound
levels, thus intensifying masking.
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.
In an effort to reduce the number and
severity of strikes of the endangered
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
North Atlantic right whale, NMFS
implemented speed restrictions in 2008
(73 FR 60173; October 10, 2008). These
restrictions require that vessels greater
than or equal to 65 ft (19.8 m) in length
travel at less than or equal to 10 kn near
key port entrances and in certain areas
of right whale aggregation along the U.S.
eastern seaboard. Conn and Silber
(2013) estimated that these restrictions
reduced total ship strike mortality risk
levels by 80 to 90 percent.
For vessels used in seismic survey
activities, vessel speed while towing
gear is typically only 4–5 kn. At these
speeds, 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 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
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
foreseeable or that would be considered
preventable.
Although the likelihood of vessels
associated with seismic surveys striking
a marine mammal are 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 seismic data
acquisition vessels towing gear, while
not impossible, represent unlikely,
unpredictable events for which there are
no preventive measures. Given the
required mitigation measures, the
relatively slow speeds of vessels towing
gear, the presence of bridge crew
watching for obstacles at all times
(including marine mammals), the
presence of marine mammal observers,
and the small number of seismic survey
cruises, 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.
Other Potential Impacts—Here, we
briefly address the potential risks due to
entanglement and contaminant spills.
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. Any permits issued by
BOEM would include guidance for the
handling and disposal of marine trash
and debris, similar to the Bureau of
Safety and Environmental
Enforcement’s (BSEE) NTL 2012–G01
(‘‘Marine Trash and Debris Awareness
and Elimination’’) (BSEE, 2012; BOEM,
2014b). There are no meaningful
entanglement risks posed by the
described activity, and entanglement
risks are not discussed further in this
document.
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
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
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
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. In general, impacts to
marine mammal prey species are
expected to be minor and temporary due
to the short timeframe in which any
given acoustic source vessel would be
operating in any given area. However,
adverse impacts may occur to a few
species of fish which may still be
present in the project area despite
operating in a reduced work window in
an attempt to avoid important fish
spawning time periods.
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;
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
26281
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 by Incidental
Harassment
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).’’
Anticipated takes would primarily be
by Level B harassment, as use of the
acoustic source (i.e., airgun array) has
the potential to result in disruption of
behavioral patterns for individual
marine mammals. There is also some
potential for auditory injury (Level A
harassment) to result from use of the
acoustic source, primarily for either
high-frequency or low-frequency
hearing specialists due to larger
predicted auditory injury zones (on the
basis of peak pressure and cumulative
SEL, respectively). Auditory injury is
unlikely to occur for most midfrequency hearing specialists (e.g.,
dolphins, sperm whale). The proposed
mitigation and monitoring measures are
expected to minimize the severity of
such taking to the extent practicable. It
is unlikely that lethal takes would occur
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
26282
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
even in the absence of the proposed
mitigation and monitoring measures,
and no such takes are anticipated or
proposed for authorization.
Sound Thresholds
We have historically used generic
acoustic thresholds (see Table 5) to
determine when an activity that
produces sound might result in impacts
to a marine mammal such that a take by
harassment might occur. These
thresholds should be considered
guidelines for estimating when
harassment may occur (i.e., when an
animal is exposed to levels equal to or
exceeding the relevant criterion) in
specific contexts; however, useful
contextual information that may inform
our assessment of effects is typically
lacking and we consider these
thresholds as step functions. We are
aware of suggestions regarding new
criteria concerning behavioral
disruption (e.g., Nowacek et al., 2015),
but there is currently no scientific
agreement on the matter. NMFS will
consider potential changes to the
historical criteria for behavioral
harassment in the future.
TABLE 5—HISTORICAL ACOUSTIC EXPOSURE CRITERIA FOR IMPULSIVE SOURCES
Criterion
Definition
Level A harassment ........................
Injury (onset PTS—any level above that which is known to cause
TTS).
Behavioral disruption .............................................................................
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Level B harassment ........................
However, NMFS has recently
introduced new technical guidance for
auditory injury (equating to Level A
harassment under the MMPA); for more
information, please visit
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/
guidelines.htm (NMFS, 2016). Historical
threshold levels for auditory injury were
developed in the late 1990s using the
best information available at the time
(e.g., HESS, 1999). Since the adoption of
these historical thresholds, our
understanding of the effects of noise on
marine mammal hearing has greatly
advanced (e.g., Southall et al., 2007;
Finneran, 2015). The new 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’s historical criteria.
The technical guidance reflects the best
available science on the potential for
noise to affect auditory sensitivity by:
• Dividing sound sources into two
groups (i.e., impulsive and nonimpulsive) based on their potential to
affect hearing sensitivity;
• Choosing metrics that better address
the impacts of noise on hearing
sensitivity, i.e., peak sound pressure
level (peak SPL) (better reflects the
physical properties of impulsive sound
sources, to affect hearing sensitivity)
and cumulative sound exposure level
(cSEL) (accounts for not only level of
exposure but also durations of
exposure);
• Dividing marine mammals into
hearing groups and developing auditory
weighting functions based on the
science supporting that not all marine
mammals hear and use sound in the
same manner.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
Threshold
NMFS’s new technical guidance
(NMFS, 2016) builds upon the
foundation provided by Southall et al.
(2007), while incorporating new
information available since
development of that work (e.g.,
Finneran, 2015). Southall et al. (2007)
recommended specific thresholds under
the dual metric approach (i.e., peak SPL
and cumulative SEL) and that marine
mammals be divided into functional
hearing groups based on measured or
estimated functional hearing ranges.
The premise of the dual criteria
approach is that, while there is no
definitive answer to the question of
which acoustic metric is most
appropriate for assessing the potential
for injury, both the received level and
duration of received signals are
important to an understanding of the
potential for auditory injury. Therefore,
peak SPL is used to define a pressure
criterion above which auditory injury is
predicted to occur, regardless of
exposure duration (i.e., any single
exposure at or above this level is
considered to cause auditory injury),
and cSEL is used to account for the total
energy received over the duration of
sound exposure (i.e., both received level
and duration of exposure) (Southall et
al., 2007; NMFS, 2016). As a general
principle, whichever criterion is
exceeded first (i.e., results in the largest
isopleth) would be used as the effective
injury criterion (i.e., the more
precautionary of the criteria). Note that
cSEL acoustic threshold levels
incorporate marine mammal auditory
weighting functions, while peak
pressure thresholds do not (i.e., flat or
unweighted). NMFS (2016) recommends
24 hours as a maximum accumulation
period relative to cSEL thresholds. For
further discussion of auditory weighting
functions and their application, please
see NMFS (2016). Table 6 displays
thresholds provided by NMFS (2016).
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
180 dB rms (cetaceans).
160 dB rms (impulse sources).
TABLE 6—EXPOSURE CRITERIA FOR
AUDITORY INJURY FOR IMPULSIVE
SOURCES
Hearing group
Low-frequency
cetaceans ......
Mid-frequency
cetaceans ......
High-frequency
cetaceans ......
Peak
pressure 1
(dB)
Cumulative
sound
exposure
level 2
(dB)
219
183
230
185
202
155
to 1 μPa; unweighted within
generalized hearing range.
2 Referenced to 1 μPa2s; weighted according to appropriate auditory weighting function.
1 Referenced
NMFS considers these updated
thresholds and associated weighting
functions to be the best available
information for assessing whether
exposure to specific activities is likely
to result in changes in marine mammal
hearing sensitivity. However, all
applications were submitted and
declared adequate and complete prior to
finalization of the technical guidance,
based on the best available information
at the time. BOEM’s PEIS (BOEM,
2014a) does provide information
enabling a reasonable approximation of
potential acoustic exposures relative to
the ‘‘Southall criteria.’’ While the peerreviewed criteria provided by Southall
et al. (2007) differ from that described
by NMFS (2016), they do function
substantively as a reasonable precursor
to the new technical guidance. We
derived applicant specific exposure
estimates for Level A harassment from
BOEM’s PEIS and then corrected these
to reasonably account for NMFS’s new
technical guidance. This process is
described below (see ‘‘Level A
Harassment’’).
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Sound Field Modeling
BOEM’s PEIS (BOEM, 2014a) provides
information related to estimation of the
sound fields that would be generated by
potential geophysical survey activity on
the mid- and south Atlantic OCS. We
provide a summary description of that
modeling effort here; for more
information, please see Appendix D of
BOEM’s PEIS (Zykov and Carr, 2014 in
BOEM, 2014a). The acoustic modeling
generated a three-dimensional acoustic
propagation field as a function of source
characteristics and physical properties
of the ocean for later integration with
marine mammal density information in
an animal movement model to estimate
potential acoustic exposures.
The authors selected 15 modeling
sites throughout BOEM’s Mid-Atlantic
and South Atlantic OCS planning areas
for use in modeling predicted sound
fields resulting from use of the airgun
array. The water depth at the sites
varied from 30–5,400 m. Two types of
bottom composition were considered:
Sand and clay, their selection
depending on the water depth at the
source. Twelve possible sound speed
profiles for the water column were used
to cover the variation of the sound
velocity distribution in the water with
location and season. Twenty-one
distinct propagation scenarios resulted
from considering different sound speed
profiles at some of the modeling sites.
Two acoustic propagation models were
employed to estimate the acoustic field
radiated by the sound sources. A
version of JASCO Applied Science’s
Marine Operations Noise Model
(MONM), based on the Rangedependent Acoustic Model (RAM)
parabolic-equations model, MONM–
RAM, was used to estimate the SELs for
low-frequency sources (below 2 kHz)
such as an airgun array. For more
information on sound propagation
model types, please see, e.g., Etter
(2013). The model takes into account
the geoacoustic properties of the sea
bottom, vertical sound speed profile in
the water column, range-dependent
bathymetry, and the directivity of the
source. The directional source levels for
the airgun array was modeled using the
Airgun Array Source Model (AASM)
based on the specifications of the source
such as the arrangement and volume of
the guns, firing pressure, and depth
below the sea surface. The modeled
directional source levels were used as
the input for the acoustic propagation
model. For background information on
major factors affecting underwater
sound propagation, please see Zykov
and Carr (2014).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
The modeling used a 5,400 in3 airgun
array as a representative example. The
array has dimensions of 16 x 15 m and
consists of 18 air guns placed in three
identical strings of six air guns each
(please see Figure D–6 of Zykov and
Carr (2014)). The volume of individual
air guns ranges from 105–660 in3. Firing
pressure for all elements is 2,000 psi.
The depth below the sea surface for the
array was set at 6.5 m. Please see Table
1 for a comparison to the airgun arrays
proposed for use by the applicant
companies. Horizontal third-octave
band directionality plots resulting from
source modeling are shown in Figure D–
8 of Zykov and Carr (2014).
As noted, the AASM was used to
predict the directional source level (SL)
of the airgun array. The MONM was
then used to estimate the acoustic field
at any range from the source. MONM–
RAM was used to predict the directional
transmission loss (TL) footprint from
various source locations corresponding
to the selected modeling sites. The
received level (RL) at any 3D location
away from the source is calculated by
combining the SL and TL, both of which
are direction dependent, using the
fundamental relation RL = SL¥TL.
Acoustic TL and RL are a function of
depth, range, bearing, and
environmental properties of the
propagation medium. The RLs estimated
by MONM, like the SLs from which they
are computed, are expressed in terms of
the SEL metric over the duration of a
single source pulse. Sound exposure
level is expressed in units of dB re 1
mPa2 · s. For the purposes of this study,
the SEL results were converted to the
rms SPL metric using a range dependent
conversion coefficient.
The U.S. Naval Oceanographic
Office’s Generalized Digital
Environmental Model database was
used to extract sound velocity profiles
for the mid- and south Atlantic in order
to characterize the entire water body
into a discreet number of specific
propagation regions. The profiles were
selected to reflect the variation of sea
water properties at the different
locations selected throughout the midand south Atlantic OCS as well as
seasonal variation at the same location
(i.e., winter, spring, summer, fall). The
profiles for each season were grouped
into about 17 regions with similar
propagation characteristics and
representative profiles for each region
were selected. Finally, the bottom
characteristics for each of these 17
regions were examined to determine if
any region needed to be divided to
accommodate the influence of the
various bottom types on that region’s
propagation. The result was 21 separate
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
26283
modeling regions that in sum captured
the propagation for the entire area;
therefore, taken in conjunction with the
15 applicable sites there were a total of
21 modeling scenarios applicable to the
airgun array. These scenarios are
detailed in Table D–21 in Zykov and
Carr (2014). Each acoustic modeling
scenario is characterized by a unique
combination of parameters. The main
variables in the environment
configuration are the bathymetry and
the sound velocity profile in the water
column. The geoacoustic properties of
the sea bottom are directly correlated
with the water depth of the modeling
site. Four depth regions were classified
based on bathymetry: Shallow
continental shelf (<60 m); continental
shelf (60–150 m); continental slope
(150–1,000 m); and deep ocean (>1,000
m). The modeling results show that the
largest threshold radii are typically
associated with sites in intermediate
water depths (250 and 900 m). Low
frequencies propagate relatively poorly
in shallow water (i.e., water depths on
the same order as or less than the
wavelength). At intermediate water
depths, this stripping of low-frequency
sound no longer occurs, and longerrange propagation can be enhanced by
the channeling of sound caused by
reflection from the surface and seafloor
(depending on the nature of the sound
speed profile and sediment type).
Table 7 shows scenario-specific
modeling results for distances to the 160
dB level; results presented are for the 95
percent range to threshold. Given a
regularly gridded spatial distribution of
modeled RLs, the 95 percent range is
defined as the radius of a circle that
encompasses 95 percent of the grid
points whose value is equal to or greater
than the threshold value. This definition
is meaningful in terms of potential
impact to an animal because, regardless
of the geometrical shape of the noise
footprint for a given threshold level, it
always provides a range beyond which
no more than five percent of a uniformly
distributed population would be
exposed to sound at or above that level.
The maximum range, which is simply
the distance to the farthest occurrence of
the threshold level, is the more
conservative but may misrepresent the
effective exposure zone. For example,
there are cases where the volume
ensonified to a specific level may not be
continuous and small pockets of higher
RLs may be found far outside the main
ensonified volume (for example,
because of convergence). If only the
maximum range is presented, a false
impression of the extent of the acoustic
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
26284
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
field can be given (Zykov and Carr,
2014).
TABLE 7—MODELING SCENARIOS AND SITE-SPECIFIC MODELED THRESHOLD RADII FROM BOEM’S PEIS
Scenario No.
Site No.1
Water depth
(m)
Season
Bottom type
1 ...........................................................................................
2 ...........................................................................................
3 ...........................................................................................
4 ...........................................................................................
5 ...........................................................................................
6 ...........................................................................................
7 ...........................................................................................
8 ...........................................................................................
9 ...........................................................................................
10 .........................................................................................
11 .........................................................................................
12 .........................................................................................
13 .........................................................................................
14 .........................................................................................
15 .........................................................................................
16 .........................................................................................
17 .........................................................................................
18 .........................................................................................
19 .........................................................................................
20 .........................................................................................
21 .........................................................................................
Mean ....................................................................................
1
2
3
4
5
1
6
3
7
8
1
6
3
9
10
11
12
13
3
14
15
........................
5,390
2,560
880
249
288
5,390
3,200
880
251
249
5,390
3,200
880
275
4,300
3,010
4,890
3,580
880
100
51
........................
Winter ............
Winter ............
Winter ............
Winter ............
Winter ............
Spring ............
Spring ............
Spring ............
Spring ............
Spring ............
Summer .........
Summer .........
Summer .........
Summer .........
Fall .................
Fall .................
Fall .................
Fall .................
Fall .................
Fall .................
Fall .................
........................
Clay ................
Clay ................
Sand ..............
Sand ..............
Sand ..............
Clay ................
Clay ................
Sand ..............
Sand ..............
Sand ..............
Clay ................
Clay ................
Sand ..............
Sand ..............
Clay ................
Clay ................
Clay ................
Clay ................
Sand ..............
Sand ..............
Sand ..............
........................
Threshold
radii
(m)2
4,969
5,184
8,104
8,725
8,896
4,989
5,026
8,056
8,593
8,615
4,973
5,013
8,095
9,122
5,121
5,098
4,959
5,069
8,083
8,531
8,384
6,838
Adapted from Tables D–21 and D–22 of Zykov and Carr (2014).
1 Please see Figure D–35 of Zykov and Carr (2014) for site locations.
2 Threshold radii to 160 dB (rms) SPL, 95 percent range.
We provide this description of the
modeling performed for BOEM’s PEIS as
a general point of reference for the
proposed surveys, and also because
three of the applicant companies—TGS,
CGG, and Western—directly use these
results to inform their exposure
modeling, rather than performing
separate sound field modeling. As
described by BOEM (2014a), the
modeled array was selected to be
representative of the large airgun arrays
likely to be used by geophysical
exploration companies in the mid- and
south Atlantic OCS. Therefore, we use
the BOEM (2014a) results as a
reasonable proxy for those two
companies (please see ‘‘Detailed
Description of Activities’’ for further
description of the acoustic sources
proposed for use by these two
companies). ION and Spectrum elected
to perform separate sound field
modeling efforts, and these are
described below. For generally
applicable conclusions, as summarized
from Appendix A of ION’s application,
see below.
ION—ION provided information
related to estimation of the sound fields
that would be generated by their
proposed geophysical survey activity on
the mid- and south Atlantic OCS. We
provide a summary description of that
modeling effort here; for more
information, please see Appendix A of
ION’s application (Li, 2014; referred to
hereafter as Appendix A of ION’s
application). ION proposes to use a 36element airgun array with a 6,420 in3
total firing volume (please see ‘‘Detailed
Description of Activities’’ for further
description of ION’s acoustic source).
The modeling assumed that ION would
operate from July to December. Sixteen
representative sites were selected along
survey track lines planned by ION for
use in modeling predicted sound fields
resulting from use of the airgun array
(see Figure 2 in Appendix A of ION’s
application for site locations). Two
acoustic propagation models were
employed to estimate the acoustic field
radiated by the sound sources. As was
described above for BOEM’s PEIS, the
acoustic signature of the airgun array
was predicted using AASM and MONM
was used to calculate the sound
propagation and acoustic field near each
defined site. The modeling process
follows generally that described
previously for BOEM’s PEIS. Key
differences are the characteristics of the
acoustic source (see Table 1), locations
of the modeled sites, and the use of a
restricted set of sound velocity profiles
(e.g., fall and winter). Table 8 shows
site-specific modeling results for
distances to the 160 dB level; results
presented are for the 95 percent range to
threshold.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
TABLE 8—SITE-SPECIFIC MODELED THRESHOLD RADII FOR ION
Water depth
(m)
Site No.1
1 ...................................................................................................................................................
45
2 ...................................................................................................................................................
820
3 ...................................................................................................................................................
1,000
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
Season
Fall .................
Winter ............
Fall .................
Winter ............
Fall .................
Winter ............
Threshold
radii
(m) 2
4,740
5,270
7,470
7,490
7,530
7,480
26285
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
TABLE 8—SITE-SPECIFIC MODELED THRESHOLD RADII FOR ION—Continued
Water depth
(m)
Site No.1
4 ...................................................................................................................................................
40
5 ...................................................................................................................................................
650
6 ...................................................................................................................................................
1,500
7 ...................................................................................................................................................
2,600
8 ...................................................................................................................................................
30
9 ...................................................................................................................................................
700
10 .................................................................................................................................................
3,300
11 .................................................................................................................................................
4,200
12 .................................................................................................................................................
30
13 .................................................................................................................................................
140
14 .................................................................................................................................................
2,400
17 3 ...............................................................................................................................................
2,200
18 3 ...............................................................................................................................................
4,180
Mean ............................................................................................................................................
........................
Season
Fall .................
Winter ............
Fall .................
Winter ............
Fall .................
Winter ............
Fall .................
Winter ............
Fall .................
Winter ............
Fall .................
Winter ............
Fall .................
Winter ............
Fall .................
Winter ............
Fall .................
Winter ............
Fall .................
Winter ............
Fall .................
Winter ............
Fall .................
Winter ............
Fall .................
Winter ............
Fall .................
Winter ............
Overall ...........
Threshold
radii
(m) 2
4,200
5,220
7,270
7,370
5,210
5,250
5,420
5,390
4,480
4,770
8,210
8,250
5,410
5,380
5,390
5,360
3,250
4,860
6,470
6,750
5,460
5,450
5,600
5,570
5,400
5,380
5,383
5,953
5,836
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Adapted from Tables 1 and 17 of Appendix A in ION’s application.
1 Please see Figure 2 of Appendix A in ION’s application for site locations.
2 Threshold radii to 160 dB (rms) SPL, 95 percent range.
3 Results for sites 15 and 16 are not presented, as the sites are outside the proposed survey area.
Spectrum—Spectrum provided
information related to estimation of the
sound fields that would be generated by
their proposed geophysical survey
activity on the mid- and south Atlantic
OCS. We provide a summary
description of that modeling effort here;
for more information, please see
Appendix A of Spectrum’s application
(Frankel et al., 2015; referred to
hereafter as Appendix A of Spectrum’s
application). Spectrum plans to use a
32-element airgun array with a 4,920 in3
total firing volume (please see ‘‘Detailed
Description of Activities’’ for further
description of Spectrum’s acoustic
source). Array characteristics were input
into the GUNDALF model to calculate
the source level and predict the array
signature. The directivity pattern of the
airgun array was calculated using the
beamforming module in the
CASS-GRAB acoustic propagation
model. These models provided source
input information for the
range-dependent acoustic model (RAM),
which was then used to predict acoustic
propagation and estimate the resulting
sound field. The RAM model creates
frequency-specific, three-dimensional
directivity patterns (sound field) based
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
upon the size and location of each
airgun in the array. As described
previously, physical characteristics of
the underwater environment (e.g.,
sound velocity profile, bathymetry,
substrate composition) are critical to
understanding acoustic propagation; 16
modeling locations were selected that
span the acoustic conditions of the
proposed seismic survey area. ION and
Spectrum used the same modeling
locations (Table 8). In contrast to ION’s
approach, Spectrum elected to use
sound velocity profiles for winter and
spring and assumed that half of the
survey would occur in winter and half
in spring. Table 9 shows site-specific
modeling results for distances to the 160
dB level; results presented are for the 95
percent range to threshold.
TABLE 9—SITE-SPECIFIC MODELED
THRESHOLD RADII FOR SPECTRUM
Water
depth
(m)
Site No.1
1
2
3
4
............................
............................
............................
............................
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
45
820
1,000
40
Sfmt 4703
Threshold
radii
(m)2
12,400
9,900
9,600
7,850
TABLE 9—SITE-SPECIFIC MODELED
THRESHOLD RADII FOR SPECTRUM—
Continued
Site No.1
Water
depth
(m)
5 ............................
6 ............................
7 ............................
8 ............................
9 ............................
10 ..........................
11 ..........................
12 ..........................
13 ..........................
14 ..........................
17 3 ........................
18 3 ........................
Mean .....................
650
1,500
2,600
30
700
3,300
4,200
30
140
2,400
2,200
4,180
..................
Threshold
radii
(m)2
9,350
7,600
6,700
7,650
9,150
6,700
7,000
24,300
14,750
7,650
8,600
7,200
9,775
Adapted from Table 6 of Spectrum’s application.
1 Please see Figure 5 of Appendix A in
Spectrum’s application for site locations.
2 Threshold radii to 160 dB (rms) SPL, 95
percent range.
3 Results for sites 15 and 16 are not presented, as the sites are outside the proposed
survey area.
Generally applicable conclusions
were discussed in Appendix A of ION’s
application, and are summarized here.
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
26286
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
At shallow water sites, the sound field
at long distances is dominated by
intermediate frequencies (i.e., 100–500
Hz) and the sound field varies
significantly with direction because of
the correspondingly high directivity of
the source at these frequencies. Lower
frequency energy is more rapidly
attenuated and so is not able to
propagate to very long distances. In
contrast, the long-range spectra at
deeper-water sites contain more lowfrequency energy, resulting in longer
propagation distances, and the shape of
the sound field is also more strongly
influenced by the directionality of the
airgun array at low frequencies (i.e., tens
of hertz). Differences across seasons and
sites are generally not great due to
similar sound velocity profiles (e.g.,
dominant downward refraction for
depths greater than approximately 100
m) and counter-balancing effects of
depth versus substrate composition.
Shallow-water sites have mostly sandy
sediments, which are more acoustically
reflective, but low frequencies (as are
produced by airguns) propagate
relatively poorly in shallow water.
Deep-water sites are located over clay
sediments, which are associated with
greater bottom loss, but this is balanced
by the better low-frequency propagation
in deep water. The largest threshold
radii are seen in intermediate depths,
because these sites are located over
acoustically reflective sand sediments
but in depths at which low-frequency
sound is no longer stripped out. Further,
longer-range propagation at these sites
can be increased by sound channeling
due to reflection from the sea surface
and seabed (depending on the sound
velocity profiles and sediment types).
Marine Mammal Density Information
The best available scientific
information was considered in
conducting marine mammal exposure
estimates (the basis for estimating take).
Historically, distance sampling
methodology (Buckland et al., 2001) has
been applied to visual line-transect
survey data to estimate abundance
within large geographic strata (e.g.,
Fulling et al., 2003; Mullin and Fulling,
2004; Palka, 2006). Design-based
surveys that apply such sampling
techniques produce stratified
abundance estimates and do not provide
information at appropriate
spatiotemporal scales for assessing
environmental risk of a planned survey.
To address this issue of scale, efforts
were developed to relate animal
observations and environmental
correlates such as sea surface
temperature in order to develop
predictive models used to produce fine-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
scale maps of habitat suitability (e.g.,
Waring et al., 2001; Hamazaki, 2002;
Best et al., 2012). However, these
studies generally produce relative
estimates that cannot be directly used to
quantify potential exposures of marine
mammals to sound, for example. A more
recent approach known as density
surface modeling, as seen in DoN (2007)
and Roberts et al. (2016), couples
traditional distance sampling with
multivariate regression modeling to
produce density maps predicted from
fine-scale environmental covariates
(e.g., Becker et al., 2014).
At the time the applications were
initially developed, the best available
information concerning marine mammal
densities in the proposed survey area
was the U.S. Navy’s Navy Operating
Area (OPAREA) Density Estimates
(NODEs) (DoN, 2007). These habitatbased cetacean density models utilized
vessel-based and aerial survey data
collected by NMFS from 1998–2005
during broad-scale abundance studies.
Modeling methodology is detailed in
DoN (2007). A more advanced cetacean
density modeling effort, described in
Roberts et al. (2016), was ongoing
during initial development of the
applications, and the model outputs
were made available to the applicant
companies. All information relating to
this effort was made publically available
in March 2016.
The Roberts et al. (2016) modeling
effort provided several key
improvements with respect to the
NODEs effort. While the NODEs effort
utilized a robust collection of NMFS
survey data, Roberts et al. (2016)
expanded on this by incorporating
additional aerial and shipboard survey
data from NMFS and from other
organizations collected over the period
1992–2014, ultimately incorporating 60
percent more shipboard and five
hundred percent more aerial survey
hours than did NODEs. In addition,
Roberts et al. (2016) controlled for the
influence of sea state, group size,
availability bias, and perception bias on
the probability of making a sighting,
whereas NODEs controlled for none of
these. There are multiple reasons why
marine mammals may be undetected by
observers. Animals are missed because
they are underwater (availability bias) or
because they are available to be seen,
but are missed by observers (perception
and detection biases) (e.g., Marsh and
Sinclair, 1989). Negative bias on
perception or detection of an available
animal may result from environmental
conditions, limitations inherent to the
observation platform, or observer
ability. Therefore, failure to correct for
these biases may lead to underestimates
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
of cetacean abundance. Use of
additional data was used to improve
detection functions for taxa that were
rarely sighted in specific survey
platform configurations. The degree of
underestimation would likely be
particularly impactful for species that
exhibit long dive times, such as sperm
and beaked whales, or are hard for
observers to detect, such as harbor
porpoises. Roberts et al. (2016) modeled
density from eight physiographic and 16
dynamic oceanographic and biological
covariates, as compared with two
dynamic environmental covariates
considered in NODEs. In summary,
consideration of additional survey data
and an improved modeling strategy
allowed for an increased number of taxa
modeled and better spatiotemporal
resolutions of the resulting predictions.
In general, we consider the models
produced by Roberts et al. (2016) to be
the best available source of data
regarding cetacean density in the
Atlantic. More information, including
the model results and supplementary
information for each model, is available
at seamap.env.duke.edu/models/DukeEC-GOM-2015/.
Aerial and shipboard survey data
produced by the Atlantic Marine
Assessment Program for Protected
Species (AMAPPS) program provides an
additional source of information
regarding marine mammal presence in
the proposed survey areas. These
surveys represent a collaborative effort
between NMFS, BOEM, and the Navy.
Although the cetacean density models
described above do include survey data
from 2010–14, the AMAPPS data was
not made available to the model
authors. Future model updates will
incorporate these data, but as of this
writing the AMAPPS data comprises a
separate source of information (NMFS,
2010a, 2011, 2012, 2013a, 2014, 2015a).
Description of Exposure Estimates
Here, we provide applicant-specific
descriptions of the processes employed
to estimate potential exposures of
marine mammals to given levels of
received sound. The discussions
provided here are specific to estimated
exposures to NMFS criterion for Level B
harassment (i.e., 160 dB rms); we
provide a separate discussion below
regarding our process for estimating
potential incidents of Level A
harassment. We first describe the
exposure modeling process performed
for BOEM’s PEIS as point of reference.
Appendix E of the PEIS (BOEM, 2014a)
provides full details.
This description builds on the
description of sound field modeling
provided earlier in this section and in
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
Appendix D of BOEM’s PEIS. As
described previously, 21 distinct
acoustic propagation regions were
defined. Reflecting seasonal differences
in sound velocity profiles, these regions
were specific to each season—there
were five acoustic propagation regions
in both winter and spring, four in
summer, and seven propagation regions
in fall (see Figures E–11 through E–14
in Appendix E of BOEM’s PEIS). The
seasonal distribution of marine
mammals was examined using the
NODEs database (DoN, 2007) to see if
there was any additional correlation
with the propagation regions. The
seasonal distribution for each species
was examined by overlaying the charts
of the 21 acoustic modeling regions and
the average density of each species was
then numerically determined for each
region. For each species modeled
through the NODEs effort, the model
outputs are four seasonal surface
density plots (e.g., Figure E–15 in
Appendix E of BOEM’s PEIS). However,
the NODEs models do not provide
outputs for the extended continental
shelf areas seaward of the EEZ;
therefore, known density information at
the edge of the area modeled by NODEs
was extrapolated to the remainder of the
study area.
The results of the acoustic modeling
exercise (i.e., estimated 3D sound field)
and the region-specific density
estimates were then input into Marine
Acoustics, Inc.’s Acoustic Integration
Model (AIM). AIM is a software package
developed to predict the exposure of
receivers (e.g., an animal) to any
stimulus propagating through space and
time through use of a four-dimensional,
individual-based, Monte Carlo-based
statistical model. Within the model,
simulated marine animals (i.e., animats)
may be programmed to behave in
specific ways on the basis of measured
field data. An animat movement engine
controls the geographic and vertical
movements (e.g., speed and direction) of
sound sources and animats through four
dimensions (time and space) according
to user inputs. Species that normally
inhabit specific environments can be
constrained in the model to stay within
that habitat (e.g., deep-water species
may be restricted from entering shallow
waters where they would not be found).
Species-specific animats were created
with programmed behavioral parameters
describing dive depth, surfacing and
dive durations, swimming speed, course
change, and behavioral aversions (e.g.,
water too shallow). The programmed
animats were then randomly distributed
over a given bounded simulation area;
boundaries extend at least one degree of
latitude or longitude beyond the extent
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
of the vessel track to ensure an adequate
number of animats in all directions, and
to ensure that the simulation areas
extend beyond the area where
substantial behavioral reactions might
be anticipated. Because the exact
positions of sound sources and animals
are not known in advance for proposed
activities, multiple runs of realistic
predictions are used to provide
statistical validity to the simulated
scenarios. Each species-specific
simulation is seeded with a given
density of animats; in this case,
approximately 4,000 animats. In most
cases, this represents a higher density of
animats in the simulation (0.1 animats/
km2) than occurs in the real
environment. A separate simulation was
created and run for each combination of
location, movement pattern, and marine
mammal species.
A model run consists of a userspecified number of steps forward in
time, in which each animat is moved
according to the rules describing its
behavior. For each time step of the
model run, the received sound levels at
each animat (i.e., each marine mammal)
are calculated. AIM returns the
movement patterns of the animats, and
the received sound levels are calculated
separately using the given acoustic
propagation predictions at different
locations. At the end of each time step,
an animat ‘‘evaluates’’ its environment,
including its 3D location, the time, and
any received sound level, and may alter
its course to react to the environment
per any programmed aversions.
Animat positions relative to the
acoustic source (i.e., range, bearing, and
depth) were used to extract received
level estimates from the acoustic
propagation modeling results. The
source levels, and therefore
subsequently the received levels,
include the embedded corrections for
signal pulse length and M-weighting. Mweighting is a type of frequency
weighting curve intended to reflect the
differential potential for sound to affect
marine mammals based on their
sensitivity to the particular frequencies
produced (Southall et al., 2007). Please
see Appendix D of BOEM’s PEIS for
further description of the application of
M-weighting filters. For each bearing,
distance, and depth from the source, the
received level values were expressed as
SPLs (rms) with units of dB re 1m Pa.
These are then converted back to
intensity and summed over the duration
of the exercise to generate an integrated
energy level, expressed in terms of dB
re 1 mPa2-sec or dB SEL. The number of
animats per species that exceeded a
given criterion (e.g., 160 dB rms; 198 dB
cSEL) may then be determined, and
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
26287
these results scaled according to the
relationship of model-to-real world
densities per species. That is, the
exposure results are corrected using the
actual species- and region-specific
density derived from the density model
outputs to give real-world estimates of
exposure to sound exceeding a given
received level. In this case, the userspecified densities are typically at least
an order of magnitude greater than the
real-world densities to ensure a
statistically valid result; therefore, the
modeling result is corrected or scaled by
the ratio of the actual density divided by
the modeled density. Although there is
substantial uncertainty associated with
both the acoustic sound field estimation
and animal movement modeling steps,
confidence intervals were not developed
for the exposure estimate results, in part
because calculating confidence limits
for numbers of Level B harassment takes
would imply a level of quantification
and statistical certainty that does not
currently exist (BOEM, 2014a). Further
detail regarding all aspects of the
modeling process is provided in
Appendix E of BOEM’s PEIS.
As noted previously, the NODEs
models (DoN, 2007) provided the best
available information at the time of
initial development for these
applications. Outputs of the cetacean
density models described by Roberts et
al. (2016) were subsequently made
available to the applicant companies.
Two applicants (TGS and Western)
elected to consider the new information
and produced revised applications
accordingly. CGG also used the new
information in developing their
application. Two applicants (Spectrum
and ION) declined to use the Roberts et
al. (2016) density models. However,
because NMFS determined that the
Roberts et al. (2016) density models
represent the best available information
(in relation to the NODEs models) we
worked with Marine Acoustics, Inc.—
which performed the initial exposure
modeling provided in the Spectrum and
ION applications—to produce revised
exposure estimates utilizing the outputs
of the Roberts et al. (2016) density
models.
In order to revise the exposure
estimates for Spectrum and ION, we
first needed to extract appropriate
density estimates from the Roberts et al.
(2016) model outputs. Because both
Spectrum and ION used modeling
processes conceptually similar to that
described above for BOEM’s PEIS, these
density estimates would replace those
previously derived from the NODEs
models in rescaling the exposure
estimation results from those derived
from animal movement modeling using
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
26288
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
a user-specified density. We summarize
the steps involved in calculating mean
marine mammal densities over the 21
modeling areas used in both BOEM’s
PEIS and the applications here:
• Roberts et al. (2016) predicted
densities on an annual or monthly time
period. When the time period was
annual, we used the same density for all
seasons. When the time period was
monthly, we calculated the mean
density for each season (using ArcGIS’
cell statistics tool).
• We converted the Roberts et al.
(2016) density units (animals/100 km2)
to animals/km2.
• As was the case for the NODEs
model outputs, the Roberts et al. (2016)
model outputs are restricted to the U.S.
EEZ. Although relevant information
regarding cetacean densities in areas of
the western North Atlantic beyond the
EEZ was recently provided by Mannocci
et al. (2017), this information was not
available to the applicants in developing
their applications and was not available
to NMFS in preparing this document.
Therefore, we similarly extended the
edge densities to cover the area outside
of the data extent. This was performed
by converting the seasonal rasters to
numeric Python arrays, then using
Python array functions to extend the
edge cells.
• With new density values covering
the entire modeling extent, we then
calculated the average density for each
of the 21 modeling areas (using ArcGIS’
Zonal Statistics as Table tool).
Spectrum—Spectrum’s sound field
estimation process was previously
described, and their exposure modeling
process is substantially similar to that
described above for BOEM’s PEIS. The
exposure estimation results described in
Spectrum’s application are based on the
NODEs models. Because the NODEs
model outputs do not cover the full
extent of the proposed survey area,
density estimates from the eastern-most
edge where data are known were
extrapolated seaward to the spatial
extent of the proposed survey area. The
same acoustic propagation regions
described for BOEM’s PEIS were used
by Spectrum for exposure modeling;
however, Spectrum limited their
analysis to winter and spring seasons
and therefore used only ten of the 21
regions. Half of proposed survey activity
was assumed to occur in winter and half
in spring.
As was described for BOEM’s PEIS,
Spectrum used AIM to model animal
movements within the estimated 3D
sound field. However, Spectrum elected
to seed the simulations with a lower
animat density (0.05 animats/km2) than
was used for BOEM’s PEIS modeling
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
effort. Spectrum stated that the modeled
animat density value was determined
through a sensitivity analysis that
examined the stability of the predicted
exposure estimates as a function of
animat density and that the modeled
density was determined to accurately
capture the full distributional range of
probabilities of exposure for the
proposed survey. Similar to the
modeling performed for BOEM’s PEIS,
the source levels and therefore
subsequently the received levels include
the embedded corrections for Mweighting (Southall et al., 2007).
AIM simulations consisted of 25
hours of survey track for each modeling
site and animal group. This duration
was selected to use a 24-hour sound
energy accumulation period for
exposure estimation. The first hour of
model output is then discarded, as
animal distributions will be unduly
influenced by initial conditions. In
addition, there was a difference between
the amount of modeled survey trackline
within each modeling region and the
actual proposed amount of survey
trackline. The potential impacts were
scaled by the ratio of the total length of
proposed trackline to the modeled
length of trackline in each modeling
region. Spectrum elected to program
certain species’ animats with one
aversion; normally deep-water species
were not allowed to move into waters
shallower than 100 m. Avoidance of
right whales as indicated by the timearea restrictions required by BOEM’s
ROD (BOEM, 2014b) was also accounted
for.
Similar to modeling conducted for
BOEM’s PEIS, received sound level and
3D position of each animat were
recorded to calculate exposure estimates
at each time step. Thus unweighted
SPL(rms) and SEL values, as well as
M-weighted SEL values, were calculated
and compared with their respective
criteria. The SEL values at each time
step were converted back to intensity
and summed, to produce the 24-hr cSEL
value for each individual animat. The
numbers of animats with SPL(rms) and
cSEL values that exceeded their
respective regulatory criteria were
considered exposed for that criteria.
Spectrum also included a mitigation
simulation in their modeling process,
i.e., they attempted to quantify the
effects that a shutdown for marine
mammals occurring within a 500 m
exclusion zone and subsequent 60
minute clearance period would have on
exposure estimates. As was described
for BOEM’s PEIS, dataset outputs of the
AIM simulation model contain an
animat’s received sound level (SEL or
SPL), the distance between the source
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
and the animat, and the depth of the
animat. Spectrum used the distance
value to determine if the animat was in
the 500-m exclusion zone and the depth
of the animat was used to determine if
it was at or near the surface. If both of
these conditions were true, then the
animat was considered ‘available’ to be
observed. However, an animal that is
available to be observed may still be
missed by an observer due to perception
bias. Therefore, Spectrum attempted to
model the probability that an animal
available for observation would in fact
be observed. A random number was
generated and compared to the
detection probability for the species
being modeled (P(detect); detection
probabilities are shown in Table 14 of
Appendix A in Spectrum’s application).
If the random number was less than the
P(detect) value then the animal was
considered to have been detected; if
greater, the animal was considered
undetected. If an animat was detected,
AIM would simulate the effect of the
acoustic source being shut down by
setting the received sound levels of all
animats in the model run to zero for the
next 60 minutes. Predicted exposures
without this mitigation simulation were
also presented (see Tables 15–16 in
Appendix A of Spectrum’s application
for a comparison of the mitigation
simulation effect).
In summary, the original exposure
results were obtained using AIM to
model source and animat movements,
with received SEL for each animat
predicted at a 30-second time step. This
predicted SEL history was used to
determine the maximum SPL (rms or
peak) and cSEL for each animat, and the
number of exposures exceeding relevant
criteria recorded. The number of
exposures are summed for all animats to
get the number of exposures for each
species, with that summed value then
scaled by the ratio of real-world density
to the model density value. The final
scaling value was the ratio of the length
of the modeled survey line and the
length of proposed survey line in each
modeling region. As described above,
the exposure estimates provided in
Spectrum’s application were based on
the NODEs model outputs. In order to
make use of the best available
information (i.e., Roberts et al. (2016)),
we extracted species- and regionspecific density values as described
above. These were provided to Marine
Acoustics, Inc. in order to rescale the
original exposure results produced
using the seeded animat density; revised
exposure estimates are shown in Table
10.
ION—ION’s sound field estimation
process was previously described, and
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
their exposure modeling process is
substantially similar to that described
above for BOEM’s PEIS (and for
Spectrum). We do not repeat those
descriptions in full but summarize some
key elements and differences relating to
ION’s approach. Further detail may be
found in Appendix B of ION’s
application.
The exposure estimation results
described in ION’s application are based
on the NODEs models. The same
acoustic propagation regions described
for BOEM’s PEIS were used by ION for
exposure modeling; however, ION
limited their analysis to summer and
fall seasons and therefore used only 11
of the 21 regions. Whichever season
returned the higher number of estimated
exposures for a given species was
assumed to be the season in which the
survey occurred, i.e., ION’s requested
take authorization corresponds to the
higher of the two seasonal speciesspecific exposure estimates.
As was described for BOEM’s PEIS,
ION used AIM to model animal
movements within the estimated 3D
sound field. ION proposes to conduct
survey effort along lines roughly parallel
to and roughly perpendicular to the east
coast. Because a number of these lines
are similar to each other in terms of
direction and location, a reduced
number of modeling lines—five
alongshore and five perpendicular to
shore—were created to represent all of
the proposed survey lines. The lines
were then further broken into segments
that correspond to the boundaries of the
modeling regions (see Figure 4 in
Appendix B of ION’s application).
Simulation durations varied depending
on model line length. After models were
run for each line segment and
subsegment, the results from all
segments in each of the survey areas
were scaled to reflect the actual length
of proposed survey lines and then
combined. ION elected to seed the
simulations with a variable animat
density because of the variable length of
the tracks and the varied habitat of some
species. ION did not account for
potential effectiveness of mitigation in
their modeling effort.
In summary, the original exposure
results were obtained using AIM to
model source and animat movements,
with received SEL for each animat
predicted at a 30-second time step. This
predicted SEL history was used to
determine the maximum SPL (rms or
peak) and cSEL for each animat, and the
number of exposures exceeding relevant
criteria recorded. The number of
exposures are summed for all animats to
get the number of exposures for each
species, with that summed value then
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
scaled by the ratio of real-world density
to the model density value. The final
scaling value was the ratio of the length
of the modeled survey line and the
length of proposed survey line in each
modeling region. As described above,
the exposure estimates provided in
ION’s application were based on the
NODEs model outputs. In order to make
use of the best available information
(i.e., Roberts et al. (2016)), we extracted
species- and region-specific density
values as described above. These were
provided to Marine Acoustics, Inc. in
order to rescale the original exposure
results produced using the seeded
animat density; revised exposure
estimates are shown in Table 10.
TGS and Western—Because TGS and
Western follow the same approach to
estimating potential marine mammal
exposures to underwater sound, we
provide a single description. It is also
important to note that both companies
propose the use of a mitigation source
(i.e., 90 in3 airgun) for line turns and
transits not exceeding three hours and
produced exposure estimates for such
use of the source. As described
previously in ‘‘Proposed Mitigation,’’
we do not propose to allow use of the
mitigation source. Therefore, exposure
estimates produced by both companies
that account for proposed use of the
source will be slightly overestimated.
This applies only to the ten species
whose exposure estimates are based on
the Roberts et al. (2016) density models,
as we were not presented with exposure
estimates specific to the full-power
array versus the mitigation source. The
companies assumed that the sound field
estimates provided by BOEM (2014a)
would be applicable and consider three
depth bins: <880 m, 880–2,560 m,
>2,560 m. The 15 modeling sites have
a notable depth discontinuity within the
overall range (51–5,390 m), with no sites
at depths between 880–2,560 m. When
considering the 21 modeling scenarios
across the 15 sites, threshold radii
shown in Table 7 break down evenly
with 11 at depths ≤880 m and ten at
depths ≥2,560 m. The mean threshold
radius for the scenarios at shallow sites
is 8,473 m; for the scenarios at deep
sites the average is 5,040 m. The overall
mean for all scenarios is 6,838 m.
Because there are no sites for depths
between 880–2,560 m, we assume that
the overall mean threshold distance is
appropriate.
Because both applications were
prepared by Smultea Environmental
Sciences, LLC (SES) under contract to
the applicant companies, in this section
we refer hereafter to ‘‘SES’’ rather than
to ‘‘TGS and Western.’’ SES considered
both the Roberts et al. (2016) density
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
26289
models as well as the AMAPPS data
(NMFS, 2010a, 2011, 2012, 2013a,
2014). In so doing, SES determined that
there are aspects of the Roberts et al.
(2016) methodology that limit the model
outputs’ applicability to estimating
marine mammal exposures to
underwater sound. In summary, SES
described the following issues:
• There are very few sightings of
some species despite substantial survey
effort;
• The modeling approach
extrapolates based on habitat
associations and assumes some species’
occurrence in areas where they have
never been or were rarely documented
(despite substantial effort);
• In some cases, uniform density
models spread densities of species with
small sample sizes across large areas of
the EEZ without regard to habitat, and;
• The most recent NOAA shipboard
and aerial survey data (i.e., AMAPPS)
were not included in model
development.
In response to these general concerns
regarding suitability of model outputs
for exposure estimation, SES developed
a scheme related to the number of
observations in the dataset available to
Roberts et al. (2016) for use in
developing the density models.
Extremely rare species (i.e., less than
four sightings in the proposed survey
area) were considered to have a very
low probability of encounter, and it was
assumed that the species might be
encountered once. Therefore, a single
group of the species was considered as
expected to be exposed to sound
exceeding the 160 dB rms harassment
criterion. We agree with this approach
and further describe relevant
information related to these species in
subsequent sections below.
As described previously, marine
mammal abundance has traditionally
been estimated by applying distance
sampling methodology (Buckland et al.,
2001) to visual line-transect survey data.
Buckland et al. (2001) recommend a
minimum sample size of 60–80
sightings to provide reasonably robust
estimates of density and abundance to
fit the mathematical detection function
required for this estimation; smaller
sample sizes result in higher variance
and thus less confidence and less
accurate estimates. For species meeting
this guideline within the proposed
survey area, SES used Roberts et al.
(2016)’s model. For species with fewer
sightings (but with greater than four
sightings in the proposed survey area),
SES used what they refer to as ‘‘Line
Transect Theory’’ in conjunction with
AMAPPS data to estimate species
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
26290
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
density within the assumed 160 dB rms
zone of ensonification.
Ten species or species groups met
SES’ requirement of having at least 60
sightings within the proposed survey
area in the dataset available to Roberts
et al. (2016): Atlantic spotted dolphin,
pilot whales, striped dolphin, beaked
whales, bottlenose dolphin, Risso’s
dolphin, short-beaked common dolphin,
sperm whale, humpback whale, and
North Atlantic right whale. Roberts et
al. (2016) were able to produce models
at annual resolution for the first four
species and at monthly resolution for
the latter six. Because of proposed
measures to avoid most impacts to the
right whale, SES used monthly data
only for May to October to estimate
potential exposures. As an aside, we
acknowledge that this approach is not
correct. Rather than ignoring the months
November–April, we believe the correct
approach would be to use the results for
those months, but only for the grid cells
outside of the proposed closure areas.
However, we do not believe that this is
a meaningful error, as our proposed
mitigation measures related to right
whales (i.e., avoidance of sound input
into areas where right whales are
expected to occur and an absolute
shutdown requirement upon
observation of any right whale at any
distance) are anticipated to substantially
avoid acute effects to right whales. SES
summarizes the steps involved in this
process as follows:
• Calculate area of ensonification to
≥160 dB (rms) around the operating
acoustic source, including all track
lines, run-outs, and ramp-ups/run-ins,
assuming depth-specific isopleth
distances described above. Overlapping
areas were treated as if they did not
overlap (i.e., they were added together
as separate polygon areas to account for
multiple exposures in the same
location), and were thus included in the
total area used to estimate exposures.
• Calculate species-specific density
estimates for each of the 10 km x 10 km
grid cells used in the density models.
For species with monthly resolution, an
annual average was calculated, with the
exception of the right whale which used
the May–October average only.
• The density models’ area of data
coverage does not extend outside of the
EEZ. As noted previously, although
relevant information regarding cetacean
densities in areas of the western North
Atlantic beyond the EEZ was recently
provided by Mannocci et al. (2017), this
information was not available to SES in
developing these applications.
Therefore, available sighting data were
used to evaluate whether a species had
been observed offshore close to the EEZ;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
no specific distance was used because it
was impossible to determine exact
distances from the EEZ using available
reports. For the humpback whale and
right whale, available information
indicated that the species would not be
expected to occur outside the EEZ. For
the remaining species, SES extrapolated
density from the nearest neighbor grid
cell. Assuming such uniform density
swaths over long range outside the area
of data coverage may overestimate
potential exposures.
• For each 10 km x 10 km grid cell
and for the areas of extrapolation
outside the EEZ, SES then multiplied
the estimated ensonified area by the
appropriate density to produce
estimates of exposure exceeding the 160
dB rms criterion.
• The projected ensonified area was
mapped relative to right whale closure
areas described by BOEM (2014b);
therefore, this element of proposed
mitigation was accounted for to a
certain extent.
Seven species or species groups met
SES’ criterion for conducting exposure
modeling, but did not have the
recommended 60 sightings in the survey
area: minke whale, fin whale, Kogia
spp., harbor porpoise, pantropical
spotted dolphin, clymene dolphin, and
rough-toothed dolphin. For these
species, SES did not feel use of the
density models was appropriate and
developed a method using the available
data instead (i.e., AMAPPS data as well
as data considered by Roberts et al.
(2016), excluding results of surveys
conducted entirely outside of an area
roughly coincident with the proposed
survey area); species-specific rationale
is provided in section 6.3 of either
application. Please see section 6.3 of
either application for further details
regarding the AMAPPS survey effort
considered by SES. Table 6–1 in either
application summarizes the AMAPPS
data available for consideration by the
authors. Although Roberts et al. (2016)
developed detection functions for these
species by using proxies as necessary,
SES suggests that the fact that sightings
of these species are not common
indicate the species are less common
than the density models show. SES
states further that, while use of the
density models for these species may be
appropriate for localized activities,
using them over broad geographical
scales ultimately grossly overestimates
the likely exposures of these species.
SES summarizes the steps involved in
this process as follows (see Table 6–4 in
either application for numerical process
details):
• Calculate the transect area, specific
to aerial and vessel surveys, that would
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
be considered to include sightings of all
animals present for each species based
on effective strip widths (ESW; the
distance at which missed sightings
made inside the distance is equal to
detected sightings outside of it) obtained
from the literature. The transect area is
equal to twice the ESW multiplied by
the length of transect (see Table 6–3 in
either application for ESW values and
citations).
• Calculate the mean density (in
groups/km2) for each species for aerial
and vessel surveys; multiply by mean
group size to get an individual-based
density estimate.
• Adjust the densities using a
correction factor (g(0)) to account for
animals missed due to observation
biases. General g(0) values for aerial and
vessel surveys for each species from the
literature were used (see Table 6–3 in
either application for g(0) values and
citations). Densities for vessel-based and
aerial surveys were then averaged for
each species; proposed survey lines
cover areas included in both aerial and
vessel survey effort and this method
accounts for high and low density areas
across the survey.
• Calculate the number of animals of
each species that would potentially
occur within the previously determined
160-dB depth-specific radii and sum for
an estimate of total incidents of
exposure.
To be clear, we believe the density
models described by Roberts et al.
(2016) provide the best available
information and recommend their use
for species other than those expected to
be extremely rare in a given area.
However, SES used the most recent
observational data available. We
acknowledge their concerns regarding
use of predictive density models for
species with relatively few observations
in the proposed survey area, e.g., that
model-derived density estimates must
be applied cautiously on a species-byspecies basis with the recognition that
in some cases the out-of-bound
predictions could produce unrealistic
results (Becker et al., 2014). Further, use
of uniform (i.e., stratified) density
models assumes a given density over a
large geographic range which may
include areas where the species has
rarely or never been observed. For the
seven species or species groups that SES
applied their alternative approach to,
five are modeled in whole or part
through use of stratified models. We
also acknowledge (as do Roberts et al.
(2016)) that predicted habitat may not
be occupied at expected densities or
that models may not agree in all cases
with known occurrence patterns, and
that there is uncertainty associated with
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
predictive habitat modeling (e.g., Becker
et al., 2010; Forney et al., 2012). Overall,
SES suggest that it is more appropriate
in some circumstances to use less
complex models requiring less
knowledge of habitat preferences that do
not risk overprediction of occurrence in
areas that are suitable but for which
there is no indication the species is
common (or sometimes even present).
We determined that their alternative
approach (for seven species or species
groups) is acceptable and provide
further discussion. Importantly, we
recognize that there is no model or
approach that is always the most
appropriate and that there may be
multiple approaches that may be
considered acceptable.
As described previously in this
document, on July 29, 2015, we
published a Federal Register notice
inviting public review and comment on
the applications we had received. In
response to this opportunity to
comment, J.J. Roberts and P.N. Halpin of
Duke University’s Marine Geospatial
Ecology Lab submitted a public
comment letter, which is available
online with all other comments received
at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental/oilgas.htm. In part, Roberts
and Halpin offered a critique of SES’
methods and rationale while also
commending their use of the AMAPPS
data. We discussed the points raised by
Roberts and Halpin with SES, which
subsequently made certain corrections
and prepared revised versions of the
TGS and Western applications. M.
Smultea and S. Courbis of SES
submitted a letter (available on the same
Web site) detailing their responses to
these points. However, the use of an
alternative methodology for the seven
species is fundamentally the same and
forms the basis for our proposed take
authorization for those species (for TGS
and Western).
Roberts and Halpin raised several key
points (we also include any resolution
in the bulleted points below):
• The Buckland et al. (2001)
recommendation that sample size
should generally be at least 60–80
should be considered as general
guidance but not an absolute rule and,
in fact, Buckland et al. (2001) provide
no theoretical proof for it. Miller and
Thomas (2015) provide an example
where a detection function fitted to 30
sightings resulted in a detection
function with low bias. NMFS’s linetransect abundance estimates are in
some cases based on many fewer
sightings, e.g., stock assessments based
on Palka (2012). Roberts and Halpin also
point out that SES used certain
detection functions from Mullin and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
Fulling (2003), which were based on
fewer than 60 observations. Please see
the letters provided by Duke University
and SES, respectively, for opposing
points of view on this issue.
• SES does not correct for observation
bias, resulting in underestimation of
density. SES subsequently corrected this
issue by using estimates of g(0) to
correct for bias, as described above.
• SES used erroneous or
inappropriate ESWs for several species,
resulting in an overestimate of effective
survey area and therefore an
underestimate of density. SES
subsequently incorporated additional
ESW information and addressed these
issues to the extent possible given the
available data.
• Following on the first point
described above, ESWs used by SES are
based on less robust detection functions
than those used by Roberts et al. (2016).
• SES did not take into account what
is known about the habitat of the
species it modeled using this method.
For example, Roberts et al. (2016)
appropriately assumed an on-shelf
density of zero for Kogia spp., whereas
SES derived a Kogia spp. density
estimate by including on-shelf survey
effort, where Kogia spp. would not be
expected. SES countered that, for Kogia
spp. in particular, the more recent
AMAPPS data provides substantial new
information regarding Kogia spp. due to
the increased sightings in recent years
and suggest that for exposure estimation
exercises over broad scales such as
these, it is less important where a
species is encountered in relation to
how many will be encountered.
• SES declined to use density models
for certain species on the basis of a lack
of observations within the proposed
survey area, although the models are
based on numerous observations
overall. Roberts and Halpin state that,
because the models incorporate
substantial survey effort within the
proposed survey area, they are wellinformed with regard to the likelihood
of species occurrence under relevant
environmental conditions. However,
this does not alter the fact that these
species have only rarely been observed
within the proposed survey area and,
therefore, SES’ contention that use of a
predictive density model to estimate
potential acoustic exposures is not the
most appropriate method for some
species.
• SES’ combination of aerial and
vessel-based densities is inappropriate,
due to substantial biases in terms of
distribution of survey effort, i.e., aerial
surveys occurred primarily on-shelf
while vessel-based surveys mainly
occurred off-shelf. Therefore, use of a
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
26291
simple mean can result in unknown bias
for species with either oceanic or onshelf distribution. Roberts and Halpin
suggest combining density estimates by
dividing survey transects into segments,
estimating density separately for aerial
and shipboard surveys, and producing a
combined estimate that accounts for the
area effectively surveyed by each.
However, because the proposed surveys
would occur both on and off the shelf,
it does not seem that any potential bias
would unduly influence the overall
results obtained by SES.
• SES does not adequately consider
available information (i.e., acoustic
monitoring results; Risch et al., 2014)
for the minke whale. However, while
available acoustic monitoring data
suggests seasonal presence of minke
whales, it remains unclear in the
absence of visual observations where
the whales are in relation to the acoustic
recorders and how many may be
present.
CGG—CGG used applicable results
from BOEM’s sound field modeling
exercise in conjunction with the outputs
of models described by Roberts et al.
(2016) to inform their estimates of likely
acoustic exposures. Considering only
the BOEM modeling sites that are in or
near CGG’s proposed survey area
provided a mean radial distance to the
160 dB rms criterion of 6,751 m (range
5,013–8,593 m). CGG used ArcGIS
(further detail regarding CGG’s spatial
analysis is provided as an appendix to
CGG’s application) to conduct an
exposure analysis as described in their
application and summarized as follows:
• A circle with a 6,751 m radius
(representing the extent of the average
expected 160 dB rms ensonification
zone) was drawn around each trackline,
effectively resulting in a survey track
with 13,502 m total width. Taxonspecific model outputs, averaged over
the six-month period planned for the
survey (i.e., July–December) where
relevant, were uploaded into ArcGIS
with the assumed ensonification zone to
provide estimates of marine mammal
exposures to noise above the 160 dB rms
threshold.
• The Roberts et al. (2016) 100 km2
grid cells—the spatial scale on which
taxon-specific predicted abundance
information is provided—were
converted into a compatible format and
then spatially referenced over the
tracklines and associated areas of
ensonification. The tracklines and
associated areas of ensonification were
populated with the cetacean density
grids by calculating the difference
between the pre- and post-extracted
area.
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
26292
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
• Roberts et al. (2016) did not provide
predicted abundance information for
areas beyond the EEZ. As noted
previously, although relevant
information regarding cetacean densities
in areas of the western North Atlantic
beyond the EEZ was recently provided
by Mannocci et al. (2017), this
information was not available to CGG in
developing their application. Therefore,
CGG performed an interpolation
analysis to estimate density values for
the approximately 11 percent of
planned survey area outside the EEZ
that was not included in Roberts et al.
(2016).
Level A Harassment
As discussed earlier in this document,
BOEM’s PEIS (2014a) provides auditory
injury exposure results on the basis of
the Southall et al. (2007) guidance. In
order to use the results provided by
BOEM (2014a) in a way that adequately
takes NMFS’s technical acoustic
guidance into consideration, we
considered the total potential exposure
of marine mammals to sound exceeding
the relevant criterion and estimated
such exposures that may occur as a
result of each specific survey as a
relative proportion of total line-km. We
compiled predicted 2D seismic survey
activity across all years considered in
BOEM’s PEIS (see Table E–11 of
Appendix E in BOEM’s PEIS), which
yields a potential total of 616,174 linekm. We divided each company’s
proposed total trackline by this total
before multiplying the total speciesspecific estimated exposures across
years by this proportion to yield a total
survey-specific estimate of potential
Level A harassment on the basis of the
Southall received energy criterion (for
low-frequency cetaceans) and the 180dB rms criterion (for mid- and highfrequency cetaceans) (see Tables
Attachment E–4 and Attachment E–5 of
Appendix E in BOEM’s PEIS). Whether
using the Southall guidance (Southall et
al., 2007) or NMFS’s new technical
guidance (NMFS, 2016) (i.e., in
consideration of both auditory
weighting functions for cSEL and
thresholds for both cSEL and peak
pressure), accumulation of energy
would be considered to be the
predominant source of potential
auditory injury for low-frequency
cetaceans, while instantaneous exposure
to peak pressure received levels would
be considered to be the predominant
source of injury for both mid- and highfrequency cetaceans. Although NMFS’s
historical 180-dB rms injury criterion is
no longer reflective of the best available
science, the exposure results provided
in BOEM’s PEIS relative to the criterion
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
are the most appropriate for use in
providing ‘‘corrected’’ estimates based
on the relevant peak pressure
thresholds. Use of these results provides
a proxy for the highly uncertain risk of
auditory injury due to any proposed
survey, which we then adjusted to
reasonably account for NMFS’s new
technical acoustic guidance.
For low-frequency cetaceans, in order
to ‘‘correct’’ these estimates of potential
Level A exposure to account for NMFS’s
new technical acoustic guidance, we
followed the process outlined
previously under ‘‘Exclusion Zone and
Shutdown Requirements.’’ We obtained
spectrum data (in 1 Hz bands) for a
reasonably equivalent acoustic source in
order to appropriately incorporate
weighting functions (i.e., those
described in NMFS (2016) and Southall
et al. (2007)) over the source’s full
acoustic band. Using these data, we
made adjustments (dB) to the spectrum
levels, by frequency, according to the
weighting functions for each relevant
hearing group. We then converted these
adjusted/weighted spectrum levels to
pressures (micropascals) in order to
integrate them over the entire
broadband spectrum, resulting in
weighted source levels by hearing
group. Using the safe distance
methodology described by Sivle et al.
(2014) with the hearing group-specific
weighted source levels, and assuming
spherical spreading propagation, source
velocity of 4.5 kn, pulse duration of 100
milliseconds (ms), and applicantspecific shot intervals, we then
calculated potential radial distances to
auditory injury zones on the basis of the
two separate sets of weighting functions
and thresholds. Comparison of the
predicted hearing group-specific areas
ensonified above thresholds defined in
Southall et al. (2007) and NMFS (2016)
provided correction factors that we then
applied to the exposure results
calculated on the basis of the Southall
et al. (2007) criteria. These ‘‘corrected’’
results are provided in Table 11.
For mid- and high-frequency
cetaceans, we also calculated potential
radial distances to auditory injury zones
on the basis of the relevant peak
pressure thresholds alone, assuming
spherical spreading propagation
(auditory weighting functions are not
used in considering potential injury due
to peak pressure received levels).
Comparison of the predicted hearing
group-specific areas ensonified above
thresholds defined by the historical
NMFS criterion (i.e., 180-dB rms) and
NMFS (2016) provided correction
factors that we then applied to the
BOEM PEIS exposure results calculated
on the basis of the 180-dB rms criterion.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
These ‘‘corrected’’ results, which are
more conservative than results for these
two hearing groups calculated on the
basis of the cSEL approach, are
provided in Table 11.
We recognize that the Level A
exposure estimates provided here are a
rough approximation of actual
exposures, for several reasons. First,
specific trackline locations proposed by
the applicant companies may differ
somewhat from those considered in
BOEM’s PEIS. However, as noted above,
BOEM’s PEIS assumes a total of 616,174
line-km of 2D survey effort conducted
over seven years. Therefore, it is likely
that all portions of the proposed survey
area are considered in the PEIS analysis.
Second, the PEIS exposure estimates are
based on outputs of the NODEs models
(DoN, 2007) versus the density models
described by Roberts et al. (2016),
which we believe represent the best
available information for purposes of
exposure estimation. There are
additional reasons why any estimate of
exposures to levels of sound exceeding
the Level A harassment criteria is likely
an approximation: We do not have
sufficient information to approximate
the probability of marine mammal
aversion and subsequent likelihood of
Level A exposure and we do not
generally incorporate the effects of
mitigation on the likelihood of Level A
exposure (though this is of less
importance when considering the
potential for Level A exposure due to
cumulative exposure of sound energy).
Our intention is to use the information
available to us, in reflection of available
science regarding the potential for
auditory injury, to acknowledge the
potential for such outcomes in a way
that we think is a reasonable
approximation.
We note here that four of the five
applicant companies (excepting
Spectrum) declined to request
authorization of take by Level A
harassment. Although ION’s proposed
survey is smaller in terms of survey
line-km, their source is larger in terms
of predicted acoustic output (see Table
1). TGS, CGG, and Western claim, in
summary, that Level A exposures will
not occur largely due to the
effectiveness of proposed mitigation. We
do not find this assertion credible and
propose to authorize take by Level A
harassment, as displayed in Table 11.
Rare Species
Certain species potentially present in
the proposed survey areas are expected
to be encountered only extremely rarely,
if at all. Although Roberts et al. (2016)
provide density models for these species
(with the exception of the pygmy killer
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
whale), due to the small numbers of
sightings that underlie these models’
predictions we believe it appropriate to
account for the small likelihood that
these species would be encountered by
assuming that these species might be
encountered once by a given survey,
and that Level A harassment would not
occur for these species. With the
exception of the northern bottlenose
whale, none of these species should be
considered cryptic (i.e., difficult to
observe when present) versus rare (i.e.,
not likely to be present). Average group
size was determined by considering
known sightings in the western North
Atlantic (CETAP, 1982; Hansen et al,
1994; NMFS, 2010a, 2011, 2012, 2013a,
2014, 2015a; Waring et al., 2007, 2015).
It is important to note that our proposal
to authorize take equating to harassment
of one group of each of these species is
not equivalent to expected exposure. We
do not expect that these rarely occurring
(in the proposed survey area) species
will be exposed at all, but provide a
precautionary authorization of take. We
provide a brief description for each of
these species.
Sei Whale—Very little is known of sei
whales in the western North Atlantic
outside of northern feeding grounds,
and much of what is known of sei whale
distribution and movements is based on
whaling records (Prieto et al., 2012).
Spring is the period of greatest
abundance in U.S. waters, but sightings
are concentrated on feeding grounds in
the Gulf of Maine and in the vicinity of
Georges Bank, outside the proposed
survey areas (CETAP, 1982; Hain et al.,
1985). There are no definitive sightings
reported south of 40° N., i.e., no
sightings reported from the proposed
survey areas, although NOAA surveys in
1992 and 1995 reported four ambiguous
sightings of ‘‘Bryde’s or sei whales’’
between Florida and Cape Hatteras in
winter (Roberts et al., 2015j).
Additionally, passive acoustic
monitoring has detected sei whales in
the winter near Onslow Bay, North
Carolina, and near the shelf break off of
Jacksonville, Florida (e.g., Read et al.,
2010, 2012; Frasier et al., 2016; Debich
et al., 2013, 2014; Norris et al., 2014),
and one sei whale stranding is reported
from North Carolina (Byrd et al., 2014).
It is worth noting that the model authors
include the four ambiguous sightings in
both the sei whale and Bryde’s whale
models, thereby potentially
overestimating the density of one
species or the other but acknowledging
the potential presence of both species in
the area (Roberts et al., 2015j). Schilling
et al. (1992) report a mean group size of
1.8 sei whales, similar to the average
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
group size of 2.2 whales across all
NMFS observations in the Atlantic. We
assume an average group size of two
whales.
Bryde’s Whale—NMFS defines and
manages a stock of Bryde’s whales
believed to be resident in the northern
Gulf of Mexico, but does not define a
separate stock in the western North
Atlantic Ocean. Bryde’s whales are
occasionally reported off the
southeastern U.S. and southern West
Indies (Leatherwood and Reeves, 1983).
Genetic analysis suggests that Bryde’s
whales from the northern Gulf of
Mexico represent a unique evolutionary
lineage distinct from other recognized
Bryde’s whale subspecies, including
those found in the southern Caribbean
and southwestern Atlantic off Brazil
(Rosel and Wilcox, 2014). Two
strandings from the southeastern U.S.
Atlantic coast share the same genetic
characteristics with those from the
northern Gulf of Mexico but it is unclear
whether these are extralimital strays or
they indicate the population extends
from the northeastern Gulf of Mexico to
the Atlantic coast of the southern U.S.
(Byrd et al., 2014; Rosel and Wilcox,
2014). There are no definitive sightings
of Bryde’s whales from the U.S. Atlantic
reported from surveys considered by
Roberts et al. (2016), although, as noted
above for the sei whale, NOAA surveys
in 1992 and 1995 reported four
ambiguous sightings of ‘‘Bryde’s or sei
whales’’ between Florida and Cape
Hatteras in winter. These four
ambiguous sightings provide the basis
for a stratified density model (Roberts et
al., 2016). There are no NMFS
observations of Bryde’s whales outside
the Gulf of Mexico, but Silber et al.
(1994) reported an average group size of
1.2 whales from the Gulf of California.
Given the similarities to sei whales, we
assume an average group size of two
whales.
Blue Whale—The blue whale is best
considered as an occasional visitor in
US Atlantic waters, which may
represent the current southern limit of
its feeding range (CETAP, 1982; Wenzel
et al., 1988). NMFS’s minimum
population abundance estimate is based
on photo-identification of recognizable
individuals in the Gulf of St. Lawrence
(Waring et al., 2010), and the few
sightings in U.S. waters occurred in the
vicinity of the Gulf of Maine. All
sightings have occurred north of 40° N.
(Roberts et al., 2015e). However, blue
whales have been detected acoustically
in deep waters north of the West Indies
and east of the U.S. EEZ (Clark, 1995).
Roberts et al. (2016) produced a
stratified density model on the basis of
a few blue whale sightings in the
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
26293
vicinity of the Gulf of Maine (Roberts et
al., 2015e). Reports of blue whales in the
eastern tropical Pacific and off of
Australia are typically of lone whales or
groups of two (Reilly and Thayer, 1990;
Gill, 2002); NMFS sightings in the
Atlantic are only of lone whales.
Therefore, we assume an average group
size of one whale.
Northern Bottlenose Whale—Northern
bottlenose whales are considered
extremely rare in U.S. Atlantic waters,
with only five NMFS sightings. The
southern extent of distribution is
generally considered to be
approximately Nova Scotia (though
Mitchell and Kozicki (1975) reported
stranding records as far south as Rhode
Island), and there have been no
sightings within the proposed survey
areas. Whitehead and Wimmer (2005)
estimated the size of the population on
the Scotian Shelf at 163 whales (95
percent CI 119–214). Whitehead and
Hooker (2012) report that northern
bottlenose whales are found north of
approximately 37.5° N. and prefer deep
waters along the continental slope.
Roberts et al. (2016) produced a
stratified density model on the basis of
four sightings in the vicinity of Georges
Bank (Roberts et al., 2015b). The five
sightings in U.S. waters yield a mean
group size of 2.2 whales, while
MacLeod and D’Amico report a mean
group size of 3.6 (n = 895). Here, we
assume an average group size of four
whales.
Killer Whale—Killer whales are also
considered rare in U.S. Atlantic waters
(Katona et al., 1988; Forney and Wade,
2006), constituting 0.1 percent of marine
mammal sightings in the 1978–81
Cetacean and Turtle Assessment
Program surveys (CETAP, 1982). Roberts
et al. (2016) produced a stratified
density model on the basis of four killer
whale sightings (Roberts et al., 2015g),
though Lawson and Stevens (2014)
provide a minimum abundance estimate
of 67 photo-identified individual killer
whales. Available information suggests
that survey encounters with killer
whales would be unlikely but could
occur anywhere within the proposed
survey area and at any time of year (e.g.,
Lawson and Stevens, 2014). Silber et al.
(1994) reported observations of two and
15 killer whales in the Gulf of California
(mean group size 8.5), while MayCollado et al. (2005) described mean
group size of 3.6 whales off the Pacific
coast of Costa Rica. Based on 12 CETAP
sightings and one group observed
during NOAA surveys (CETAP, 1982;
NMFS, 2014), the average group size in
the Atlantic is 6.8 whales. Therefore, we
assume an average group size of seven
whales.
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
26294
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
False Killer Whale—Although records
of false killer whales from the U.S.
Atlantic are uncommon, a combination
of sighting, stranding, and bycatch
records indicates that this species does
occur in the western North Atlantic
(Waring et al., 2015). Baird (2009)
suggests that false killer whales may be
naturally uncommon throughout their
range. Roberts et al. (2016) produced a
stratified density model on the basis of
two false killer whale sightings (Roberts
et al., 2015m), and NMFS produced the
first abundance estimate for false killer
whales on the basis of one sighting
during 2011 shipboard surveys (Waring
et al., 2015). Similar to the killer whale,
we believe survey encounters would be
unlikely but could occur anywhere
within the proposed survey area and at
any time of year. Mullin et al. (2004)
reported a mean false killer whale group
size of 27.5 from the Gulf of Mexico,
and May-Collado et al. (2005) described
mean group size of 36.2 whales off the
Pacific coast of Costa Rica. The few
sightings from CETAP (1982) and from
NOAA shipboard surveys give an
average group size of 10.3 whales. As a
precaution, we will assume an average
group size of 28 whales, as reported
from the Gulf of Mexico.
Pygmy Killer Whale—The pygmy
killer whale is distributed worldwide in
tropical to sub-tropical waters, and is
assumed to be part of the cetacean fauna
of the tropical western North Atlantic
(Jefferson et al. 1994; Waring et al.,
2007). Pygmy killer whales are rarely
observed by NOAA surveys outside the
Gulf of Mexico—one group was
observed off of Cape Hatteras in 1992—
and the rarity of such sightings may be
due to a naturally low number of groups
compared to other cetacean species
(Waring et al., 2007). NMFS has never
produced an abundance estimate for
this species and Roberts et al. (2016)
were not able to produce a density
model for the species. The 1992 sighting
was of six whales; therefore, we assume
an average group size of six.
Melon-headed Whale—Similar to the
pygmy killer whale, the melon-headed
whale is distributed worldwide in
tropical to sub-tropical waters, and is
assumed to be part of the cetacean fauna
of the tropical western North Atlantic
(Jefferson et al. 1994; Waring et al.,
2007). Melon-headed whales are rarely
observed by NOAA surveys outside the
Gulf of Mexico—groups were observed
off of Cape Hatteras in 1999 and 2002—
and the rarity of such sightings may be
due to a naturally low number of groups
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
compared to other cetacean species
(Waring et al., 2007). NMFS has never
produced an abundance estimate for
this species and Roberts et al. (2016)
produced a stratified density model on
the basis of four sightings (Roberts et al.,
2015d). The two sightings reported by
Waring et al. (2007) yield an average
group size of 50 whales.
Spinner Dolphin—Distribution of
spinner dolphins in the Atlantic is
poorly known, but they are thought to
occur in deep water along most of the
U.S. coast south to the West Indies and
Venezuela (Waring et al., 2014). There
have been a handful of sightings in
deeper waters off the northeast U.S. and
one sighting during a 2011 NOAA
shipboard survey off North Carolina, as
well as stranding records from North
Carolina south to Florida and Puerto
Rico (Waring et al., 2014). Roberts et al.
(2016) provide a stratified density
model on the basis of two sightings
(Roberts et al., 2015i). Regarding group
size, Mullin et al. (2004) report a mean
of 91.3 in the Gulf of Mexico; MayCollado (2005) describe a mean of 100.6
off the Pacific coast of Costa Rica; and
CETAP (1982) sightings in the Atlantic
yield a mean group size of 42.5
dolphins. As a precaution, we will
assume an average group size of 91
dolphins, as reported from the Gulf of
Mexico.
Fraser’s Dolphin—As was stated for
both the pygmy killer whale and melonheaded whale, the Fraser’s dolphin is
distributed worldwide in tropical
waters, and is assumed to be part of the
cetacean fauna of the tropical western
North Atlantic (Perrin et al., 1994;
Waring et al., 2007). The paucity of
sightings of this species may be due to
naturally low abundance compared to
other cetacean species (Waring et al.,
2007). Despite possibly being more
common in the Gulf of Mexico than in
other parts of its range (Dolar, 2009),
there were only five reported sightings
during NOAA surveys from 1992–2009.
In the Atlantic, NOAA surveys have
yielded only two sightings (Roberts et
al., 2015f). May-Collado et al. (2005)
reported a single observation of 158
Fraser’s dolphins off the Pacific coast of
Costa Rica, and Waring et al. (2007)
describe a single observation of 250
Fraser’s dolphins in the Atlantic, off
Cape Hatteras. Therefore, we assume an
average group size of 204 dolphins.
Atlantic White-sided Dolphin—Whitesided dolphins are found in temperate
and sub-polar continental shelf waters
of the North Atlantic, primarily in the
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
Gulf of Maine and north into Canadian
waters (Waring et al., 2016). Palka et al.
(1997) suggest the existence of stocks in
the Gulf of Maine, Gulf of St. Lawrence,
and Labrador Sea. Stranding records
from Virginia and North Carolina
suggest a southerly winter range extent
of approximately 35° N. (Waring et al.,
2016); therefore, it is possible that the
proposed surveys could encounter
white-sided dolphins. Roberts et al.
(2016) elected to split their study area
at the north wall of the Gulf Stream,
separating the cold northern waters,
representing probable habitat, from
warm southern waters, where whitesided dolphins are likely not present
(Roberts et al., 2015k). Over 600
observations of Atlantic white-sided
dolphins during CETAP (1982) and
during NMFS surveys provide a mean
group size estimate of 47.7 dolphins,
while Weinrich et al. (2001) reported a
mean group size of 52 dolphins. Here,
we assume an average group size of 48
dolphins.
Table 10 displays the estimated
incidents of potential exposures above
given received levels of sound that are
used to estimate Level B harassment, as
derived by various methods described
above. We do not include the 11 rarely
occurring species described above,
because our assumption that a single
group of each species would be
encountered does not constitute an
exposure estimate (however they are
considered in Table 11 for our proposed
take authorizations). Total applicantspecific exposure estimates as a
proportion of the most appropriate
abundance estimate are presented. As
described previously, for most species
these estimated exposure levels apply to
a generic western North Atlantic stock
defined by NMFS for management
purposes. For the humpback and sei
whale, any takes are assumed to occur
to individuals of the species occurring
in the specific geographic region (which
may or may not be individuals from the
Gulf of Maine and Nova Scotia stocks,
respectively). For bottlenose dolphins,
NMFS defines an offshore stock and
multiple coastal stocks of dolphins, and
we are not able to quantitatively
determine the extent to which the
estimated exposures may accrue to the
oceanic versus various coastal stocks.
However, because of the spatial
distribution of proposed survey effort
and our proposed mitigation, we assume
that almost all incidents of take for
bottlenose dolphins would accrue to the
offshore stock.
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
26295
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
TABLE 10—ESTIMATED INCIDENTS OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURE FOR LEVEL B HARASSMENT
Abundance
estimate
Common name
North Atlantic right whale ......
Humpback whale ...................
Minke whale ..........................
Fin whale ...............................
Sperm whale .........................
Kogia spp ..............................
Beaked whales ......................
Rough-toothed dolphin ..........
Common bottlenose dolphin
Clymene dolphin ...................
Atlantic spotted dolphin .........
Pantropical spotted dolphin ...
Striped dolphin ......................
Short-beaked common dolphin ....................................
Risso’s dolphin ......................
Globicephala spp ..................
Harbor porpoise ....................
Spectrum
Level B
TGS
%
Level B
ION
%
Western
Level B
%
Level B
CGG
%
Level B
%
440
1,637
20,741
3,522
5,353
3,785
14,491
532
97,476
12,515
55,436
4,436
75,657
64
46
428
341
1,145
211
3,497
206
38,091
6,613
17,421
1,671
8,339
15
3
2
10
21
6
24
39
39
53
31
38
11
12
72
219
1,148
3,974
1,232
13,423
270
45,041
1,102
45,594
1,542
26,136
3
4
1
33
74
33
93
52
46
9
82
35
35
11
7
12
5
39
31
516
13
2,646
273
639
84
233
3
<1
<1
<1
1
1
4
2
3
2
1
2
<1
6
49
103
538
2,001
577
5,095
127
23,849
517
19,063
723
9,191
1
3
<1
15
37
15
35
24
24
4
34
16
12
1
7
134
50
1,406
249
3,722
183
9,276
6,609
6,880
1,623
6,722
<1
<1
1
1
26
7
26
34
10
53
12
37
9
173,486
7,732
18,977
45,089
11,312
772
2,841
637
7
10
15
1
57,793
3,563
9,834
334
33
46
52
1
428
95
217
21
<1
1
1
<1
20,936
1,627
4,766
157
12
21
25
<1
6,220
831
2,043
32
4
11
11
<1
‘‘Abundance estimate’’ reflects what we believe is the most appropriate abundance estimate against which to compare each applicant’s estimated exposures exceeding the 160 dB rms criterion. ‘‘%’’ represents predicted exposures exceeding the Level B harassment criterion as a percentage of abundance. We do not include
predicted Level A exposures because these incidents are also included as Level B exposures and inclusion of these numbers would result in double-counting.
Table 11 provides the numbers of take
by Level A and Level B harassment
proposed for authorization. The
proposed take authorizations combine
the exposure estimates displayed in
Table 10, estimated potential incidents
of Level A harassment derived as
described above, and the average group
size information discussed previously in
this section for sei whale, Bryde’s
whale, blue whale, northern bottlenose
whale, Fraser’s dolphin, melon-headed
whale, false killer whale, pygmy killer
whale, killer whale, spinner dolphin,
and white-sided dolphin. For applicantand species-specific proposed take
authorizations marked by an asterisk,
the predicted exposures (Table 10) have
been reduced to 30 percent of the
abundance estimate. The MMPA limits
our ability to authorize take incidental
to a specified activity to ‘‘small
numbers’’ of marine mammals and,
although this concept is not defined in
the statute, NMFS interprets the concept
in relative terms through comparison of
the estimated number of individuals
expected to be taken to an estimation of
the relevant species or stock size. A
relative approach to small numbers has
been upheld in past litigation (see, e.g.,
CBD v. Salazar, 695 F.3d 893 (9th Cir.
2012)). Here, we propose a take
authorization limit of 30 percent of a
stock abundance estimate. Although 30
percent is not a hard and fast cut-off, in
cases such as this where exposure
estimates constitute sizable percentages
of the stock abundance and there are no
qualitative factors to inform why the
actual percentages are likely to be lower
in fact, we believe it is appropriate to
limit our proposed take authorizations
to reasonably ensure the levels do not
exceed ‘‘small numbers.’’ Proposed
mechanisms to limit take to this amount
are discussed further under ‘‘Small
Numbers Analyses’’ and ‘‘Proposed
Monitoring and Reporting.’’
TABLE 11—NUMBERS OF POTENTIAL INCIDENTAL TAKE PROPOSED FOR AUTHORIZATION
Spectrum
TGS
ION
Western
CGG
Common name
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Level A
North Atlantic right whale ..........................
Humpback whale .......................................
Minke whale ..............................................
Bryde’s whale ............................................
Sei whale ...................................................
Fin whale ...................................................
Blue whale .................................................
Sperm whale .............................................
Kogia spp ..................................................
Beaked whales ..........................................
Northern bottlenose whale ........................
Rough-toothed dolphin ..............................
Common bottlenose dolphin .....................
Clymene dolphin .......................................
Atlantic spotted dolphin .............................
Pantropical spotted dolphin .......................
Spinner dolphin .........................................
Striped dolphin ..........................................
Short-beaked common dolphin .................
Fraser’s dolphin .........................................
Atlantic white-sided dolphin ......................
Risso’s dolphin ..........................................
Melon-headed whale .................................
Pygmy killer whale ....................................
False killer whale ......................................
Killer whale ................................................
Pilot whales ...............................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
0
16
0
0
0
0
0
5
14
13
0
0
210
7
102
15
0
67
113
0
0
56
0
0
0
0
94
Level B
Level A
64
46
428
2
2
341
1
1,145
211
3,497
4
* 160
* 29,243
* 3,755
* 16,631
* 1,331
91
8,339
11,312
204
48
772
50
6
28
7
2,841
PO 00000
Frm 00053
0
22
1
0
0
0
0
4
10
10
0
0
162
5
78
12
0
52
87
0
0
43
0
0
0
0
72
Fmt 4701
Level B
12
72
219
2
2
* 1,057
1
* 1,606
* 1,136
* 4,347
4
* 160
* 29,243
1,102
* 16,631
* 1,331
91
* 22,697
* 52,046
204
48
* 2,320
50
6
28
7
* 5,693
Sfmt 4703
Level A
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
44
1
21
3
0
14
24
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
20
Level B
11
7
12
2
2
5
1
39
31
516
4
2 14
2,646
273
639
84
91
233
428
204
48
95
50
6
28
7
217
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
Level A
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
5
5
0
0
84
3
41
6
0
27
45
0
0
22
0
0
0
0
38
06JNN2
Level B
6
49
103
2
2
538
1
* 1,606
577
* 4,347
4
127
23,849
517
* 16,631
723
91
9,191
20,936
204
48
1,627
50
6
28
7
4,766
Level A
0
22
1
0
0
0
0
1
4
4
0
0
62
2
30
4
0
20
33
0
0
17
0
0
0
0
28
Level B
12
7
134
2
2
50
1
1,406
249
3,722
4
* 160
9,276
* 3,755
6,880
* 1,331
91
6,722
6,220
204
48
831
50
6
28
7
2,043
26296
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
TABLE 11—NUMBERS OF POTENTIAL INCIDENTAL TAKE PROPOSED FOR AUTHORIZATION—Continued
Spectrum
TGS
ION
Western
CGG
Common name
Level A
Harbor porpoise ........................................
Level B
6
Level A
637
Level B
4
334
Level A
Level B
1
21
Level A
Level B
2
157
Level A
Level B
2
32
* Proposed take authorization limited to 30 percent of best population abundance estimate.
1 Increased from predicted exposure of one whale (Table 10) to account for assumed minimum group size (e.g., Parks and Tyack, 2005).
2 Exposure estimate (Table 10) increased by one to account for average group size observed during AMAPPS survey effort.
Analyses and Preliminary
Determinations
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Negligible Impact Analyses
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.’’ 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, we consider 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.
We also assess the number, intensity,
and context of estimated takes by
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
evaluating this information relative to
population status. Consistent with the
1989 preamble for NMFS’s
implementing regulations (54 FR 40338;
September 29, 1989), the impacts from
other past and ongoing anthropogenic
activities are incorporated into these
analyses 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).
We first provide a generic description
of our approach to the negligible impact
analyses for this action, which
incorporates elements of the impact
assessment methodology described by
Wood et al. (2012), before providing
applicant-specific analysis. For each
potential activity-related stressor, we
consider the potential impacts on
affected marine mammals and the likely
significance of those impacts to the
affected stock or population as a whole.
Potential risk due to vessel collision and
related mitigation measures as well as
potential risk due to entanglement and
contaminant spills were addressed
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
under ‘‘Proposed Mitigation’’ and
‘‘Potential Effects of the Specified
Activity on Marine Mammals’’ and are
not discussed further, as there are
minimal risks expected from these
potential stressors.
Our analyses incorporate a simple
matrix assessment approach to generate
relative impact ratings that couple
potential magnitude of effect on a stock
and likely consequences of those effects
for individuals, given biologically
relevant information (e.g., compensatory
ability). Impact ratings are then
combined with consideration of
contextual information, such as the
status of the stock or species, in
conjunction with our proposed
mitigation strategy, to ultimately inform
our preliminary determinations. Figure
5 provides an overview of this
framework. Elements of this approach
are subjective and relative within the
context of these particular actions and,
overall, these analyses necessarily
require the application of professional
judgment.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
Spatial Extent
Magnitude—We consider magnitude
of effect as a semi-quantitative
evaluation of measurable factors
presented as relative ratings that address
the extent of expected impacts to a
species or stock and their habitat.
Magnitude ratings are developed as a
combination of measurable factors: The
amount of take, the spatial extent of the
effects in the context of the species
range, and the duration of effects.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Amount of Take
We consider authorized Level B take
less than five percent of population
abundance to be de minimis, while
authorized Level B taking between 5-15
percent is low. A moderate amount of
authorized taking by Level B harassment
would be from 15–25 percent, and high
above 25 percent. Although we do not
define quantitative metrics relating to
amount of potential take by Level A
harassment, for all applicant companies
the expected potential for Level A
harassment is expected to be low (Table
11).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
Spatial extent relates to overlap of the
expected range of the affected stock
with the expected footprint of the
stressor. While we do not define
quantitative metrics relative to
assessment of spatial extent, a relatively
low impact would be a localized effect
on the stock’s range, a relatively
moderate impact would be a regionalscale effect (meaning that the overlap
between stressor and range was partial),
and a relatively high impact would be
one in which the degree of overlap
between stressor and range is near total.
For a mobile activity occurring over a
relatively large, regional-scale area, this
categorization is made largely on the
basis of the stock range in relation to the
action area. For example, the harbor
porpoise is expected to occur almost
entirely outside of the proposed survey
areas (Waring et al., 2016; Roberts et al.,
2016) and therefore despite the large
extent of proposed survey activity, the
spatial extent of potential stressor effect
would be low. A medium degree of
effect would be expected for a species
such as the Risso’s dolphin, which has
a distribution in shelf and slope waters
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
26297
along the majority of the U.S. Atlantic
coast, and which also would be
expected to have greater abundance in
mid-Atlantic waters north of the
proposed survey areas in the summer
(Waring et al., 2016; Roberts et al.,
2016). This means that the extent of
potential stressor for this species would
at all times be expected to have some
overlap with a portion of the stock,
while some portion (increasing in
summer and fall months) would at all
times be outside the stressor footprint.
A higher degree of impact with regard
to spatial extent would be expected for
a species such as the Clymene dolphin,
which is expected to have a generally
more southerly distribution (Waring et
al., 2016; Roberts et al., 2016) and thus
more nearly complete overlap with the
expected stressor footprint in BOEM’s
Mid- and South Atlantic planning areas.
In Tables 14–18 below, spatial extent
is presented as a range for certain
species with known migratory patterns.
We expect spatial extent (overlap of
stock range with proposed survey area)
to be low for right whales from May
through October but moderate from
November through April, due to right
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
EN06JN17.004
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
26298
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
whale movements into southeastern
shelf waters in the winter for calving.
The overlap is considered moderate
during winter because not all right
whales make this winter migration, and
those that do are largely found in
shallow waters where little survey effort
is planned. Spatial extent for humpback
whales is expected to be low for most
of the year, but likely moderate during
winter, while spatial extent for minke
whales is likely low in summer,
moderate in spring and fall, and high in
winter. While we consider spatial extent
to be low year-round for fin whales,
their range overlap with the proposed
survey area does vary across the seasons
and is closer to moderate in winter and
spring. We expect spatial extent for
common dolphins to be lower in fall but
generally moderate. Similarly, we
expect spatial extent for Risso’s
dolphins to be lower in summer but
generally moderate. Although proposed
survey plans differ across applicant
companies, all cover large spatial scales
that extend throughout much of BOEM’s
Mid- and South Atlantic OCS planning
areas, and we do not expect meaningful
differences across surveys with regard to
spatial extent.
Temporal Extent
We consider a temporary effect lasting
up to one month (prior to the animal or
habitat reverting to a ‘‘normal’’
condition) to be short-term, whereas
long-term effects are more permanent,
lasting beyond one season (with animals
or habitat potentially reverting to a
‘‘normal’’ condition). Moderate-term is
therefore defined as between 1-3
months. Duration describes how long
the effects of the stressor last. Temporal
frequency may range from continuous to
isolated (may occur one or two times),
or may be intermittent. These metrics
and their potential combinations help to
derive the ratings summarized in Table
12. Temporal extent is not indicated in
Tables 14–18 below, as it did not affect
the magnitude rating for each applicant.
TABLE 12—MAGNITUDE RATING
Amount of take
Spatial extent
Duration and frequency
High ........................................................
Any except de minimis ...........................
Moderate ................................................
Moderate ................................................
Moderate ................................................
Low .........................................................
Low .........................................................
Any .........................................................
High .......................................................
Moderate ................................................
Moderate ................................................
Low ........................................................
Moderate ................................................
Low ........................................................
Low .........................................................
De minimis ..............................................
Low ........................................................
Any .........................................................
Any .........................................................
Any.
Any except short-term/isolated
Short-term/isolated ................................
Any.
Any.
Any except short-term/intermittent or
isolated
Short-term/intermittent or isolated .........
Any .........................................................
Magnitude rating
High.
Medium.
Low.
De minimis.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Adapted from Table 3.4 of Wood et al. (2012).
Likely Consequences—These
considerations of amount, extent, and
duration give an understanding of
expected magnitude of effect for the
stock or species and their habitat, which
is then considered in context of the
likely consequences of those effects for
individuals. We consider likely relative
consequences through a qualitative
evaluation of species-specific
information that helps predict the
consequences of the known information
addressed through the magnitude rating,
i.e., expected effects. This evaluation
considers factors including acoustic
sensitivity, communication range,
known aspects of behavior relevant to a
consideration of consequences of
effects, and assumed compensatory
abilities to engage in important
behaviors (e.g., breeding, foraging) in
alternate areas. The magnitude rating
and likely consequences are combined
to produce an impact rating (Table 13).
For example, if a delphinid species is
predicted to have a high amount of
disturbance and over a high degree of
spatial extent, that stock would receive
a high magnitude rating for that
particular proposed survey. However,
we may then assess that the species may
have a high degree of compensatory
ability; therefore, our conclusion would
be that the consequences of any effects
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
are likely low. The overall impact rating
in this scenario would be moderate.
Table 13 summarizes impact rating
scenarios.
TABLE 13—IMPACT RATING
Magnitude
rating
Consequences
(for individuals)
High ..............
High ..............
Medium .........
Low ...............
Medium .........
Low ...............
De minimis ...
High/medium ..........
Low ........................
High/medium
High
Low ........................
Medium/low
Any .........................
Impact
rating
High.
Moderate.
Low.
De minimis.
Adapted from Table 3.5 of Wood et al. (2012).
Likely consequences, as presented in
Tables 14–18 below, are considered
medium for each species of mysticete
whales with greater than a de minimis
amount of exposure, due to the greater
potential that survey noise may subject
individuals of these species to masking
of acoustic space for social purposes
(i.e., they are low frequency hearing
specialists). Likely consequences are
considered medium for sperm whales
due to potential for survey noise to
disrupt foraging activity. The likely
consequences are considered high for
beaked whales due to the combination
of known acoustic sensitivity and
expected residency patterns, as we
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
expect that compensatory ability for
beaked whales will be low due to
presumed residency in certain shelf
break and deepwater canyon areas
covered by the proposed survey area.
Similarly, Kogia spp. are presumed to be
a more acoustically sensitive species,
but unlike beaked whales we expect that
Kogia spp. would have a reasonable
compensatory ability to perform
important behavior in alternate areas, as
they are expected to occur broadly over
the continental slope (e.g., Bloodworth
and Odell, 2008)—therefore, we assume
that consequences would be low for
Kogia spp. generally. Consequences are
considered low for most delphinids, as
it is unlikely that disturbance due to
survey noise would entail significant
disruption of normal behavioral
patterns, long-term displacement, or
significant potential for masking of
acoustic space. However, for pilot
whales we believe likely consequences
to be medium due to expected residency
in areas of importance and, therefore,
lack of compensatory ability. Because
the nature of the stressor is the same
across applicant companies, we do not
expect meaningful differences with
regard to likely consequences.
Context—In addition to impact
ratings, we then also consider additional
relevant contextual factors in a
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
qualitative fashion. This consideration
of context is applied to a given impact
rating in order to produce a final
assessment of impact to the stock or
species, i.e., our preliminary negligible
impact determinations. Relevant
contextual factors include population
status, other stressors, and proposed
mitigation.
Here, we reiterate discussion relating
to our development of targeted
mitigation measures and note certain
contextual factors, which are applicable
to negligible impact analyses for all five
applicant companies. Applicant-specific
analyses are provided later.
• We developed mitigation
requirements (i.e., time-area restrictions)
designed specifically to provide benefit
to certain species or stocks for which we
predict a relatively moderate to high
amount of exposure to survey noise
and/or which have contextual factors
that we believe necessitate special
consideration. The proposed time-area
restrictions, described in detail in
‘‘Proposed Mitigation’’ and depicted in
Figures 3–4), are designed specifically
to provide benefit to the North Atlantic
right whale, bottlenose dolphin, sperm
whale, beaked whales, pilot whales, and
Atlantic spotted dolphin. In addition,
we expect these areas to provide some
subsidiary benefit to additional species
that may be present. In particular, Area
#5 (Figure 4), although delineated in
order to specifically provide an area of
anticipated benefit to beaked whales,
sperm whales, and pilot whales, is
expected to host a diverse assemblage of
cetacean species. The output of the
Roberts et al. (2016) models, as used in
core abundance area analyses (described
in detail in ‘‘Proposed Mitigation’’),
indicates that species most likely to
derive subsidiary benefit from this timearea restriction include the bottlenose
dolphin (offshore stock), Risso’s
dolphin, and common dolphin. For
species with density predicted through
stratified models, core abundance
analysis is not possible and assumptions
regarding potential benefit of time-area
restrictions are based on known ecology
of the species and sightings patterns and
are less robust. Nevertheless, subsidiary
benefit for Areas #2–5 (Figure 4) should
be expected for species known to be
present in these areas (e.g., assumed
affinity for shelf/slope/abyss areas off
Cape Hatteras): Kogia spp., pantropical
spotted dolphin, Clymene dolphin, and
rough-toothed dolphin.
These proposed measures benefit both
the primary species for which they were
designed and the species that may
benefit secondarily by reducing the
likely number of individuals exposed to
survey noise and, for resident species in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
areas where seasonal closures are
proposed, reducing the numbers of
times that individuals are exposed to
survey noise (also discussed in ‘‘Small
Numbers Analyses,’’ below). However,
and perhaps of greater importance, we
expect that these restrictions will reduce
disturbance of these species in the
places most important to them for
critical behaviors such as foraging and
socialization. Area #2 (Figure 4), which
is proposed as a year-round closure, is
assumed to be an area important for
beaked whale foraging, while Areas #3–
4 (also proposed as year-round closures)
are assumed to provide important
foraging opportunities for sperm whales
as well as beaked whales. Area #5,
proposed as a seasonal closure, is
comprised of shelf-edge habitat where
beaked whales and pilot whales are
believed to be year-round residents as
well as slope and abyss habitat
predicted to contain high abundance of
sperm whales during the period of
closure. Further detail regarding
rationale for these closures is provided
under ‘‘Proposed Mitigation.’’
• The North Atlantic right whale, sei
whale, fin whale, blue whale, and sperm
whale are listed as endangered under
the Endangered Species Act, and all
coastal stocks of bottlenose dolphin are
designated as depleted under the
MMPA (and have recently experienced
an unusual mortality event, described
earlier in this document). However, sei
whales and blue whales are unlikely to
be meaningfully impacted by the
proposed activities (see ‘‘Rare Species’’
below). All four mysticete species are
also classified as endangered (i.e.,
‘‘considered to be facing a very high risk
of extinction in the wild’’) on the
International Union for Conservation of
Nature Red List of Threatened Species,
whereas the sperm whale is classified as
vulnerable (i.e., ‘‘considered to be facing
a high risk of extinction in the wild’’)
(IUCN, 2016). Our proposed mitigation
is designed to avoid impacts to the right
whale and to depleted stocks of
bottlenose dolphin. Survey activities
must avoid all areas where the right
whale and coastal stocks of bottlenose
dolphin may be reasonably expected to
occur, and we propose to require
shutdown of the acoustic source upon
observation of any right whale at any
distance. If the observed right whale is
within the behavioral harassment zone,
it would still be considered to have
experienced harassment, but by
immediately shutting down the acoustic
source the duration of harassment is
minimized and the significance of the
harassment event reduced as much as
possible.
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
26299
Although listed as endangered, the
primary threat faced by the sperm whale
(i.e., commercial whaling) has been
eliminated and, further, sperm whales
in the western North Atlantic were little
affected by modern whaling (Taylor et
al., 2008). Current potential threats to
the species globally include vessel
strikes, entanglement in fishing gear,
anthropogenic noise, exposure to
contaminants, climate change, and
marine debris. However, for the North
Atlantic stock, the most recent estimate
of annual human-caused mortality and
serious injury (M/SI) is just 22 percent
of the potential biological removal (PBR)
level for the stock. As described
previously, PBR is defined 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.’’ For depleted stocks, levels
of human-caused mortality and serious
injury exceeding the PBR level are likely
to delay restoration of the stock to OSP
level by more than ten percent in
comparison with recovery time in the
absence of human-caused M/SI.
The most recent status review for the
species stated that existing regulatory
mechanisms appear to minimize threats
to sperm whales and that, despite
uncertainty regarding threats such as
climate change, contaminants, and
anthropogenic noise, the significance of
threat facing the species should be
considered low to moderate (NMFS,
2015b). Nevertheless, existing empirical
data (e.g., Miller et al., 2009) highlight
the potential for seismic survey activity
to negatively impact foraging behavior
of sperm whales. In consideration of
this likelihood, the species status, and
the relatively high amount of predicted
exposures to survey noise, we have
given special consideration to
mitigation focused on sperm whales and
have defined time-area restrictions (see
‘‘Proposed Mitigation’’ and Figure 4)
specifically designed to reduce such
impacts on sperm whales in areas
expected to be of greatest importance
(i.e., slope habitat and deepwater
canyons).
Although the primary direct threat to
fin whales was addressed through the
moratorium on commercial whaling,
vessel strike and entanglement in
commercial fishing gear remain as
substantive direct threats for the species
in the western North Atlantic. As noted
below, the most recent estimate of
annual average human-caused mortality
for the fin whale in U.S. waters is above
the PBR value (Table 4). In addition, the
mysticete whales are particularly
sensitive to sound in the frequency
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
26300
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
range output from use of airgun arrays
(e.g., NMFS, 2016). However, there is
conflicting evidence regarding the
degree to which this sound source may
significantly disrupt the behavior of
mysticete whales. Generally speaking,
mysticete whales have been observed to
react to seismic vessels but have also
been observed continuing normal
behavior in the presence of seismic
vessels, and behavioral context at the
time of acoustic exposure may be
influential in the degree to which
whales display significant behavioral
reactions. In addition, while Edwards et
al. (2015) found that fin whales were
likely present in all seasons in U.S.
waters north of 35° N., most important
habitat areas are not expected to occur
in the proposed survey areas. Primary
feeding areas are outside the project area
in the Gulf of Maine and off Long Island
(LaBrecque et al., 2015) and, while Hain
et al. (1992) suggested that calving
occurs during winter in the midAtlantic, Waring et al. (2016) state that
it is unknown where calving, mating,
and wintering occur for most of the
population. Further, fin whales are not
considered to engage in regular mass
movements along well-defined
migratory corridors (NMFS, 2010b). The
model described by Roberts et al.
(2016), which predicted density at a
monthly time step, suggests an
expectation that, while fin whales may
be present year-round in shelf and slope
waters north of Cape Hatteras, the large
majority of predicted abundance in U.S.
waters would be found outside the
proposed survey areas to the north. Very
few fin whales are likely present in the
proposed survey areas in summer
months. Therefore, we have determined
that development of time-area
restriction specific to fin whales is not
warranted. However, fin whales present
along the shelf break north of Cape
Hatteras during the closure period
associated with Area #5 (Figure 4)
would be expected to benefit from the
time-area restriction designed primarily
to benefit pilot whales, beaked whales,
and sperm whales.
• Critical habitat is designated only
for the North Atlantic right whale, and
there are no biologically important areas
(BIA) described within the region (other
than for the right whale, and the
described BIA is similar to designated
critical habitat). Our proposed
mitigation is designed to minimize
impacts to important habitat for the
North Atlantic right whale.
• Average annual human-caused M/
SI exceeds the PBR level for the North
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
Atlantic right whale, sei whale, fin
whale, and for both long-finned and
short-finned pilot whales (see Table 4).
Average annual M/SI is considered
unknown for the blue whale and the
false killer whale (PBR is undetermined
for a number of other species (Table 4),
but average annual human-caused M/SI
is zero for all of these). Although threats
are considered poorly known for North
Atlantic blue whales, PBR is less than
one and ship strike is a known cause of
mortality for all mysticete whales. The
most recent record of ship strike
mortality for a blue whale in the U.S.
EEZ is from 1998 (Waring et al., 2010).
False killer whales also have a low PBR
value (2.1), and may be susceptible to
mortality in commercial fisheries. One
false killer whale was reported as
entangled in the pelagic longline fishery
in 2011, but was released alive and not
seriously injured. Separately, a stranded
false killer whale in 2009 was classified
as due to a fishery interaction.
Incidental take of the sei whale, blue
whale, false killer whale, and longfinned pilot whale is considered
unlikely and we propose to authorize
take by behavioral harassment only for
a single group of each of the first three
species as a precaution. Although longfinned pilot whales are unlikely to
occur in the action area in significant
numbers, the density models that
inform our exposure estimates consider
pilot whales as a guild. It is important
to note that our discussion of M/SI in
relation to PBR values provides
necessary contextual information
related to the status of stocks; we do not
equate harassment (as defined by the
MMPA) with M/SI.
We addressed our consideration of
specific mitigation efforts for the right
whale and fin whale above. In response
to this population context concern for
pilot whales, in conjunction with
relatively medium to high amount of
predicted exposures to survey noise for
pilot whales, we have given special
consideration to mitigation focused on
pilot whales and have defined time-area
restrictions (see ‘‘Proposed Mitigation’’
and Figure 4) specifically designed to
reduce such impacts on pilot whales in
areas expected to be of greatest
importance (i.e., shelf edge north of
Cape Hatteras).
• Beaked whales are considered to be
particularly acoustically sensitive (e.g.,
Tyack et al., 2011; DeRuiter et al., 2013;
Stimpert et al., 2014; Miller et al., 2015).
Considering this sensitivity in
conjunction with the relatively high
amount of predicted exposures to
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
survey noise we have given special
consideration to mitigation focused on
beaked whales and have defined timearea restrictions (see ‘‘Proposed
Mitigation’’ and Figure 4) specifically
designed to reduce such impacts on
beaked whales in areas expected to be
of greatest importance (i.e., shelf edge
south of Cape Hatteras and deepwater
canyon areas).
Rare Species—As described
previously, there are multiple species
that should be considered rare in the
proposed survey areas and for which we
propose to authorize only nominal and
precautionary take of a single group.
Specific to each of the five applicant
companies, we do not expect
meaningful impacts to these species
(i.e., sei whale, Bryde’s whale, blue
whale, killer whale, false killer whale,
pygmy killer whale, melon-headed
whale, northern bottlenose whale,
spinner dolphin, Fraser’s dolphin,
Atlantic white-sided dolphin) and
preliminarily find that the total marine
mammal take from each of the specified
activities will have a negligible impact
on these marine mammal species. We
do not discuss these 11 species further
in these analyses.
Spectrum—Spectrum proposes a 165day survey program, or 45 percent of the
year (approximately two seasons).
However, the proposed survey would
cover a large spatial extent (i.e., a
majority of the mid- and south Atlantic;
see Figure 1 of Spectrum’s application).
Therefore, although the survey would be
long-term (i.e., greater than one season)
in total duration, we would not expect
the duration of effect to be greater than
moderate and intermittent in any given
area. Table 14 displays relevant
information leading to impact ratings for
each species resulting from Spectrum’s
proposed survey. In general, we note
that although the temporal and spatial
scale of the proposed survey activity is
large, the fact that this mobile acoustic
source would be moving across large
areas (as compared with geophysical
surveys with different objectives that
may require focused effort over long
periods of time in smaller areas) means
that many individuals may receive
limited exposure to survey noise. The
nature of such potentially transitory
exposure (which we nevertheless
assume here is of moderate duration and
intermittent, versus isolated) means that
the potential significance of behavioral
disruption and potential for longer-term
avoidance of important areas is limited.
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
26301
TABLE 14—MAGNITUDE AND IMPACT RATINGS, SPECTRUM
Amount
Spatial extent
Magnitude rating
Consequences
North Atlantic right whale .....................
Humpback whale .................................
Minke whale .........................................
Fin whale ..............................................
Sperm whale ........................................
Kogia spp .............................................
Beaked whales .....................................
Rough-toothed dolphin .........................
Common bottlenose dolphin ................
Clymene dolphin ..................................
Atlantic spotted dolphin ........................
Pantropical spotted dolphin .................
Striped dolphin .....................................
Short-beaked common dolphin ............
Risso’s dolphin .....................................
Pilot whales ..........................................
Harbor porpoise ...................................
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Species
Low ........................
De minimis .............
De minimis .............
Low ........................
Moderate ................
Low ........................
Moderate ...............
High .......................
High .......................
High .......................
High .......................
High .......................
Low ........................
Low ........................
Low ........................
Low ........................
De minimis .............
Low-Moderate .......
Low-Moderate .......
Low-High ..............
Low .......................
Moderate ..............
High ......................
Moderate ..............
High ......................
High ......................
High ......................
Moderate ..............
High ......................
Low .......................
Low-moderate .......
Low-moderate .......
Moderate ..............
Low .......................
Medium .................
De minimis ............
De minimis ............
Medium .................
High ......................
High ......................
High ......................
High ......................
High ......................
High ......................
High ......................
High ......................
Medium .................
Medium .................
Medium .................
Medium .................
De minimis ............
Medium ...................
n/a ...........................
n/a ...........................
Medium ...................
Medium ...................
Low .........................
High .........................
Low .........................
Low .........................
Low .........................
Low .........................
Low .........................
Low .........................
Low .........................
Low .........................
Medium ...................
n/a ...........................
The North Atlantic right whale is
endangered, has a very low population
size, and faces significant additional
stressors. Therefore, regardless of
impact rating, we believe that the
proposed mitigation described
previously is important in order for us
to make the necessary finding and, in
consideration of the proposed
mitigation, we preliminarily find that
the total marine mammal take from
Spectrum’s proposed survey activities
will have a negligible impact on the
North Atlantic right whale. The fin
whale receives a moderate impact rating
overall, but we expect that for two
seasons (summer and fall) almost no fin
whales will be present in the proposed
survey area. For the remainder of the
year, it is likely that less than one
quarter of the population will be present
within the proposed survey area
(Roberts et al., 2016), meaning that
despite medium rankings for magnitude
and likely consequences, these impacts
would be experienced by only a small
subset of the overall population. In
consideration of the moderate impact
rating, the likely proportion of the
population that may be affected by the
specified activities, and the lack of
evidence that the proposed survey area
is host to important behavior that may
be disrupted, we preliminarily find that
the total marine mammal take from
Spectrum’s proposed survey activities
will have a negligible impact on the fin
whale.
Magnitude ratings for the sperm
whale and beaked whales are high and,
further, consequence factors reinforce
high impact ratings for both. Magnitude
rating for pilot whales is medium but,
similar to beaked whales, we expect that
compensatory ability will be low due to
presumed residency in areas targeted by
the proposed survey—leading to a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
moderate impact rating. However,
regardless of impact rating, the
consideration of likely consequences
and contextual factors leads us to
conclude that targeted mitigation is
important to support a finding that the
effects of the proposed survey will have
a negligible impact on these species. As
described previously, sperm whales are
an endangered species with particular
susceptibility to disruption of foraging
behavior, beaked whales are particularly
acoustically sensitive (with presumed
low compensatory ability), and pilot
whales are sensitive to additional
stressors due to a high degree of
mortality in commercial fisheries (and
also with low compensatory ability).
Finally, due to their acoustic sensitivity,
we have proposed shutdown of the
acoustic source upon observation of a
beaked whale at any distance from the
source vessel. In consideration of the
proposed mitigation, we preliminarily
find that the total marine mammal take
from Spectrum’s proposed survey
activities will have a negligible impact
on the sperm whale, beaked whales (i.e.,
Ziphius cavirostris and Mesoplodon
spp.), and pilot whales (i.e.,
Globicephala spp.).
Kogia spp. receive a moderate impact
rating. However, although NMFS does
not currently identify a trend for these
populations, recent survey effort and
stranding data show a simultaneous
increase in at-sea abundance and
strandings, suggesting growing Kogia
spp. abundance (NMFS, 2011; 2013a;
Waring et al., 2007; 2013). Finally, we
expect that Kogia spp. will receive
subsidiary benefit from the proposed
mitigation targeted for sperm whales,
beaked whales, and pilot whales and,
although minimally effective due to the
difficulty of at-sea observation of Kogia
spp., we have proposed shutdown of the
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
Impact rating
Moderate.
De minimis.
De minimis.
Moderate.
High.
Moderate.
High.
Moderate.
Moderate.
Moderate.
Moderate.
Moderate.
Low.
Low.
Low.
Moderate.
De minimis.
acoustic source upon observation of
Kogia spp. at any distance from the
source vessel. In consideration of these
factors—likely population increase and
proposed mitigation—we preliminarily
find that the total marine mammal take
from Spectrum’s proposed survey
activities will have a negligible impact
on Kogia spp.
Despite medium to high magnitude
ratings, remaining delphinid species
receive low to moderate impact ratings
due to a lack of propensity for
behavioral disruption due to
geophysical survey activity and our
expectation that these species would
generally have relatively high
compensatory ability. In addition, these
species do not have significant issues
relating to population status or context.
Many oceanic delphinid species are
generally more associated with dynamic
oceanographic characteristics rather
than static physical features, and those
species (such as common dolphin) with
substantial distribution to the north of
the proposed survey area would likely
be little affected at the population level
by the proposed activity. For example,
both species of spotted dolphin and the
offshore stock of bottlenose dolphin
range widely over slope and abyssal
waters (e.g., Waring et al., 2016; Roberts
et al., 2016), while the rough-toothed
dolphin does not appear bound by water
depth in its range (Ritter, 2002; Wells et
al., 2008). Our proposed mitigation
largely eliminates potential effects to
depleted coastal stocks of bottlenose
dolphin, and provides substantial
benefit to the on-shelf portion of the
Atlantic spotted dolphin population.
We also expect that meaningful
subsidiary benefit will accrue to certain
species from the proposed mitigation
targeted for sperm whales, beaked
whales, and pilot whales, most notably
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
26302
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
to species presumed to have greater
association with shelf break waters
north of Cape Hatteras (e.g., offshore
bottlenose dolphins, common dolphins,
and Risso’s dolphins). In consideration
of these factors—overall impact ratings
and proposed mitigation—we
preliminarily find that the total marine
mammal take from Spectrum’s proposed
survey activities will have a negligible
impact on remaining delphinid species
(i.e., all stocks of bottlenose dolphin,
two species of spotted dolphin, roughtoothed dolphin, striped dolphin,
common dolphin, Clymene dolphin,
and Risso’s dolphin).
For those species with de minimis
impact ratings we believe that, absent
additional relevant concerns related to
population status or context, the rating
implies that a negligible impact should
be expected as a result of the specified
activity. No such concerns exist for
these species, and we preliminarily find
that the total marine mammal take from
Spectrum’s proposed survey activities
will have a negligible impact on the
humpback whale, minke whale, and
harbor porpoise.
In summary, 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, we preliminarily
find that the total marine mammal take
from Spectrum’s proposed survey
activities will have a negligible impact
on all affected marine mammal species
or stocks.
TGS—TGS proposes a 308-day survey
program, or 84 percent of the year
(slightly more than three seasons).
However, the proposed survey would
cover a large spatial extent (i.e., a
majority of the mid- and south Atlantic;
see Figures 1–1 to 1–4 of TGS’s
application). Therefore, although the
survey would be long-term (i.e., greater
than one season) in total duration, we
would not expect the duration of effect
to be greater than moderate and
intermittent in any given area. We note
that TGS proposes to deploy two
independent source vessels, which
would in effect increase the spatial
extent of survey noise at any one time
but, because the vessels would not be
operating within the same area or
reshooting lines already covered, this
would not be expected to increase the
duration or frequency of exposure
experienced by individual animals.
Table 15 displays relevant information
leading to impact ratings for each
species resulting from TGS’s proposed
survey. In general, we note that
although the temporal and spatial scale
of the proposed survey activity is large,
the fact that the mobile acoustic sources
would be moving across large areas (as
compared with geophysical surveys
with different objectives that may
require focused effort over long periods
of time in smaller areas) means that
many individuals may receive limited
exposure to survey noise. The nature of
such potentially transitory exposure
(which we nevertheless assume here is
of moderate duration and intermittent,
versus isolated) means that the potential
significance of behavioral disruption
and potential for longer-term avoidance
of important areas is limited.
TABLE 15—MAGNITUDE AND IMPACT RATINGS, TGS
Amount
Spatial extent
Magnitude rating
Consequences
North Atlantic right whale .....................
Humpback whale .................................
Minke whale .........................................
Fin whale ..............................................
Sperm whale ........................................
Kogia spp .............................................
Beaked whales .....................................
Rough-toothed dolphin .........................
Common bottlenose dolphin ................
Clymene dolphin ..................................
Atlantic spotted dolphin ........................
Pantropical spotted dolphin .................
Striped dolphin .....................................
Short-beaked common dolphin ............
Risso’s dolphin .....................................
Pilot whales ..........................................
Harbor porpoise ...................................
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Species
De minimis .............
De minimis .............
De minimis .............
High .......................
High .......................
High .......................
High .......................
High .......................
High .......................
Low ........................
High .......................
High .......................
High .......................
High .......................
High .......................
High .......................
De minimis .............
Low-Moderate .......
Low-Moderate .......
Low-High ..............
Low .......................
Moderate ..............
High ......................
Moderate ..............
High ......................
High ......................
High ......................
Moderate ..............
High ......................
Low .......................
Low-moderate .......
Low-moderate .......
Moderate ..............
Low .......................
De minimis ............
De minimis ............
De minimis ............
High ......................
High ......................
High ......................
High ......................
High ......................
High ......................
High ......................
High ......................
High ......................
High ......................
High ......................
High ......................
High ......................
De minimis ............
n/a ...........................
n/a ...........................
n/a ...........................
Medium ...................
Medium ...................
Low .........................
High ........................
Low .........................
Low .........................
Low .........................
Low .........................
Low .........................
Low .........................
Low .........................
Low .........................
Medium ...................
n/a ...........................
The North Atlantic right whale is
endangered, has a very low population
size, and faces significant additional
stressors. Therefore, regardless of
impact rating, we believe that the
proposed mitigation described
previously is important in order for us
to make the necessary finding and, in
consideration of the proposed
mitigation, we preliminarily find that
the total marine mammal take from
TGS’s proposed survey activities will
have a negligible impact on the North
Atlantic right whale. The fin whale
receives a high impact rating overall,
due to the high amount of exposure
predicted for TGS’s proposed survey
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
activity. As described previously, we
expect that for two seasons (summer
and fall) almost no fin whales will be
present in the proposed survey area and
that, for the remainder of the year, it is
likely that less than one quarter of the
population will be present within the
proposed survey area (Roberts et al.,
2016), meaning that these impacts
would be experienced by only a small
subset of the overall population.
However, given the high amount of
predicted exposure, we believe that
additional mitigation requirements are
warranted and propose that TGS be
subject to a shutdown requirement for
fin whales. If the observed fin whale is
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
Impact rating
De minimis.
De minimis.
De minimis.
High.
High.
Moderate.
High.
Moderate.
Moderate.
Moderate.
Moderate.
Moderate.
Moderate.
Moderate.
Moderate.
High.
De minimis.
within the behavioral harassment zone,
it would still be considered to have
experienced harassment, but by
immediately shutting down the acoustic
source the duration of harassment is
minimized and the significance of the
harassment event reduced as much as
possible. In consideration of the likely
proportion of the population that may
be affected by the specified activities,
the lack of evidence that the proposed
survey area is host to important
behavior that may be disrupted, and the
proposed mitigation, we preliminarily
find that the total marine mammal take
from TGS’s proposed survey activities
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
26303
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
will have a negligible impact on the fin
whale.
Magnitude ratings for the sperm
whale, beaked whales, and pilot whales
are high and, further, consequence
factors reinforce high impact ratings for
all three. In addition, regardless of
impact rating, the consideration of
likely consequences and contextual
factors leads us to conclude that
targeted mitigation is important to
support a finding that the effects of the
proposed survey will have a negligible
impact on these species. As described
previously, sperm whales are an
endangered species with particular
susceptibility to disruption of foraging
behavior, beaked whales are particularly
acoustically sensitive (with presumed
low compensatory ability), and pilot
whales are sensitive to additional
stressors due to a high degree of
mortality in commercial fisheries (and
also with low compensatory ability).
Finally, due to their acoustic sensitivity,
we have proposed shutdown of the
acoustic source upon observation of a
beaked whale at any distance from the
source vessel. In consideration of the
proposed mitigation, we preliminarily
find that the total marine mammal take
from TGS’s proposed survey activities
will have a negligible impact on the
sperm whale, beaked whales (i.e.,
Ziphius cavirostris and Mesoplodon
spp.), and pilot whales (i.e.,
Globicephala spp.).
Kogia spp. receive a moderate impact
rating. However, although NMFS does
not currently identify a trend for these
populations, recent survey effort and
stranding data show a simultaneous
increase in at-sea abundance and
strandings, suggesting growing Kogia
spp. abundance (NMFS, 2011; 2013a;
Waring et al., 2007; 2013). Finally, we
expect that Kogia spp. will receive
subsidiary benefit from the proposed
mitigation targeted for sperm whales,
beaked whales, and pilot whales and,
although minimally effective due to the
difficulty of at-sea observation of Kogia
spp., we have proposed shutdown of the
acoustic source upon observation of
Kogia spp. at any distance from the
source vessel. In consideration of these
factors—likely population increase and
proposed mitigation—we preliminarily
find that the total marine mammal take
from TGS’s proposed survey activities
will have a negligible impact on Kogia
spp.
Despite high magnitude ratings,
remaining delphinid species receive
moderate impact ratings due to a lack of
propensity for behavioral disruption
due to geophysical survey activity and
our expectation that these species
would generally have relatively high
compensatory ability. In addition, these
species do not have significant issues
relating to population status or context.
Many oceanic delphinid species are
generally more associated with dynamic
oceanographic characteristics rather
than static physical features, and those
species (such as common dolphin) with
substantial distribution to the north of
the proposed survey area would likely
be little affected at the population level
by the proposed activity. For example,
both species of spotted dolphin and the
offshore stock of bottlenose dolphin
range widely over slope and abyssal
waters (e.g., Waring et al., 2016; Roberts
et al., 2016), while the rough-toothed
dolphin does not appear bound by water
depth in its range (Ritter, 2002; Wells et
al., 2008). Our proposed mitigation
largely eliminates potential effects to
depleted coastal stocks of bottlenose
dolphin, and provides substantial
benefit to the on-shelf portion of the
Atlantic spotted dolphin population.
We also expect that meaningful
subsidiary benefit will accrue to certain
species from the proposed mitigation
targeted for sperm whales, beaked
whales, and pilot whales, most notably
to species presumed to have greater
association with shelf break waters
north of Cape Hatteras (e.g., offshore
bottlenose dolphins, common dolphins,
and Risso’s dolphins). In consideration
of these factors—overall impact ratings
and proposed mitigation—we
preliminarily find that the total marine
mammal take from TGS’s proposed
survey activities will have a negligible
impact on remaining delphinid species
(i.e., all stocks of bottlenose dolphin,
two species of spotted dolphin, roughtoothed dolphin, striped dolphin,
common dolphin, Clymene dolphin,
and Risso’s dolphin).
For those species with de minimis
impact ratings we believe that, absent
additional relevant concerns related to
population status or context, the rating
implies that a negligible impact should
be expected as a result of the specified
activity. No such concerns exist for
these species, and we preliminarily find
that the total marine mammal take from
TGS’s proposed survey activities will
have a negligible impact on the
humpback whale, minke whale, and
harbor porpoise.
In summary, 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, we preliminarily
find that the total marine mammal take
from TGS’s proposed survey activities
will have a negligible impact on all
affected marine mammal species or
stocks.
ION—ION proposes a 70-day survey
program, or 19 percent of the year
(slightly less than one season). However,
the proposed survey would cover a large
spatial extent (i.e., a majority of the midand south Atlantic; see Figure 1 of ION’s
application). Therefore, although the
survey would be moderate-term (i.e.,
from 1–3 months) in total duration, we
would not expect the duration of effect
to be greater than short and isolated to
intermittent in any given area. Table 16
displays relevant information leading to
impact ratings for each species resulting
from ION’s proposed survey. In general,
we note that although the spatial scale
of the proposed survey activity is large,
the fact that this mobile acoustic source
would be moving across large areas (as
compared with geophysical surveys
with different objectives that may
require focused effort over long periods
of time in smaller areas) means that
many individuals may receive limited
exposure to survey noise. The nature of
such potentially transitory exposure
means that the potential significance of
behavioral disruption and potential for
longer-term avoidance of important
areas is limited.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
TABLE 16—MAGNITUDE AND IMPACT RATINGS, ION
Species
Amount
North Atlantic right whale .....................
Humpback whale .................................
Minke whale .........................................
Fin whale ..............................................
Sperm whale ........................................
Kogia spp .............................................
Beaked whales .....................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
De
De
De
De
De
De
De
Jkt 241001
minimis
minimis
minimis
minimis
minimis
minimis
minimis
PO 00000
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
Frm 00061
Spatial extent
Low-Moderate .......
Low-Moderate .......
Low-High ..............
Low .......................
Moderate ..............
High ......................
Moderate ..............
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
Magnitude rating
De
De
De
De
De
De
De
minimis
minimis
minimis
minimis
minimis
minimis
minimis
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
Consequences
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
06JNN2
Impact rating
De
De
De
De
De
De
De
minimis.
minimis.
minimis.
minimis.
minimis.
minimis.
minimis.
26304
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
TABLE 16—MAGNITUDE AND IMPACT RATINGS, ION—Continued
Species
Amount
Rough-toothed dolphin .........................
Common bottlenose dolphin ................
Clymene dolphin ..................................
Atlantic spotted dolphin ........................
Pantropical spotted dolphin .................
Striped dolphin .....................................
Short-beaked common dolphin ............
Risso’s dolphin .....................................
Pilot whales ..........................................
Harbor porpoise ...................................
De
De
De
De
De
De
De
De
De
De
minimis
minimis
minimis
minimis
minimis
minimis
minimis
minimis
minimis
minimis
The North Atlantic right whale is
endangered, has a very low population
size, and faces significant additional
stressors. Therefore, regardless of
impact rating, we believe that the
proposed mitigation described
previously is important in order for us
to make the necessary finding and, in
consideration of the proposed
mitigation, we preliminarily find that
the total marine mammal take from
ION’s proposed survey activities will
have a negligible impact on the North
Atlantic right whale.
Also regardless of impact rating,
consideration of assumed behavioral
susceptibility and lack of compensatory
ability (i.e., the consequence factors that
are disregarded in our matrix
assessment for ION) as well as
additional contextual factors leads us to
conclude that the proposed targeted
time-area mitigation described
previously is important to support a
finding that the effects of the proposed
survey will have a negligible impact for
the sperm whale, beaked whales (i.e.,
Ziphius cavirostris and Mesoplodon
spp.), and pilot whales (i.e.,
Globicephala spp.). As described
previously, sperm whales are an
endangered species with particular
susceptibility to disruption of foraging
behavior, beaked whales are particularly
acoustically sensitive, and pilot whales
are sensitive to additional stressors due
to a high degree of mortality in
commercial fisheries. Further, we
expect that compensatory ability for
beaked whales will be low due to
presumed residency in certain shelf
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
Spatial extent
High ......................
High ......................
High ......................
Moderate ..............
High ......................
Low .......................
Low-moderate .......
Low-moderate .......
Moderate ..............
Low .......................
Magnitude rating
De
De
De
De
De
De
De
De
De
De
minimis
minimis
minimis
minimis
minimis
minimis
minimis
minimis
minimis
minimis
break and deepwater canyon areas
covered by the proposed survey area
and that compensatory ability for pilot
whales will also be low due to
presumed residency in areas targeted by
the proposed survey. Kogia spp. are also
considered to have heightened acoustic
sensitivity and therefore we have
proposed shutdown of the acoustic
source upon observation of a beaked
whale or a Kogia spp. at any distance
from the source vessel. In consideration
of the proposed mitigation, we
preliminarily find that the total marine
mammal take from ION’s proposed
survey activities will have a negligible
impact on the sperm whale, beaked
whales, pilot whales, and Kogia spp.
For those species with de minimis
impact ratings we believe that, absent
additional relevant concerns related to
population status or context, the rating
implies that a negligible impact should
be expected as a result of the specified
activity. No such concerns exist for
these species, and we preliminarily find
that the total marine mammal take from
ION’s proposed survey activities will
have a negligible impact on all stocks of
bottlenose dolphin, two species of
spotted dolphin, rough-toothed dolphin,
striped dolphin, common dolphin,
Clymene dolphin, Risso’s dolphin
humpback whale, minke whale, fin
whale, and harbor porpoise.
In summary, 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
Consequences
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
...........................
Impact rating
De
De
De
De
De
De
De
De
De
De
minimis.
minimis.
minimis.
minimis.
minimis.
minimis.
minimis.
minimis.
minimis.
minimis.
mitigation measures, we preliminarily
find that the total marine mammal take
from ION’s proposed survey activities
will have a negligible impact on all
affected marine mammal species or
stocks.
Western—Western proposes a 208-day
survey program, or 57 percent of the
year (slightly more than two seasons).
However, the proposed survey would
cover a large spatial extent (i.e., a
majority of the mid- and south Atlantic;
see Figures 1–1 to 1–4 of Western’s
application). Therefore, although the
survey would be long-term (i.e., greater
than one season) in total duration, we
would not expect the duration of effect
to be greater than moderate and
intermittent in any given area. Table 17
displays relevant information leading to
impact ratings for each species resulting
from Western’s proposed survey. In
general, we note that although the
temporal and spatial scale of the
proposed survey activity is large, the
fact that this mobile acoustic source
would be moving across large areas (as
compared with geophysical surveys
with different objectives that may
require focused effort over long periods
of time in smaller areas) means that
many individuals may receive limited
exposed to survey noise. The nature of
such potentially transitory exposure
(which we nevertheless assume here is
of moderate duration and intermittent,
versus isolated) means that the potential
significance of behavioral disruption
and potential for longer-term avoidance
of important areas is limited.
TABLE 17—MAGNITUDE AND IMPACT RATINGS, WESTERN
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Species
Amount
Spatial extent
Magnitude rating
Consequences
North Atlantic right whale .....................
Humpback whale .................................
Minke whale .........................................
Fin whale ..............................................
Sperm whale ........................................
Kogia spp .............................................
Beaked whales .....................................
Rough-toothed dolphin .........................
De minimis .............
De minimis .............
De minimis .............
Low ........................
High .......................
Low ........................
High .......................
Moderate ...............
Low-Moderate .......
Low-Moderate .......
Low-High ..............
Low .......................
Moderate ..............
High ......................
Moderate ..............
High ......................
De minimis ............
De minimis ............
De minimis ............
Medium .................
High ......................
High ......................
High ......................
High ......................
n/a ...........................
n/a ...........................
n/a ...........................
Medium ...................
Medium ...................
Low .........................
High ........................
Low .........................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
Impact rating
De minimis.
De minimis.
De minimis.
Moderate.
High.
Moderate.
High.
Moderate.
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
26305
TABLE 17—MAGNITUDE AND IMPACT RATINGS, WESTERN—Continued
Amount
Spatial extent
Magnitude rating
Consequences
Common bottlenose dolphin ................
Clymene dolphin ..................................
Atlantic spotted dolphin ........................
Pantropical spotted dolphin .................
Striped dolphin .....................................
Short-beaked common dolphin ............
Risso’s dolphin .....................................
Pilot whales ..........................................
Harbor porpoise ...................................
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Species
Moderate ................
De minimis .............
High .......................
Moderate ...............
Low ........................
Low ........................
Moderate ...............
Moderate ................
De minimis .............
High ......................
High ......................
Moderate ..............
High ......................
Low .......................
Low-moderate .......
Low-moderate .......
Moderate ..............
Low .......................
High ......................
De minimis ............
High ......................
High ......................
Medium .................
Medium .................
High ......................
High ......................
De minimis ............
Low .........................
n/a ...........................
Low .........................
Low .........................
Low .........................
Low .........................
Low .........................
Medium ...................
n/a ...........................
The North Atlantic right whale is
endangered, has a very low population
size, and faces significant additional
stressors. Therefore, regardless of
impact rating, we believe that the
proposed mitigation described
previously is important in order for us
to make the necessary finding and, in
consideration of the proposed
mitigation, we preliminarily find that
the total marine mammal take from
Western’s proposed survey activities
will have a negligible impact on the
North Atlantic right whale. The fin
whale receives a moderate impact rating
overall, but we expect that for two
seasons (summer and fall) almost no fin
whales will be present in the proposed
survey area. For the remainder of the
year, it is likely that less than one
quarter of the population will be present
within the proposed survey area
(Roberts et al., 2016), meaning that
despite medium rankings for magnitude
and likely consequences, these impacts
would be experienced by only a small
subset of the overall population. In
consideration of the moderate impact
rating, the likely proportion of the
population that may be affected by the
specified activities, and the lack of
evidence that the proposed survey area
is host to important behavior that may
be disrupted, we preliminarily find that
the total marine mammal take from
Western’s proposed survey activities
will have a negligible impact on the fin
whale.
Magnitude ratings for the sperm
whale, beaked whales, and pilot whales
are high and, further, consequence
factors reinforce high impact ratings for
all three. In addition, regardless of
impact rating, the consideration of
likely consequences and contextual
factors leads us to conclude that
targeted mitigation is important to
support a finding that the effects of the
proposed survey will have a negligible
impact on these species. As described
previously, sperm whales are an
endangered species with particular
susceptibility to disruption of foraging
behavior, beaked whales are particularly
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
acoustically sensitive (with presumed
low compensatory ability), and pilot
whales are sensitive to additional
stressors due to a high degree of
mortality in commercial fisheries (and
also with low compensatory ability).
Finally, due to their acoustic sensitivity,
we have proposed shutdown of the
acoustic source upon observation of a
beaked whale at any distance from the
source vessel. In consideration of the
proposed mitigation, we preliminarily
find that the total marine mammal take
from Western’s proposed survey
activities will have a negligible impact
on the sperm whale, beaked whales (i.e.,
Ziphius cavirostris and Mesoplodon
spp.), and pilot whales (i.e.,
Globicephala spp.).
Kogia spp. receive a moderate impact
rating. However, although NMFS does
not currently identify a trend for these
populations, recent survey effort and
stranding data show a simultaneous
increase in at-sea abundance and
strandings, suggesting growing Kogia
spp. abundance (NMFS, 2011; 2013a;
Waring et al., 2007; 2013). Finally, we
expect that Kogia spp. will receive
subsidiary benefit from the proposed
mitigation targeted for sperm whales,
beaked whales, and pilot whales and,
although minimally effective due to the
difficulty of at-sea observation of Kogia
spp., we have proposed shutdown of the
acoustic source upon observation of
Kogia spp. at any distance from the
source vessel. In consideration of these
factors—likely population increase and
proposed mitigation—we preliminarily
find that the total marine mammal take
from Western’s proposed survey
activities will have a negligible impact
on Kogia spp.
Despite medium to high magnitude
ratings (with the exception of the
Clymene dolphin), remaining delphinid
species receive low to moderate impact
ratings due to a lack of propensity for
behavioral disruption due to
geophysical survey activity and our
expectation that these species would
generally have relatively high
compensatory ability. In addition, these
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
Impact rating
Moderate.
De minimis.
Moderate.
Moderate.
Low.
Low.
Moderate.
High.
De minimis.
species do not have significant issues
relating to population status or context.
Many oceanic delphinid species are
generally more associated with dynamic
oceanographic characteristics rather
than static physical features, and those
species (such as common dolphin) with
substantial distribution to the north of
the proposed survey area would likely
be little affected at the population level
by the proposed activity. For example,
both species of spotted dolphin and the
offshore stock of bottlenose dolphin
range widely over slope and abyssal
waters (e.g., Waring et al., 2016; Roberts
et al., 2016), while the rough-toothed
dolphin does not appear bound by water
depth in its range (Ritter, 2002; Wells et
al., 2008). Our proposed mitigation
largely eliminates potential effects to
depleted coastal stocks of bottlenose
dolphin, and provides substantial
benefit to the on-shelf portion of the
Atlantic spotted dolphin population.
We also expect that meaningful
subsidiary benefit will accrue to certain
species from the proposed mitigation
targeted for sperm whales, beaked
whales, and pilot whales, most notably
to species presumed to have greater
association with shelf break waters
north of Cape Hatteras (e.g., offshore
bottlenose dolphins, common dolphins,
and Risso’s dolphins). In consideration
of these factors—overall impact ratings
and proposed mitigation—we
preliminarily find that the total marine
mammal take from Western’s proposed
survey activities will have a negligible
impact on remaining delphinid species
(i.e., all stocks of bottlenose dolphin,
two species of spotted dolphin, roughtoothed dolphin, striped dolphin,
common dolphin, and Risso’s dolphin).
For those species with de minimis
impact ratings we believe that, absent
additional relevant concerns related to
population status or context, the rating
implies that a negligible impact should
be expected as a result of the specified
activity. No such concerns exist for
these species, and we preliminarily find
that the total marine mammal take from
Western’s proposed survey activities
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
26306
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
will have a negligible impact on the
humpback whale, minke whale,
Clymene dolphin, and harbor porpoise.
In summary, 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, we preliminarily
find that the total marine mammal take
from Western’s proposed survey
activities will have a negligible impact
on all affected marine mammal species
or stocks.
CGG—CGG proposes an
approximately 155-day survey program,
or 42 percent of the year (approximately
two seasons). However, the proposed
survey would cover a large spatial
extent (i.e., a majority of the mid- and
south Atlantic; see Figure 3 of CGG’s
application). Therefore, although the
survey would be long-term (i.e., greater
than one season) in total duration, we
would not expect the duration of effect
to be greater than moderate and
intermittent in any given area. Table 18
displays relevant information leading to
impact ratings for each species resulting
from CGG’s proposed survey. In general,
we note that although the temporal and
spatial scale of the proposed survey
activity is large, the fact that this mobile
acoustic source would be moving across
large areas (as compared with
geophysical surveys with different
objectives that may require focused
effort over long periods of time in
smaller areas) means that many
individuals may receive limited
exposure to survey noise. The nature of
such potentially transitory exposure
means that the potential significance of
behavioral disruption and potential for
longer-term avoidance of important
areas is limited.
TABLE 18—MAGNITUDE AND IMPACT RATINGS, CGG
Amount
Spatial extent
Magnitude rating
Consequences
North Atlantic right whale .....................
Humpback whale .................................
Minke whale .........................................
Fin whale ..............................................
Sperm whale ........................................
Kogia spp .............................................
Beaked whales .....................................
Rough-toothed dolphin .........................
Common bottlenose dolphin ................
Clymene dolphin ..................................
Atlantic spotted dolphin ........................
Pantropical spotted dolphin .................
Striped dolphin .....................................
Short-beaked common dolphin ............
Risso’s dolphin .....................................
Pilot whales ..........................................
Harbor porpoise ...................................
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Species
De minimis .............
De minimis .............
De minimis .............
De minimis .............
High .......................
Low ........................
High .......................
High .......................
Low ........................
High .......................
Low ........................
High .......................
Low ........................
De minimis .............
Low ........................
Low ........................
De minimis .............
Low-Moderate .......
Low-Moderate .......
Low-High ..............
Low .......................
Moderate ..............
High ......................
Moderate ..............
High ......................
High ......................
High ......................
Moderate ..............
High ......................
Low .......................
Low-moderate .......
Low-moderate .......
Moderate ..............
Low .......................
De minimis ............
De minimis ............
De minimis ............
De minimis ............
High ......................
High ......................
High ......................
High ......................
High ......................
High ......................
Medium .................
High ......................
Medium .................
De minimis ............
Medium .................
Medium .................
De minimis ............
n/a ...........................
n/a ...........................
n/a ...........................
n/a ...........................
Medium ...................
Low .........................
High ........................
Low .........................
Low .........................
Low .........................
Low .........................
Low .........................
Low .........................
n/a ...........................
Low .........................
Medium ...................
n/a ...........................
The North Atlantic right whale is
endangered, has a very low population
size, and faces significant additional
stressors. Therefore, regardless of
impact rating, we believe that the
proposed mitigation described
previously is important in order for us
to make the necessary finding and, in
consideration of the proposed
mitigation, we preliminarily find that
the total marine mammal take from
CGG’s proposed survey activities will
have a negligible impact on the North
Atlantic right whale.
Magnitude ratings for the sperm
whale and beaked whales are high and,
further, consequence factors reinforce
high impact ratings for both. Magnitude
rating for pilot whales is medium but,
similar to beaked whales, we expect that
compensatory ability will be low due to
presumed residency in areas targeted by
the proposed survey—leading to a
moderate impact rating. However,
regardless of impact rating, the
consideration of likely consequences
and contextual factors leads us to
conclude that targeted mitigation is
important to support a finding that the
effects of the proposed survey will have
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
a negligible impact on these species. As
described previously, sperm whales are
an endangered species with particular
susceptibility to disruption of foraging
behavior, beaked whales are particularly
acoustically sensitive (with presumed
low compensatory ability), and pilot
whales are sensitive to additional
stressors due to a high degree of
mortality in commercial fisheries (and
also with low compensatory ability).
Finally, due to their acoustic sensitivity,
we have proposed shutdown of the
acoustic source upon observation of a
beaked whale at any distance from the
source vessel. In consideration of the
proposed mitigation, we preliminarily
find that the total marine mammal take
from CGG’s proposed survey activities
will have a negligible impact on the
sperm whale, beaked whales (i.e.,
Ziphius cavirostris and Mesoplodon
spp.), and pilot whales (i.e.,
Globicephala spp.).
Kogia spp. receive a moderate impact
rating. However, although NMFS does
not currently identify a trend for these
populations, recent survey effort and
stranding data show a simultaneous
increase in at-sea abundance and
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
Impact rating
De minimis.
De minimis.
De minimis.
De minimis.
High.
Moderate.
High.
Moderate.
Moderate.
Moderate.
Low.
Moderate.
Low.
De minimis.
Low.
Moderate.
De minimis.
strandings, suggesting growing Kogia
spp. abundance (NMFS, 2011; 2013a;
Waring et al., 2007; 2013). Finally, we
expect that Kogia spp. will receive
subsidiary benefit from the proposed
mitigation targeted for sperm whales,
beaked whales, and pilot whales and,
although minimally effective due to the
difficulty of at-sea observation of Kogia
spp., we have proposed shutdown of the
acoustic source upon observation of
Kogia spp. at any distance from the
source vessel. In consideration of these
factors—likely population increase and
proposed mitigation—we preliminarily
find that the total marine mammal take
from CGG’s proposed survey activities
will have a negligible impact on Kogia
spp.
Despite medium to high magnitude
ratings (with the exception of the shortbeaked common dolphin), remaining
delphinid species receive low to
moderate impact ratings due to a lack of
propensity for behavioral disruption
due to geophysical survey activity and
our expectation that these species
would generally have relatively high
compensatory ability. In addition, these
species do not have significant issues
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
relating to population status or context.
Many oceanic delphinid species are
generally more associated with dynamic
oceanographic characteristics rather
than static physical features, and those
species (such as common dolphin) with
substantial distribution to the north of
the proposed survey area would likely
be little affected at the population level
by the proposed activity. For example,
both species of spotted dolphin and the
offshore stock of bottlenose dolphin
range widely over slope and abyssal
waters (e.g., Waring et al., 2016; Roberts
et al., 2016), while the rough-toothed
dolphin does not appear bound by water
depth in its range (Ritter, 2002; Wells et
al., 2008). Our proposed mitigation
largely eliminates potential effects to
depleted coastal stocks of bottlenose
dolphin. We also expect that meaningful
subsidiary benefit will accrue to certain
species from the proposed mitigation
targeted for sperm whales, beaked
whales, and pilot whales, most notably
to species presumed to have greater
association with shelf break waters
north of Cape Hatteras (e.g., offshore
bottlenose dolphins, common dolphins,
and Risso’s dolphins). In consideration
of these factors—overall impact ratings
and proposed mitigation—we
preliminarily find that the total marine
mammal take from CGG’s proposed
survey activities will have a negligible
impact on remaining delphinid species
(i.e., all stocks of bottlenose dolphin,
two species of spotted dolphin, roughtoothed dolphin, striped dolphin,
Clymene dolphin, and Risso’s dolphin).
For those species with de minimis
impact ratings we believe that, absent
additional relevant concerns related to
population status or context, the rating
implies that a negligible impact should
be expected as a result of the specified
activity. No such concerns exist for
these species, and we preliminarily find
that the total marine mammal take from
CGG’s proposed survey activities will
have a negligible impact on the
humpback whale, minke whale, fin
whale, short-beaked common dolphin,
and harbor porpoise.
In summary, 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, we preliminarily
find that the total marine mammal take
from CGG’s proposed survey activities
will have a negligible impact on all
affected marine mammal species or
stocks.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
Small Numbers Analyses
Please see Tables 10 and 11 and the
related text for information relating to
the basis for our small numbers
analyses. Table 10 provides the numbers
of predicted exposures above specified
received levels, while Table 11 provides
numbers of take by Level A and Level
B harassment proposed for
authorization. The latter is what we
consider for purposes of small numbers
analysis for each proposed IHA. For the
sei whale, Bryde’s whale, blue whale,
northern bottlenose whale, Fraser’s
dolphin, melon-headed whale, false
killer whale, pygmy killer whale, killer
whale, spinner dolphin, and whitesided dolphin, we propose to authorize
take resulting from a single exposure of
one group of each species or stock, as
appropriate (using average group size),
for each applicant. We believe that a
single incident of take of one group of
any of these species represents take of
small numbers for that species.
Therefore, for each applicant, based on
the analyses contained herein of their
specified activity, we preliminarily find
that small numbers of marine mammals
will be taken for each of these 11
affected species or stocks for each
specified activity. We do not discuss
these 11 species further in the
applicant-specific analyses that follow.
As discussed previously, the MMPA
does not define small numbers. NMFS
compares the estimated numbers of
individuals expected to be taken to the
most appropriate estimation of the
relevant species or stock size in our
determination of whether an
authorization is limited to small
numbers of marine mammals. In that
regard, NMFS proposes to limit its
authorization of take to 30 percent of the
most appropriate stock abundance
estimate, assuming no other relevant
factors that provide more context for the
estimate, e.g., information that the take
numbers represent instances of multiple
exposures of the same animals. For
these proposed IHAs, the proposed take
authorizations (Table 11) have been
limited to a threshold of 30 percent. In
order to limit actual take to this
proportion of estimated stock
abundance, we propose to require
monthly reporting from those applicants
with predicted exposures of any species
exceeding this threshold (i.e., Spectrum,
TGS, CGG, and Western). These interim
reports would include amount and
location of line-kms surveyed, all
marine mammal observations with
closest approach distance, and corrected
numbers of marine mammals ‘‘taken.’’
Upon reaching the pre-determined take
threshold, any issued IHA would be
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
26307
withdrawn. This proposed mechanism
to limit actual take is discussed further
under ‘‘Proposed Monitoring and
Reporting.’’
In addition, we have proposed timearea restrictions targeted at certain
species (see ‘‘Proposed Mitigation’’). In
particular, one such proposed
restriction is targeted towards on-shelf
Atlantic spotted dolphins specifically to
reduce the likely number of individuals
taken. This measure is proposed for
implementation for Spectrum, TGS, and
Western, due to the uniformly high
number of predicted exposures of
Atlantic spotted dolphins across all
three applicants. In addition, we have
proposed time-area restrictions targeted
towards sperm whales, beaked whales,
and pilot whales. While these
restrictions are primarily intended to
provide protections important to our
preliminary negligible impact findings
for each applicant, they would also be
expected to reduce the total number of
individuals taken (of the three target
species/guilds as well as other species
likely to be present in those areas).
While we are unable to quantify the
likely reduction in individuals taken as
a result of the proposed mitigation, we
believe that the combination of the
proposed mitigation and the controls on
taking through proposed monitoring and
reporting requirements will be effective
in limiting the taking of individuals of
any species to small numbers.
Applicant-specific analyses follow.
Spectrum—The total amount of taking
proposed for authorization for a
majority of affected stocks ranges from
1 to 24 percent of the most appropriate
population abundance estimate. The
total amount of taking proposed for
authorization for remaining stocks (i.e.,
rough-toothed dolphin, bottlenose
dolphin, Clymene dolphin, Atlantic
spotted dolphin, and pantropical
spotted dolphin) is limited to 30 percent
of the most appropriate population
abundance estimate, through mitigation
and monitoring mechanisms described
previously.
Based on the analysis contained
herein of Spectrum’s specified activity,
and taking into consideration the
implementation of the proposed
monitoring and mitigation measures, we
preliminarily find that small numbers of
marine mammals will be taken relative
to each of the affected species or stocks.
TGS—The total amount of taking
proposed for authorization for the
harbor porpoise, North Atlantic right
whale, humpback whale, minke whale,
and Clymene dolphin ranges from one
to nine percent of the most appropriate
population abundance estimate. The
total amount of taking proposed for
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
26308
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
authorization for all remaining stocks is
limited to 30 percent of the most
appropriate population abundance
estimate, through mitigation and
monitoring mechanisms described
previously.
Based on the analysis contained
herein of TGS’s specified activity, and
taking into consideration the
implementation of the proposed
monitoring and mitigation measures, we
preliminarily find that small numbers of
marine mammals will be taken relative
to each of the affected species or stocks.
ION—The total amount of taking
proposed for authorization for all
affected stocks ranges from less than one
to four percent of the most appropriate
population abundance estimate.
Therefore, based on the analysis
contained herein of ION’s specified
activity, we preliminarily find that
small numbers of marine mammals will
be taken relative to each of the affected
species or stocks.
Western—The total amount of taking
proposed for authorization for a
majority of affected stocks ranges from
less than 1 to 25 percent of the most
appropriate population abundance
estimate. The total amount of taking
proposed for authorization for
remaining stocks (i.e., sperm whale,
beaked whales, and Atlantic spotted
dolphin) is limited to 30 percent of the
most appropriate population abundance
estimate, through mitigation and
monitoring mechanisms described
previously.
Based on the analysis contained
herein of Western’s specified activity,
and taking into consideration the
implementation of the proposed
monitoring and mitigation measures, we
preliminarily find that small numbers of
marine mammals will be taken relative
to each of the affected species or stocks.
CGG—The total amount of taking
proposed for authorization for a
majority of affected stocks ranges from
less than 1 to 26 percent of the most
appropriate population abundance
estimate. The total amount of taking
proposed for authorization for
remaining stocks (i.e., rough-toothed
dolphin, Clymene dolphin, and
pantropical spotted dolphin) is limited
to 30 percent of the most appropriate
population abundance estimate, through
mitigation and monitoring mechanisms
described previously.
Based on the analysis contained
herein of CGG’s specified activity, and
taking into consideration the
implementation of the proposed
monitoring and mitigation measures, we
preliminarily find that small numbers of
marine mammals will be taken relative
to each of the affected species or stocks.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
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 incidental take
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 proposed action area.
Effective reporting is critical both to
compliance as well as ensuring that the
most value is obtained from the required
monitoring.
Any monitoring requirement we
prescribe should improve our
understanding of one or more of the
following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal
species in action area (e.g., presence,
abundance, distribution, density).
• Nature, scope, or context of likely
marine mammal exposure to potential
stressors/impacts (individual or
cumulative, acute or chronic), through
better understanding of: (1) Action or
environment (e.g., source
characterization, propagation, ambient
noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life
history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence
of marine mammal species with the
action; or (4) biological or behavioral
context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or
feeding areas).
• Individual responses to acute
stressors, or impacts of chronic
exposures (behavioral or physiological).
• How anticipated responses to
stressors impact either: (1) Long-term
fitness and survival of an individual; or
(2) population, species, or stock.
• Effects on marine mammal habitat
and resultant impacts to marine
mammals.
• Mitigation and monitoring
effectiveness.
Proposed monitoring requirements are
the same for all applicants (except as
noted), and a single discussion is
provided here.
PSO Eligibility and Qualifications
All PSO resumes must be submitted
to NMFS and PSOs must be approved
by NMFS after a review of their
qualifications. PSOs should provide a
current resume and information related
to PSO training, if available. The latter
should include (1) a course information
packet that includes the name and
qualifications (e.g., experience, training,
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
or education) of the instructor(s), the
course outline or syllabus, and course
reference material; and (2) a document
stating successful completion of the
course. PSOs must be trained biologists,
with the following minimum
qualifications:
• 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;
• Experience and ability to conduct
field observations and collect data
according to assigned protocols (may
include academic experience; required
for visual PSOs only) and experience
with data entry on computers;
• Visual acuity in both eyes
(correction is permissible) sufficient for
discernment of moving targets at the
water’s surface with ability to estimate
target size and distance; use of
binoculars may be necessary to correctly
identify the target (required for visual
PSOs only);
• Experience or training in the field
identification of marine mammals,
including the identification of behaviors
(required for visual PSOs only);
• Sufficient training, orientation, or
experience with the survey operation to
provide for personal safety during
observations;
• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a
report of observations including but not
limited to the number and species of
marine mammals observed; marine
mammal behavior; and descriptions of
activity conducted and implementation
of mitigation;
• Ability to communicate orally, by
radio or in person, with survey
personnel to provide real-time
information on marine mammals
observed in the area as necessary; and
• Successful completion of relevant
training (described below), including
completion of all required coursework
and passing (80 percent or greater) a
written and/or oral examination
developed for the training program.
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, and
prospective PSOs granted waivers must
satisfy training requirements described
below. Alternate experience that may be
considered includes, but is not limited
to, the following:
• Secondary education and/or
experience comparable to PSO duties.
• Previous work experience
conducting academic, commercial, or
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
government-sponsored marine mammal
surveys.
• Previous work experience as a PSO;
the PSO should demonstrate good
standing and consistently good
performance of PSO duties.
Training—NMFS does not currently
approve specific training programs;
however, acceptable training may
include training previously approved by
BSEE, or training that adheres generally
to the recommendations provided by
Baker et al. (2013). Those
recommendations include the following
topics for training programs:
• Life at sea, duties, and authorities;
• Ethics, conflicts of interest,
standards of conduct, and data
confidentiality;
• Offshore survival and safety
training;
• Overview of oil and gas activities
(including geophysical data acquisition
operations, theory, and principles) and
types of relevant sound source
technology and equipment;
• Overview of the MMPA and ESA as
they relate to protection of marine
mammals;
• Mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting requirements as they pertain
to geophysical surveys;
• Marine mammal identification,
biology and behavior;
• Background on underwater sound;
• Visual surveying protocols, distance
calculations and determination, cues,
and search methods for locating and
tracking different marine mammal
species (visual PSOs only);
• Optimized deployment and
configuration of PAM equipment to
ensure effective detections of cetaceans
for mitigation purposes (PAM operators
only);
• Detection and identification of
vocalizing species or cetacean groups
(PAM operators only);
• Measuring distance and bearing of
vocalizing cetaceans while accounting
for vessel movement (PAM operators
only);
• Data recording and protocols,
including standard forms and reports,
determining range, distance, direction,
and bearing of marine mammals and
vessels; recording GPS location
coordinates, weather conditions,
Beaufort wind force and sea state, etc.;
• Proficiency with relevant software
tools;
• Field communication/support with
appropriate personnel, and using
communication devices (e.g., two-way
radios, satellite phones, Internet, email,
facsimile);
• Reporting of violations,
noncompliance, and coercion; and
• Conflict resolution.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
PAM operators should regularly
refresh their detection skills through
practice with simulation-modelling
software, and should keep up to date
with training on the latest software/
hardware advances.
Visual Monitoring
The lead PSO is responsible for
establishing and maintaining clear lines
of communication with vessel crew. The
vessel operator shall work with the lead
PSO to accomplish this and shall ensure
any necessary briefings are provided for
vessel crew to understand mitigation
requirements and protocols. While on
duty, PSOs would continually scan the
water surface in all directions around
the acoustic source and vessel for
presence of marine mammals, using a
combination of the naked eye and highquality binoculars, from optimum
vantage points for unimpaired visual
observations with minimum
distractions. PSOs would collect
observational data for all marine
mammals observed, regardless of
distance from the vessel, including
species, group size, presence of calves,
distance from vessel and direction of
travel, and any observed behavior
(including an assessment of behavioral
responses to survey activity). Upon
observation of marine mammal(s), a
PSO would record the observation and
monitor the animal’s position (including
latitude/longitude of the vessel and
relative bearing and estimated distance
to the animal) until the animal dives or
moves out of visual range of the
observer, and a PSO would continue to
observe the area to watch for the animal
to resurface or for additional animals
that may surface in the area. PSOs
would also record environmental
conditions at the beginning and end of
the observation period and at the time
of any observations, as well as whenever
conditions change significantly in the
judgment of the PSO on duty.
The vessel 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 should be pedestalmounted on the deck at the most
appropriate vantage point that provides
for optimal sea surface observation, PSO
safety, and safe operation of the vessel.
The operator 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. NVDs may include night
vision binoculars or monocular or
forward-looking infrared device (e.g.,
Exelis PVS–7 night vision goggles; Night
Optics D–300 night vision monocular;
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
26309
FLIR M324XP thermal imaging camera
or equivalents). At minimum, the device
should feature automatic brightness and
gain control, bright light protection,
infrared illumination, and optics suited
for low-light situations. Other required
equipment, which should be made
available to PSOs by the third-party
observer provider, includes 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
the tasks described above, including
accurate determination of distance and
bearing to observed marine mammals.
Individuals implementing the
monitoring protocol will assess its
effectiveness using an adaptive
approach. Monitoring biologists will use
their best professional judgment
throughout implementation and seek
improvements to these methods when
deemed appropriate. Any modifications
to protocol will be coordinated between
NMFS and the applicant.
Acoustic Monitoring
Monitoring of a towed PAM system is
required at all times, from 30 minutes
prior to ramp-up and throughout all use
of the acoustic source. Towed PAM
systems generally consist of hardware
(e.g., hydrophone array, cables) and
software (e.g., data processing and
monitoring system). While not required,
we recommend use of industry standard
software (e.g., PAMguard, which is open
source). Hydrophone signals are
processed for output to the PAM
operator with software designed to
detect marine mammal vocalizations.
Current PAM technology has some
limitations (e.g., limited directional
capabilities and detection range,
masking of signals due to noise from the
vessel, source, and/or flow, localization)
and there are no formal guidelines
currently in place regarding
specifications for hardware, software, or
operator training requirements.
However, a working group (led by A.M.
Thode) is developing formal standards
under the auspices of the Acoustical
Society of America’s (ASA) Accredited
Standards Committee on Animal
Bioacoustics (ANSI S3/SC1/WG3;
‘‘Towed Array Passive Acoustic
Operations for Bioacoustics
Applications’’). While no formal
standards have yet been completed, a
‘‘roadmap’’ was developed during a
2016 workshop held for the express
purpose of continuing development of
such standards. A workshop report
(Thode et al., 2017) provides a highly
detailed preview of what the scope and
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
26310
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
structure of the standard would be,
including operator training, planning,
hardware, real-time operations,
localization, and performance
validation. NMFS will review this
document, and recommends that
applicants do the same in developing or
refining their PAM plans, as
appropriate.
Our requirement to use PAM refers to
the use of calibrated hydrophone arrays
with full system redundancy to detect,
identify and estimate distance and
bearing to vocalizing cetaceans, to the
extent possible. With regard to
calibration, the PAM system should
have at least one calibrated hydrophone,
sufficient for determining whether
background noise levels on the towed
PAM system are sufficiently low to meet
performance expectations. Additionally,
if multiple hydrophone types occur in a
system (i.e., monitor different
bandwidths), then one hydrophone from
each such type should be calibrated,
and whenever sets of hydrophones (of
the same type) are sufficiently spatially
separated such that they would be
expected to experience ambient noise
environments that differ by 6 dB or
more across any integrated species
cluster bandwidth, then at least one
hydrophone from each set should be
calibrated. The arrays should
incorporate appropriate hydrophone
elements (1 Hz to 180 kHz range) and
sound data acquisition card technology
for sampling relevant frequencies (i.e.,
to 360 kHz). This hardware should be
coupled with appropriate software to
aid monitoring and listening by a PAM
operator skilled in bioacoustics analysis
and computer system specifications
capable of running appropriate software.
In the absence of a formally defined set
of prescriptions addressing any of these
three facets of PAM technology, all
applicants must provide a description of
the hardware and software proposed for
use prior to proceeding with any BOEMpermitted survey. Applicant-specific
PAM plans are available for review
online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
permits/incidental/oilgas.htm.
Spectrum and ION submitted separate
plans, while TGS and Western included
their plans in Section 11 of their
respective applications. CGG discusses
PAM in Section 13 of their application.
As noted above, we recommend that
each applicant produce a revised plan
prior to a final decision on these
requests. As recommended by Thode et
al. (2017), the revised plans should, at
minimum, adequately address and
describe (1) the hardware and software
planned for use, including a hardware
performance diagram demonstrating
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
that the sensitivity and dynamic range
of the hardware is appropriate for the
operation; (2) deployment methodology,
including target depth/tow distance; (3)
definitions of expected operational
conditions, used to summarize
background noise statistics; (4)
proposed detection-classificationlocalization methodology, including
anticipated species clusters (using a
cluster definition table), target
minimum detection range for each
cluster, and the proposed localization
method for each cluster; (5) operation
plans, including the background noise
sampling schedule; and (6) clusterspecific details regarding which realtime displays and automated detectors
the operator would monitor.
In coordination with vessel crew, the
lead PAM operator should be
responsible for deployment, retrieval,
and testing and optimization of the
hydrophone array. While on duty, the
PAM operator should diligently listen to
received signals and/or monitoring
display screens in order to detect
vocalizing cetaceans, except as required
to attend to PAM equipment. The PAM
operator should use appropriate sample
analysis and filtering techniques and, as
described below, must report all
cetacean detections. While not required
prior to development of formal
standards for PAM use, we recommend
that vessel self-noise assessments are
undertaken during mobilization in order
to optimize PAM array configuration
according to the specific noise
characteristics of the vessel and
equipment involved, and to refine
expectations for distance/bearing
estimations for cetacean species during
the survey. Copies of any vessel selfnoise assessment reports should be
included with the summary trip report.
Data Collection
PSOs must use standardized data
forms, whether hard copy or electronic.
PSOs will 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. We require that, at a
minimum, the following information be
reported:
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
• Vessel names (source vessel and other
vessels associated with survey) and
call signs
• PSO names and affiliations
• Dates of departures and returns to
port with port name
• Dates and times (Greenwich Mean
Time) of survey effort and times
corresponding with PSO effort
• Vessel location (latitude/longitude)
when survey effort begins and ends;
vessel location at beginning and end
of visual PSO duty shifts
• Vessel heading and speed at
beginning and end of visual PSO duty
shifts and upon any line change
• Environmental conditions while on
visual survey (at beginning and end of
PSO shift and whenever conditions
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
• 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)
• 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-rampup survey, ramp-up, shutdown,
testing, shooting, ramp-up
completion, end of operations,
streamers, etc.)
• If a marine mammal is sighted, the
following information should be
recorded:
Æ Watch status (sighting made by
PSO on/off effort, opportunistic,
crew, alternate vessel/platform)
Æ PSO who sighted the animal
Æ Time of sighting
Æ Vessel location at time of sighting
Æ Water depth
Æ Direction of vessel’s travel
(compass direction)
Æ Direction of animal’s travel relative
to the vessel
Æ Pace of the animal
Æ Estimated distance to the animal
and its heading relative to vessel at
initial sighting
Æ 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
Æ Estimated number of animals (high/
low/best)
Æ Estimated number of animals by
cohort (adults, yearlings, juveniles,
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
26311
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
calves, group composition, etc.)
Æ 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)
Æ 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)
Æ Animal’s closest point of approach
(CPA) and/or closest distance from
the center point of the acoustic
source;
Æ Platform activity at time of sighting
(e.g., deploying, recovering, testing,
shooting, data acquisition, other)
Æ 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
• If a marine mammal is detected while
using the PAM system, the following
information should be recorded:
Æ An acoustic encounter
identification number, and whether
the detection was linked with a
visual sighting
Æ Time when first and last heard
Æ Types and nature of sounds heard
(e.g., clicks, whistles, creaks, burst
pulses, continuous, sporadic,
strength of signal, etc.)
Æ 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.
Reporting
PSO effort, survey details, and
sightings data should be recorded
continuously during surveys and reports
prepared each day during which survey
effort is conducted. As described
previously, applicants with predicted
exposures of any species exceeding the
30-percent threshold (i.e., Spectrum,
TGS, CGG, and Western) must submit
regular interim reports. These interim
reports would include amount and
location of line-kms surveyed, all
marine mammal observations with
closest approach distance, and corrected
numbers of marine mammals ‘‘taken.’’
We propose submission of such interim
reports to NMFS on a monthly basis.
There are multiple reasons why
marine mammals may be present and
yet be undetected by observers. Animals
are missed because they are underwater
(availability bias) or because they are
available to be seen, but are missed by
observers (perception and detection
biases) (e.g., Marsh and Sinclair, 1989).
Negative bias on perception or detection
of an available animal may result from
environmental conditions, limitations
inherent to the observation platform, or
observer ability. In this case, we do not
have prior knowledge of any potential
negative bias on detection probability
due to observation platform or observer
ability. Therefore, observational data
corrections must be made with respect
to assumed species-specific detection
probability as evaluated through
consideration of environmental factors
(e.g., f (0)). We propose that corrections
be made using detection probabilities
found in Carr et al. (2011), which are
based on f (0) values from line-transect
survey studies described in Koski et al.
(1998), Barlow (1999), and Thomas et al.
(2002). Carr et al. (2011) derived
detection probabilities (shown in Table
19) as follows:
• 1/f (0) is the effective strip width.
• The effective strip width was
divided by the truncation distance used
to calculate f (0).
• This value is detection probability
or the average probability that an animal
would be seen within the truncation
distance from the vessel.
• For cryptic species where only sea
states 0 to 2 were used to calculate f (0),
detection probability was arbitrarily
divided by 3 to account for the higher
probability that animals would be
missed during the survey whenever sea
states were greater than 2.
• Different detection probability
values were calculated for groups with
1–16, 17–60 and greater than 60
individuals based on the different f (0)
values for those group sizes.
• The mean group size for the species
or guild determined the appropriate
detection probability that was used for
that species or guild.
TABLE 19—DETECTION PROBABILITIES
Detection
probability
Common name
Mysticete whales (except minke whale) ..................................................................................................................
Minke whale .............................................................................................................................................................
Sperm whale ............................................................................................................................................................
Kogia spp. ................................................................................................................................................................
Beaked whales ........................................................................................................................................................
Small delphinids, medium group size (all but common, spinner, and Fraser’s dolphin) ........................................
Small delphinids, large group size ..........................................................................................................................
Large delphinids, small group size (all but Risso’s dolphin and killer whale) ........................................................
Large delphinids, medium group size .....................................................................................................................
Harbor porpoise .......................................................................................................................................................
0.259
0.244
0.259
0.055
0.244
0.524
0.926
0.309
0.524
0.055
Assumed
group size
1–16
1–16
1–16
1–16
1–16
17–60
>60
1–16
17–60
1–16
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Adapted from Table B–6, Carr et al. (2011).
A draft comprehensive report would
be submitted to NMFS within 90 days
of the completion of survey effort, and
must include all information described
above under ‘‘Data Collection.’’ The
report will describe the operations
conducted and sightings of marine
mammals near the operations. The
report will provide full documentation
of methods, results, and interpretation
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
pertaining to all monitoring. The report
will 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 as an ESRI
shapefile with all necessary files and
appropriate metadata. In addition to the
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
report, all raw observational data shall
be made available to NMFS. This report
must also include a validation
document concerning the use of PAM,
which should include necessary noise
validation diagrams and demonstrate
whether background noise levels on the
PAM deployment limited achievement
of the planned detection goals.
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
26312
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
The report will also include estimates
of the number of takes based on the
observations and in consideration of the
detectability of the marine mammal
species observed (e.g., in consideration
of f (0)). Applicants must provide an
estimate of the number (by species) of
marine mammals that may have been
exposed (based on observational data
and accounting for animals present but
unavailable for sighting (i.e., f(0)
values)) to the survey activity at
received levels greater than or equal to
the harassment threshold (i.e., 160 dB
rms). The draft report must be
accompanied by a certification from the
lead PSO as to the accuracy of the
report. A final report must be submitted
within 30 days following resolution of
any comments on the draft report.
In the event that the specified activity
clearly causes the take of a marine
mammal in a manner not permitted by
the authorization (if issued), such as a
serious injury or mortality, the applicant
shall immediately cease the specified
activities and immediately report the
take to NMFS. The report must include
the following information:
• Time, date, and location (latitude/
longitude) of the incident;
• Name and type of vessel involved;
• Vessel’s speed during and leading
up to the incident;
• Description of the incident;
• Status of all sound source use in the
24 hours preceding the incident;
• Water depth;
• Environmental conditions (e.g.,
wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea
state, cloud cover, and visibility);
• Description of all marine mammal
observations in the 24 hours preceding
the incident;
• Species identification or
description of the animal(s) involved;
• Fate of the animal(s); and
• Photographs or video footage of the
animal(s) (if equipment is available).
The applicant shall not resume its
activities until NMFS is able to review
the circumstances of the prohibited
take. NMFS would work with the
applicant to determine what is
necessary to minimize the likelihood of
further prohibited take and ensure
MMPA compliance. The applicant may
not resume their activities until notified
by NMFS.
In the event that the applicant
discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead PSO determines
that the cause of the injury or death is
unknown and the death is relatively
recent (i.e., in less than a moderate state
of decomposition as we describe in the
next paragraph), the applicant will
immediately report the incident to
NMFS. The report must include the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
same information identified in the
paragraph above this section. Activities
may continue while NMFS reviews the
circumstances of the incident. NMFS
would work with the applicant to
determine whether modifications to the
activities are appropriate.
In the event that the applicant
discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead PSO 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),
the applicant would report the incident
to NMFS within 24 hours of the
discovery. The applicant would provide
photographs or video footage (if
available) or other documentation of the
animal to NMFS.
Impact on Availability of Affected
Species for Taking for Subsistence Uses
There are no relevant subsistence uses
of marine mammals implicated by these
actions. Therefore, relevant to the
Spectrum, TGS, ION, CGG, and Western
proposed IHAs, we have 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)
There are six marine mammal species
listed as endangered under the ESA that
may occur in the proposed survey areas.
Under section 7 of the ESA, BOEM
requested initiation of formal
consultation (on behalf of itself and
BSEE) in 2012 with NMFS’s Office of
Protected Resources, Endangered
Species Act Interagency Cooperation
Division (Interagency Cooperation
Division) on the proposed authorization
of geological and geophysical survey
activities under its oil and gas,
renewable energy and marine minerals
programs. These activities were
described in BOEM’s Draft PEIS for
Atlantic OCS Proposed Geological and
Geophysical Activities in the MidAtlantic and South Atlantic Planning
Areas. NMFS concluded formal
consultation by issuing a final
Biological Opinion to BOEM and BSEE
on July 19, 2013, determining that the
proposed activities were not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
threatened or endangered species nor
destroy or adversely modify designated
critical habitat under NMFS’s
jurisdiction. On October 16, 2015,
BOEM and BSEE reinitiated
consultation with NMFS.
NMFS’s Office of Protected Resources,
Permits and Conservation Division will
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
also consult internally with Interagency
Cooperation Division on the proposed
issuance of authorizations under section
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA. NMFS will
conclude the consultation prior to
reaching a determination regarding the
proposed issuance of the authorizations.
National Environmental Policy Act
In 2014, the BOEM produced a PEIS
to evaluate potential significant
environmental effects of G&G activities
on the Mid- and South Atlantic OCS,
pursuant to requirements of NEPA.
These activities include geophysical
surveys in support of hydrocarbon
exploration, as are proposed in the
MMPA applications before NMFS. The
PEIS is available at: www.boem.gov/
Atlantic-G-G-PEIS/. NMFS participated
in development of the PEIS as a
cooperating agency and believes it
appropriate to adopt the analysis in
order to assess the impacts to the human
environment of issuance of the subject
IHAs. Information in the IHA
applications, BOEM’s PEIS, and this
notice collectively provide the
environmental information related to
proposed issuance of these IHAs for
public review and comment. We will
review all comments submitted in
response to this notice as we complete
the NEPA process, including a final
decision of whether to adopt BOEM’s
PEIS and sign a Record of Decision
related to issuance of IHAs, prior to a
final decision on the incidental take
authorization requests.
Proposed Authorizations
As a result of these preliminary
determinations, we propose to issue five
separate IHAs to the aforementioned
applicant companies for conducting the
described geophysical survey activities
in the Atlantic Ocean within BOEM’s
Mid- and South Atlantic OCS planning
areas, provided the previously
mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting requirements are incorporated.
Specific language from the proposed
IHAs is provided next.
This section contains drafts of the
IHAs. The wording contained in this
section is proposed for inclusion in the
IHAs (if issued).
Spectrum
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 Spectrum’s IHA application and
using an array with characteristics
specified in the application, in the
Atlantic Ocean within BOEM’s Midand South Atlantic OCS planning areas.
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
3. General Conditions
(a) A copy of this IHA must be in the
possession of Spectrum, the vessel
operator and other relevant personnel,
the lead protected species observer
(PSO), and any other relevant designees
of Spectrum operating under the
authority of this IHA.
(b) The species authorized for taking
are listed in Table 11. The taking, by
Level A and Level B harassment only,
is limited to the species and numbers
listed in Table 11.
(c) The taking by serious injury or
death of any of the species listed in
Table 11 or any taking of any other
species of marine mammal is prohibited
and may result in the modification,
suspension, or revocation of this IHA.
Any taking exceeding the authorized
amounts listed in Table 11 is prohibited
and may result in the modification,
suspension, or revocation of this IHA.
(d) Spectrum 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.
Spectrum shall instruct relevant vessel
personnel with regard to the authority of
the protected species monitoring team,
and shall ensure that relevant vessel
personnel and protected species
monitoring team participate in a joint
onboard briefing led by the vessel
operator and lead PSO to ensure that
responsibilities, communication
procedures, marine mammal monitoring
protocol, operational procedures, and
IHA requirements are clearly
understood. This briefing must be
repeated when relevant new personnel
join the survey operations.
(e) During use of the acoustic source,
if the source vessel encounters any
marine mammal species that are not
listed in Table 11, then the acoustic
source must be shut down to avoid
unauthorized take.
4. Mitigation Requirements
The holder of this Authorization is
required to implement the following
mitigation measures:
(a) Spectrum must use independent,
dedicated, trained PSOs, meaning that
the PSOs must be employed by a thirdparty observer provider, may 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
(including brief alerts regarding
maritime hazards), and must have
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
successfully completed an approved
PSO training course. NMFS must review
and approve PSO resumes accompanied
by a relevant training course
information packet that includes the
name and qualifications (i.e.,
experience, training completed, or
educational background) of the
instructor(s), the course outline or
syllabus, and course reference material
as well as a document stating successful
completion of the course.
(b) At least two PSOs must have a
minimum of 90 days at-sea experience
working as PSOs during a deep
penetration 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), a minimum of 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) and 30 minutes prior
to and during nighttime ramp-ups of the
airgun array.
(ii) Visual monitoring must begin not
less than 30 minutes prior to ramp-up
and must continue until one hour after
use of the acoustic source ceases or until
30 minutes past sunset.
(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 acoustic PSOs,
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 two consecutive hours
followed by a break of at least one hour
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
26313
between watches and may conduct a
maximum of 12 hours observation per
24-hour period.
(vi) Any observations of marine
mammals by crew members aboard any
vessel associated with the survey,
including chase vessels, shall be relayed
to the source vessel and to the PSO
team.
(vii) During good conditions (e.g.,
daylight hours; Beaufort sea state (BSS)
3 or less), visual PSOs shall conduct
observations when the acoustic source
is not operating for comparison of
sighting rates and behavior with and
without use of the acoustic source and
between acquisition periods, to the
maximum extent practicable.
(d) Acoustic Observation
(i) The source vessel 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.
(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) Acoustic PSOs may be on watch
for a maximum of four consecutive
hours followed by a break of at least two
hours between watches and may
conduct a maximum of 12 hours
observation per 24-hour period.
(iv) Survey activity may continue for
brief periods of time when 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 BSS 4;
(B) No marine mammals (excluding
small delphinoids) 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) Buffer Zone and Exclusion Zone—
The PSOs shall establish and monitor a
500-m exclusion zone and a 1,000-m
buffer zone. These zones shall be based
upon radial distance from any element
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
26314
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
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 within the buffer zone
(but outside the exclusion zone) shall be
communicated to the operator to
prepare for the potential shutdown of
the acoustic source. PSOs must monitor
the buffer zone for a minimum of 30
minutes prior to ramp-up (i.e., preclearance).
(f) 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.
Ramp-up may not be initiated if any
marine mammal is within the
designated buffer zone. If a marine
mammal is observed within the buffer
zone during the pre-clearance 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 30 minutes for all other
species). PSOs would monitor the buffer
zone during ramp-up, and ramp-up
must cease and the source shut down
upon observation of marine mammals
within or approaching the buffer zone.
Ramp-up may occur at times of poor
visibility if appropriate acoustic
monitoring has occurred with no
detections in the 30 minutes prior to
beginning ramp-up. Acoustic source
activation may only occur at times of
poor visibility where operational
planning cannot reasonably avoid such
circumstances. The operator must notify
a designated PSO of the planned start of
ramp-up as agreed-upon with the lead
PSO; the notification time should not be
less than 60 minutes prior to the
planned ramp-up. 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.
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. Total duration should be
approximately 20 minutes. The operator
must provide information to the PSO
documenting that appropriate
procedures were followed. Ramp-ups
shall be scheduled so as to minimize the
time spent with source activated prior to
reaching the designated run-in.
(g) Shutdown Requirements
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
(i) Any PSO on duty has the authority
to delay the start of survey operations or
to call for shutdown of the acoustic
source (visual PSOs on duty should be
in agreement on the need for delay or
shutdown before requiring such action).
When shutdown is called for by a PSO,
the acoustic source must be
immediately deactivated and any
dispute resolved only following
deactivation. The operator must
establish and maintain clear lines of
communication directly between PSOs
on duty and crew controlling the
acoustic source to ensure that shutdown
commands are conveyed swiftly while
allowing PSOs to maintain watch. 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.
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. 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 acoustic source
must be shut down as a precaution.
(ii) Upon completion of ramp-up, if a
marine mammal appears within, enters,
or appears on a course to enter the
exclusion zone, the acoustic source
must be shut down (i.e., power to the
acoustic source must be immediately
turned off). If a marine mammal is
detected acoustically, the acoustic
source must be shut down, unless the
acoustic PSO is confident that the
animal detected is outside the exclusion
zone or that the detected species is not
subject to the shutdown requirement.
(A) This shutdown requirement is
waived for dolphins of the following
genera: Steno, Tursiops, Stenella,
Delphinus, Lagenodelphis, and
Lagenorhynchus. 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 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,
shutdown must be implemented.
(iii) Shutdown of the acoustic source
is required upon observation of a right
whale at any distance.
(iv) Shutdown of the acoustic source
is required upon observation of a whale
(i.e., sperm whale or any baleen whale)
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
with calf at any distance, with ‘‘calf’’
defined as an animal less than twothirds the body size of an adult observed
to be in close association with an adult.
(v) Shutdown of the acoustic source is
required upon observation of a diving
sperm whale at any distance centered
on the forward track of the source
vessel.
(vi) Shutdown of the acoustic source
is required upon observation (visual or
acoustic) of a beaked whale or Kogia
spp. at any distance.
(vii) Shutdown of the acoustic source
is required upon observation of an
aggregation (i.e., six or more animals) of
marine mammals of any species that
does not appear to be traveling.
(viii) Upon implementation of
shutdown, the source may be
reactivated after the animal(s) has been
observed exiting the exclusion zone or
following a 30-minute clearance period
with no further observation of the
animal(s). Where there is no relevant
zone (e.g., shutdown due to observation
of a right whale), a 30-minute clearance
period must be observed following the
last observation of the animal(s).
(ix) If the acoustic source is shut
down for reasons other than mitigation
(e.g., mechanical difficulty) for brief
periods (i.e., 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 exclusion zone and
no acoustic detections have occurred.
For any longer shutdown, pre-clearance
watch and ramp-up are required. For
any shutdown at night or in periods of
poor visibility (e.g., BSS 4 or greater),
ramp-up is required but if the shutdown
period was brief and constant
observation maintained, pre-clearance
watch is not required.
(h) Miscellaneous Protocols
(i) The acoustic source 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).
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
Testing limited to individual source
elements or strings does not require
ramp-up but does require pre-clearance.
(i) Closure Areas
(i) No use of the acoustic source may
occur within 30 km of the coast.
(ii) From November 1 through April
30, no use of the acoustic source may
occur within an area bounded by the
greater of three distinct components at
any location: (1) A 47-km wide coastal
strip throughout the entire Mid- and
South Atlantic OCS planning areas; (2)
Unit 2 of designated critical habitat for
the North Atlantic right whale, buffered
by 10 km; and (3) the designated
southeastern seasonal management area
(SMA) for the North Atlantic right
whale, buffered by 10 km. North
Atlantic right whale dynamic
management areas (DMA; buffered by 10
km) are also closed to use of the
acoustic source when in effect. It is the
responsibility of the survey operators to
monitor appropriate media and to be
aware of designated DMAs.
(iii) No use of the acoustic source may
occur within the areas designated by
coordinates in Table 3 during applicable
time periods. Area #1 is in effect from
June 1 through August 31. Areas #2–4
are in effect year-round. Area #5 is in
effect from July 1 through September 30.
(j) Vessel Strike Avoidance
(i) Vessel operators and crews must
maintain a vigilant watch for all marine
mammals and slow down or stop their
vessel or alter course, as appropriate
and regardless of vessel size, to avoid
striking any marine mammal. 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 and broadly to identify a
marine mammal as a right whale, other
whale, or other marine mammal (i.e.,
non-whale cetacean or pinniped). In this
context, ‘‘other whales’’ includes sperm
whales and all baleen whales other than
right whales.
(ii) All vessels, regardless of size,
must observe the 10 kn speed restriction
in DMAs, the Mid-Atlantic SMA (from
November 1 through April 30), and
critical habitat and the Southeast SMA
(from November 15 through April 15).
(iii) Vessel speeds must also be
reduced to 10 kn or less when mother/
calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages of
cetaceans are observed near a vessel.
(iv) All vessels must maintain a
minimum separation distance of 500 m
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
from right whales. If a whale is observed
but cannot be confirmed as a species
other than a right whale, the vessel
operator must assume that it is a right
whale and take appropriate action. The
following avoidance measures must be
taken if a right whale is within 500 m
of any vessel:
(A) While underway, the vessel
operator must steer a course away from
the whale at 10 kn or less until the
minimum separation distance has been
established.
(B) If a whale is spotted in the path
of a vessel or within 100 m of a vessel
underway, the operator shall reduce
speed and shift engines to neutral. The
operator shall re-engage engines only
after the whale has moved out of the
path of the vessel and is more than 100
m away. If the whale is still within 500
m of the vessel, the vessel must select
a course away from the whale’s course
at a speed of 10 kn or less. This
procedure must also be followed if a
whale is spotted while a vessel is
stationary. Whenever possible, a vessel
should remain parallel to the whale’s
course while maintaining the 500-m
distance as it travels, avoiding abrupt
changes in direction until the whale is
no longer in the area.
(v) All vessels must maintain a
minimum separation distance of 100 m
from other whales. The following
avoidance measures must be taken if a
whale other than a right whale is within
100 m of any vessel:
(A) The vessel underway 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 a 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.
(vi) All vessels must maintain a
minimum separation distance of 50 m
from all other marine mammals, with an
exception made for those animals that
approach the vessel. If an animal is
encountered during transit, a vessel
shall attempt to remain parallel to the
animal’s course, avoiding excessive
speed or abrupt changes in course.
(k) All vessels associated with survey
activity (e.g., source vessels, chase
vessels, supply vessels) must have a
functioning Automatic Identification
System (AIS) onboard and operating at
all times, regardless of whether AIS
would otherwise be required. Vessel
names and call signs must be provided
to NMFS, and applicants must notify
NMFS when survey vessels are
operating.
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
26315
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 × 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
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 × 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 successfully complete
relevant training, including completion
of all required coursework and passing
(80 percent or greater) a written and/or
oral examination developed for the
training program.
(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
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
26316
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
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. We require that, at a
minimum, the following information be
reported:
(i) Vessel names (source vessel and
other vessels associated with survey)
and call signs
(ii) PSO names and affiliations
(iii) Dates of departures and returns to
port with port name
(iv) Dates and times (Greenwich Mean
Time) of survey effort and times
corresponding with PSO effort
(v) Vessel location (latitude/
longitude) when survey effort begins
and ends; vessel location at beginning
and end of visual PSO duty shifts
(vi) Vessel heading and speed at
beginning and end of visual PSO duty
shifts and upon any line change
(vii) 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
(viii) 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)
(ix) 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.)
(x) 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
(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
(xi) 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) Spectrum shall submit monthly
interim reports detailing the amount
and location of line-kms surveyed, all
marine mammal observations with
closest approach distance, and corrected
numbers of marine mammals ‘‘taken,’’
using correction factors given in Table
19.
(b) Spectrum shall submit a draft
comprehensive report on all activities
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
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 as an ESRI
shapefile with all necessary files and
appropriate metadata. In addition to the
report, all raw observational data shall
be made available to NMFS. The report
must summarize the information
submitted in interim monthly reports as
well as additional data collected as
required under condition 5(d) of this
IHA. The draft report must be
accompanied by a certification from the
lead PSO as to the accuracy of the
report, and the lead PSO may submit
directly 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 on the draft
report.
(c) 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
prohibited by this IHA (if issued), such
as serious injury or mortality, Spectrum
shall immediately cease the specified
activities and immediately report the
incident to NMFS. The report must
include the following information:
(A) Time, date, and location (latitude/
longitude) of the incident;
(B) Name and type of vessel involved;
(C) Vessel’s speed during and leading
up to the incident;
(D) Description of the incident;
(E) Status of all sound source use in
the 24 hours preceding the incident;
(F) Water depth;
(G) Environmental conditions (e.g.,
wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea
state, cloud cover, and visibility);
(H) Description of all marine mammal
observations in the 24 hours preceding
the incident;
(I) Species identification or
description of the animal(s) involved;
(J) Fate of the animal(s); and
(K) Photographs or video footage of
the animal(s).
Activities shall not resume until
NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take.
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
NMFS will work with Spectrum to
determine what measures are necessary
to minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA
compliance. Spectrum may not resume
their activities until notified by NMFS.
(ii) In the event that Spectrum
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),
Spectrum shall immediately report the
incident to NMFS. The report must
include the same information identified
in condition 6(c)(1) of this IHA.
Activities may continue while NMFS
reviews the circumstances of the
incident. NMFS will work with
Spectrum to determine whether
additional mitigation measures or
modifications to the activities are
appropriate.
(iii) In the event that Spectrum
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), Spectrum shall
report the incident to NMFS within 24
hours of the discovery. Spectrum shall
provide photographs or video footage or
other documentation of the stranded
animal 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. TGS
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 TGS’s IHA application and using an
array with characteristics specified in
the application, in the Atlantic Ocean
within BOEM’s Mid- and South Atlantic
OCS planning areas.
3. General Conditions
(a) A copy of this IHA must be in the
possession of TGS, the vessel operator
and other relevant personnel, the lead
protected species observer (PSO), and
any other relevant designees of TGS
operating under the authority of this
IHA.
(b) The species authorized for taking
are listed in Table 11. The taking, by
Level A and Level B harassment only,
is limited to the species and numbers
listed in Table 11.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
(c) The taking by serious injury or
death of any of the species listed in
Table 11 or any taking of any other
species of marine mammal is prohibited
and may result in the modification,
suspension, or revocation of this IHA.
Any taking exceeding the authorized
amounts listed in Table 11 is prohibited
and may result in the modification,
suspension, or revocation of this IHA.
(d) TGS 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.
TGS shall instruct relevant vessel
personnel with regard to the authority of
the protected species monitoring team,
and shall ensure that relevant vessel
personnel and protected species
monitoring team participate in a joint
onboard briefing led by the vessel
operator and lead PSO to ensure that
responsibilities, communication
procedures, marine mammal monitoring
protocol, operational procedures, and
IHA requirements are clearly
understood. This briefing must be
repeated when relevant new personnel
join the survey operations.
(e) During use of the acoustic source,
if the source vessel encounters any
marine mammal species that are not
listed in Table 11, then the acoustic
source must be shut down to avoid
unauthorized take.
4. Mitigation Requirements
The holder of this Authorization is
required to implement the following
mitigation measures:
(a) TGS must use independent,
dedicated, trained PSOs, meaning that
the PSOs must be employed by a thirdparty observer provider, may 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
(including brief alerts regarding
maritime hazards), and must have
successfully completed an approved
PSO training course. NMFS must review
and approve PSO resumes accompanied
by a relevant training course
information packet that includes the
name and qualifications (i.e.,
experience, training completed, or
educational background) of the
instructor(s), the course outline or
syllabus, and course reference material
as well as a document stating successful
completion of the course.
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
26317
(b) At least two PSOs must have a
minimum of 90 days at-sea experience
working as PSOs during a deep
penetration seismic survey, with no
more than 18 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), a minimum of 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) and 30 minutes prior
to and during nighttime ramp-ups of the
airgun array.
(ii) Visual monitoring must begin not
less than 30 minutes prior to ramp-up
and must continue until one hour after
use of the acoustic source ceases or until
30 minutes past sunset.
(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 acoustic PSOs,
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 two consecutive hours
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) Any observations of marine
mammals by crew members aboard any
vessel associated with the survey,
including chase vessels, shall be relayed
to the source vessel and to the PSO
team.
(vii) During good conditions (e.g.,
daylight hours; Beaufort sea state (BSS)
3 or less), visual PSOs shall conduct
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
26318
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
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
(i) The source vessel 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.
(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) Acoustic PSOs may be on watch
for a maximum of four consecutive
hours followed by a break of at least two
hours between watches and may
conduct a maximum of 12 hours
observation per 24-hour period.
(iv) Survey activity may continue for
brief periods of time when 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 BSS 4;
(B) No marine mammals (excluding
small delphinoids) 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) Buffer Zone and Exclusion Zone—
The PSOs shall establish and monitor a
500-m exclusion zone and a 1,000-m
buffer zone. These 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 within the buffer zone
(but outside the exclusion zone) shall be
communicated to the operator to
prepare for the potential shutdown of
the acoustic source. PSOs must monitor
the buffer zone for a minimum of 30
minutes prior to ramp-up (i.e., preclearance).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
(f) 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.
Ramp-up may not be initiated if any
marine mammal is within the
designated buffer zone. If a marine
mammal is observed within the buffer
zone during the pre-clearance 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 30 minutes for all other
species). PSOs would monitor the buffer
zone during ramp-up, and ramp-up
must cease and the source shut down
upon observation of marine mammals
within or approaching the buffer zone.
Ramp-up may occur at times of poor
visibility if appropriate acoustic
monitoring has occurred with no
detections in the 30 minutes prior to
beginning ramp-up. Acoustic source
activation may only occur at times of
poor visibility where operational
planning cannot reasonably avoid such
circumstances. The operator must notify
a designated PSO of the planned start of
ramp-up as agreed-upon with the lead
PSO; the notification time should not be
less than 60 minutes prior to the
planned ramp-up. 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.
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. Total duration should be
approximately 20 minutes. The operator
must provide information to the PSO
documenting that appropriate
procedures were followed. Ramp-ups
shall be scheduled so as to minimize the
time spent with source activated prior to
reaching the designated run-in.
(g) Shutdown Requirements
(i) Any PSO on duty has the authority
to delay the start of survey operations or
to call for shutdown of the acoustic
source (visual PSOs on duty should be
in agreement on the need for delay or
shutdown before requiring such action).
When shutdown is called for by a PSO,
the acoustic source must be
immediately deactivated and any
dispute resolved only following
deactivation. The operator must
establish and maintain clear lines of
communication directly between PSOs
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
on duty and crew controlling the
acoustic source to ensure that shutdown
commands are conveyed swiftly while
allowing PSOs to maintain watch. 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.
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. 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 acoustic source
must be shut down as a precaution.
(ii) Upon completion of ramp-up, if a
marine mammal appears within, enters,
or appears on a course to enter the
exclusion zone, the acoustic source
must be shut down (i.e., power to the
acoustic source must be immediately
turned off). If a marine mammal is
detected acoustically, the acoustic
source must be shut down, unless the
acoustic PSO is confident that the
animal detected is outside the exclusion
zone or that the detected species is not
subject to the shutdown requirement.
(A) This shutdown requirement is
waived for dolphins of the following
genera: Steno, Tursiops, Stenella,
Delphinus, Lagenodelphis, and
Lagenorhynchus. 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 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,
shutdown must be implemented.
(iii) Shutdown of the acoustic source
is required upon observation of a right
whale or fin whale at any distance.
(iv) Shutdown of the acoustic source
is required upon observation of a whale
(i.e., sperm whale or any baleen whale)
with calf at any distance, with ‘‘calf’’
defined as an animal less than twothirds the body size of an adult observed
to be in close association with an adult.
(v) Shutdown of the acoustic source is
required upon observation of a diving
sperm whale at any distance centered
on the forward track of the source
vessel.
(vi) Shutdown of the acoustic source
is required upon observation (visual or
acoustic) of a beaked whale or Kogia
spp. at any distance.
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
(vii) Shutdown of the acoustic source
is required upon observation of an
aggregation (i.e., six or more animals) of
marine mammals of any species that
does not appear to be traveling.
(viii) Upon implementation of
shutdown, the source may be
reactivated after the animal(s) has been
observed exiting the exclusion zone or
following a 30-minute clearance period
with no further observation of the
animal(s). Where there is no relevant
zone (e.g., shutdown due to observation
of a right whale), a 30-minute clearance
period must be observed following the
last observation of the animal(s).
(ix) If the acoustic source is shut
down for reasons other than mitigation
(e.g., mechanical difficulty) for brief
periods (i.e., 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 exclusion zone and
no acoustic detections have occurred.
For any longer shutdown, pre-clearance
watch and ramp-up are required. For
any shutdown at night or in periods of
poor visibility (e.g., BSS 4 or greater),
ramp-up is required but if the shutdown
period was brief and constant
observation maintained, pre-clearance
watch is not required.
(h) Miscellaneous Protocols
(i) The acoustic source 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.
(i) Closure Areas
(i) No use of the acoustic source may
occur within 30 km of the coast.
(ii) From November 1 through April
30, no use of the acoustic source may
occur within an area bounded by the
greater of three distinct components at
any location: (1) A 47-km wide coastal
strip throughout the entire Mid- and
South Atlantic OCS planning areas; (2)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
Unit 2 of designated critical habitat for
the North Atlantic right whale, buffered
by 10 km; and (3) the designated
southeastern seasonal management area
(SMA) for the North Atlantic right
whale, buffered by 10 km. North
Atlantic right whale dynamic
management areas (DMA; buffered by 10
km) are also closed to use of the
acoustic source when in effect. It is the
responsibility of the survey operators to
monitor appropriate media and to be
aware of designated DMAs.
(iii) No use of the acoustic source may
occur within the areas designated by
coordinates in Table 3 during applicable
time periods. Area #1 is in effect from
June 1 through August 31. Areas #2–4
are in effect year-round. Area #5 is in
effect from July 1 through September 30.
(j) Vessel Strike Avoidance
(i) Vessel operators and crews must
maintain a vigilant watch for all marine
mammals and slow down or stop their
vessel or alter course, as appropriate
and regardless of vessel size, to avoid
striking any marine mammal. 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 and broadly to identify a
marine mammal as a right whale, other
whale, or other marine mammal (i.e.,
non-whale cetacean or pinniped). In this
context, ‘‘other whales’’ includes sperm
whales and all baleen whales other than
right whales.
(ii) All vessels, regardless of size,
must observe the 10 kn speed restriction
in DMAs, the Mid-Atlantic SMA (from
November 1 through April 30), and
critical habitat and the Southeast SMA
(from November 15 through April 15).
(iii) Vessel speeds must also be
reduced to 10 kn or less when mother/
calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages of
cetaceans are observed near a vessel.
(iv) All vessels must maintain a
minimum separation distance of 500 m
from right whales. If a whale is observed
but cannot be confirmed as a species
other than a right whale, the vessel
operator must assume that it is a right
whale and take appropriate action. The
following avoidance measures must be
taken if a right whale is within 500 m
of any vessel:
(A) While underway, the vessel
operator must steer a course away from
the whale at 10 kn or less until the
minimum separation distance has been
established.
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
26319
(B) If a whale is spotted in the path
of a vessel or within 100 m of a vessel
underway, the operator shall reduce
speed and shift engines to neutral. The
operator shall re-engage engines only
after the whale has moved out of the
path of the vessel and is more than 100
m away. If the whale is still within 500
m of the vessel, the vessel must select
a course away from the whale’s course
at a speed of 10 kn or less. This
procedure must also be followed if a
whale is spotted while a vessel is
stationary. Whenever possible, a vessel
should remain parallel to the whale’s
course while maintaining the 500-m
distance as it travels, avoiding abrupt
changes in direction until the whale is
no longer in the area.
(v) All vessels must maintain a
minimum separation distance of 100 m
from other whales. The following
avoidance measures must be taken if a
whale other than a right whale is within
100 m of any vessel:
(A) The vessel underway 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 a 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.
(vi) All vessels must maintain a
minimum separation distance of 50 m
from all other marine mammals, with an
exception made for those animals that
approach the vessel. If an animal is
encountered during transit, a vessel
shall attempt to remain parallel to the
animal’s course, avoiding excessive
speed or abrupt changes in course.
(k) All vessels associated with survey
activity (e.g., source vessels, chase
vessels, supply vessels) must have a
functioning Automatic Identification
System (AIS) onboard and operating at
all times, regardless of whether AIS
would otherwise be required. Vessel
names and call signs must be provided
to NMFS, and applicants must notify
NMFS when survey vessels are
operating.
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
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
26320
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
the deck at the most appropriate vantage
point that provides for optimal sea
surface observation, PSO safety, and
safe operation of the vessel. The
operator 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 successfully complete
relevant training, including completion
of all required coursework and passing
(80 percent or greater) a written and/or
oral examination developed for the
training program.
(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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
submit a description of the
circumstances. We require that, at a
minimum, the following information be
reported:
(i) Vessel names (source vessel and
other vessels associated with survey)
and call signs
(ii) PSO names and affiliations
(iii) Dates of departures and returns to
port with port name
(iv) Dates and times (Greenwich Mean
Time) of survey effort and times
corresponding with PSO effort
(v) Vessel location (latitude/
longitude) when survey effort begins
and ends; vessel location at beginning
and end of visual PSO duty shifts
(vi) Vessel heading and speed at
beginning and end of visual PSO duty
shifts and upon any line change
(vii) 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
(viii) 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)
(ix) 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.)
(x) 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)
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
(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
(xi) 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) TGS shall submit monthly interim
reports detailing the amount and
location of line-kms surveyed, all
marine mammal observations with
closest approach distance, and corrected
numbers of marine mammals ‘‘taken,’’
using correction factors given in Table
19.
(b) TGS 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
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
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 as an ESRI
shapefile with all necessary files and
appropriate metadata. In addition to the
report, all raw observational data shall
be made available to NMFS. The report
must summarize the information
submitted in interim monthly reports as
well as additional data collected as
required under condition 5(d) of this
IHA. The draft report must be
accompanied by a certification from the
lead PSO as to the accuracy of the
report, and the lead PSO may submit
directly 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 on the draft
report.
(c) 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
prohibited by this IHA (if issued), such
as serious injury or mortality, TGS shall
immediately cease the specified
activities and immediately report the
incident to NMFS. The report must
include the following information:
(A) Time, date, and location (latitude/
longitude) of the incident;
(B) Name and type of vessel involved;
(C) Vessel’s speed during and leading
up to the incident;
(D) Description of the incident;
(E) Status of all sound source use in
the 24 hours preceding the incident;
(F) Water depth;
(G) Environmental conditions (e.g.,
wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea
state, cloud cover, and visibility);
(H) Description of all marine mammal
observations in the 24 hours preceding
the incident;
(I) Species identification or
description of the animal(s) involved;
(J) Fate of the animal(s); and
(K) 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 TGS to determine
what measures are necessary to
minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA
compliance. TGS may not resume their
activities until notified by NMFS.
(ii) In the event that TGS discovers an
injured or dead marine mammal, and
the lead observer determines that the
cause of the injury or death is unknown
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
and the death is relatively recent (e.g.,
in less than a moderate state of
decomposition), TGS shall immediately
report the incident to NMFS. The report
must include the same information
identified in condition 6(c)(1) of this
IHA. Activities may continue while
NMFS reviews the circumstances of the
incident. NMFS will work with TGS to
determine whether additional
mitigation measures or modifications to
the activities are appropriate.
(iii) In the event that TGS 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),
TGS shall report the incident to NMFS
within 24 hours of the discovery. TGS
shall provide photographs or video
footage or other documentation of the
stranded animal 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.
ION
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 ION’s IHA application and using an
array with characteristics specified in
the application, in the Atlantic Ocean
within BOEM’s Mid- and South Atlantic
OCS planning areas.
3. General Conditions
(a) A copy of this IHA must be in the
possession of ION, the vessel operator
and other relevant personnel, the lead
protected species observer (PSO), and
any other relevant designees of ION
operating under the authority of this
IHA.
(b) The species authorized for taking
are listed in Table 11. The taking, by
Level A and Level B harassment only,
is limited to the species and numbers
listed in Table 11.
(c) The taking by serious injury or
death of any of the species listed in
Table 11 or any taking of any other
species of marine mammal is prohibited
and may result in the modification,
suspension, or revocation of this IHA.
Any taking exceeding the authorized
amounts listed in Table 11 is prohibited
and may result in the modification,
suspension, or revocation of this IHA.
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
26321
(d) ION 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.
ION shall instruct relevant vessel
personnel with regard to the authority of
the protected species monitoring team,
and shall ensure that relevant vessel
personnel and protected species
monitoring team participate in a joint
onboard briefing led by the vessel
operator and lead PSO to ensure that
responsibilities, communication
procedures, marine mammal monitoring
protocol, operational procedures, and
IHA requirements are clearly
understood. This briefing must be
repeated when relevant new personnel
join the survey operations.
(e) During use of the acoustic source,
if the source vessel encounters any
marine mammal species that are not
listed in Table 11, then the acoustic
source must be shut down to avoid
unauthorized take.
4. Mitigation Requirements
The holder of this Authorization is
required to implement the following
mitigation measures:
(a) ION must use independent,
dedicated, trained PSOs, meaning that
the PSOs must be employed by a thirdparty observer provider, may 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
(including brief alerts regarding
maritime hazards), and must have
successfully completed an approved
PSO training course. NMFS must review
and approve PSO resumes accompanied
by a relevant training course
information packet that includes the
name and qualifications (i.e.,
experience, training completed, or
educational background) of the
instructor(s), the course outline or
syllabus, and course reference material
as well as a document stating successful
completion of the course.
(b) At least two PSOs must have a
minimum of 90 days at-sea experience
working as PSOs during a deep
penetration seismic survey, with no
more than 18 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
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
26322
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
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), a minimum of 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) and 30 minutes prior
to and during nighttime ramp-ups of the
airgun array.
(ii) Visual monitoring must begin not
less than 30 minutes prior to ramp-up
and must continue until one hour after
use of the acoustic source ceases or until
30 minutes past sunset.
(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 acoustic PSOs,
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 two consecutive hours
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) Any observations of marine
mammals by crew members aboard any
vessel associated with the survey,
including chase vessels, shall be relayed
to the source vessel and to the PSO
team.
(vii) During good conditions (e.g.,
daylight hours; Beaufort sea state (BSS)
3 or less), visual PSOs shall conduct
observations when the acoustic source
is not operating for comparison of
sighting rates and behavior with and
without use of the acoustic source and
between acquisition periods, to the
maximum extent practicable.
(d) Acoustic Observation
(i) The source vessel must use a towed
passive acoustic monitoring (PAM)
system, which must be monitored
beginning at least 30 minutes prior to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
ramp-up and at all times during use of
the acoustic source.
(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) Acoustic PSOs may be on watch
for a maximum of four consecutive
hours followed by a break of at least two
hours between watches and may
conduct a maximum of 12 hours
observation per 24-hour period.
(iv) Survey activity may continue for
brief periods of time when 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 BSS 4;
(B) No marine mammals (excluding
small delphinoids) 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) Buffer Zone and Exclusion Zone—
The PSOs shall establish and monitor a
500-m exclusion zone and a 1,000-m
buffer zone. These 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 within the buffer zone
(but outside the exclusion zone) shall be
communicated to the operator to
prepare for the potential shutdown of
the acoustic source. PSOs must monitor
the buffer zone for a minimum of 30
minutes prior to ramp-up (i.e., preclearance).
(f) 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.
Ramp-up may not be initiated if any
marine mammal is within the
designated buffer zone. If a marine
mammal is observed within the buffer
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
zone during the pre-clearance 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 30 minutes for all other
species). PSOs would monitor the buffer
zone during ramp-up, and ramp-up
must cease and the source shut down
upon observation of marine mammals
within or approaching the buffer zone.
Ramp-up may occur at times of poor
visibility if appropriate acoustic
monitoring has occurred with no
detections in the 30 minutes prior to
beginning ramp-up. Acoustic source
activation may only occur at times of
poor visibility where operational
planning cannot reasonably avoid such
circumstances. The operator must notify
a designated PSO of the planned start of
ramp-up as agreed-upon with the lead
PSO; the notification time should not be
less than 60 minutes prior to the
planned ramp-up. 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.
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. Total duration should be
approximately 20 minutes. The operator
must provide information to the PSO
documenting that appropriate
procedures were followed. Ramp-ups
shall be scheduled so as to minimize the
time spent with source activated prior to
reaching the designated run-in.
(g) Shutdown Requirements
(i) Any PSO on duty has the authority
to delay the start of survey operations or
to call for shutdown of the acoustic
source (visual PSOs on duty should be
in agreement on the need for delay or
shutdown before requiring such action).
When shutdown is called for by a PSO,
the acoustic source must be
immediately deactivated and any
dispute resolved only following
deactivation. The operator must
establish and maintain clear lines of
communication directly between PSOs
on duty and crew controlling the
acoustic source to ensure that shutdown
commands are conveyed swiftly while
allowing PSOs to maintain watch. 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
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
initiation of dialogue as necessary.
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. 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 acoustic source
must be shut down as a precaution.
(ii) Upon completion of ramp-up, if a
marine mammal appears within, enters,
or appears on a course to enter the
exclusion zone, the acoustic source
must be shut down (i.e., power to the
acoustic source must be immediately
turned off). If a marine mammal is
detected acoustically, the acoustic
source must be shut down, unless the
acoustic PSO is confident that the
animal detected is outside the exclusion
zone or that the detected species is not
subject to the shutdown requirement.
(A) This shutdown requirement is
waived for dolphins of the following
genera: Steno, Tursiops, Stenella,
Delphinus, Lagenodelphis, and
Lagenorhynchus. 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 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,
shutdown must be implemented.
(iii) Shutdown of the acoustic source
is required upon observation of a right
whale at any distance.
(iv) Shutdown of the acoustic source
is required upon observation of a whale
(i.e., sperm whale or any baleen whale)
with calf at any distance, with ‘‘calf’’
defined as an animal less than twothirds the body size of an adult observed
to be in close association with an adult.
(v) Shutdown of the acoustic source is
required upon observation of a diving
sperm whale at any distance centered
on the forward track of the source
vessel.
(vi) Shutdown of the acoustic source
is required upon observation (visual or
acoustic) of a beaked whale or Kogia
spp. at any distance.
(vii) Shutdown of the acoustic source
is required upon observation of an
aggregation (i.e., six or more animals) of
marine mammals of any species that
does not appear to be traveling.
(viii) Upon implementation of
shutdown, the source may be
reactivated after the animal(s) has been
observed exiting the exclusion zone or
following a 30-minute clearance period
with no further observation of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
animal(s). Where there is no relevant
zone (e.g., shutdown due to observation
of a right whale), a 30-minute clearance
period must be observed following the
last observation of the animal(s).
(ix) If the acoustic source is shut
down for reasons other than mitigation
(e.g., mechanical difficulty) for brief
periods (i.e., 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 exclusion zone and
no acoustic detections have occurred.
For any longer shutdown, pre-clearance
watch and ramp-up are required. For
any shutdown at night or in periods of
poor visibility (e.g., BSS 4 or greater),
ramp-up is required but if the shutdown
period was brief and constant
observation maintained, pre-clearance
watch is not required.
(h) Miscellaneous Protocols
(i) The acoustic source 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.
(i) Closure Areas
(i) No use of the acoustic source may
occur within 30 km of the coast.
(ii) From November 1 through April
30, no use of the acoustic source may
occur within an area bounded by the
greater of three distinct components at
any location: (1) A 47-km wide coastal
strip throughout the entire Mid- and
South Atlantic OCS planning areas; (2)
Unit 2 of designated critical habitat for
the North Atlantic right whale, buffered
by 10 km; and (3) the designated
southeastern seasonal management area
(SMA) for the North Atlantic right
whale, buffered by 10 km. North
Atlantic right whale dynamic
management areas (DMA; buffered by 10
km) are also closed to use of the
acoustic source when in effect. It is the
responsibility of the survey operators to
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
26323
monitor appropriate media and to be
aware of designated DMAs.
(iii) No use of the acoustic source may
occur within Areas #2–5, as designated
by coordinates in Table 3 during
applicable time periods. Areas #2–4 are
in effect year-round. Area #5 is in effect
from July 1 through September 30.
(j) Vessel Strike Avoidance
(i) Vessel operators and crews must
maintain a vigilant watch for all marine
mammals and slow down or stop their
vessel or alter course, as appropriate
and regardless of vessel size, to avoid
striking any marine mammal. 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 and broadly to identify a
marine mammal as a right whale, other
whale, or other marine mammal (i.e.,
non-whale cetacean or pinniped). In this
context, ‘‘other whales’’ includes sperm
whales and all baleen whales other than
right whales.
(ii) All vessels, regardless of size,
must observe the 10 kn speed restriction
in DMAs, the Mid-Atlantic SMA (from
November 1 through April 30), and
critical habitat and the Southeast SMA
(from November 15 through April 15).
(iii) Vessel speeds must also be
reduced to 10 kn or less when mother/
calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages of
cetaceans are observed near a vessel.
(iv) All vessels must maintain a
minimum separation distance of 500 m
from right whales. If a whale is observed
but cannot be confirmed as a species
other than a right whale, the vessel
operator must assume that it is a right
whale and take appropriate action. The
following avoidance measures must be
taken if a right whale is within 500 m
of any vessel:
(A) While underway, the vessel
operator must steer a course away from
the whale at 10 kn or less until the
minimum separation distance has been
established.
(B) If a whale is spotted in the path
of a vessel or within 100 m of a vessel
underway, the operator shall reduce
speed and shift engines to neutral. The
operator shall re-engage engines only
after the whale has moved out of the
path of the vessel and is more than 100
m away. If the whale is still within 500
m of the vessel, the vessel must select
a course away from the whale’s course
at a speed of 10 kn or less. This
procedure must also be followed if a
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
26324
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
whale is spotted while a vessel is
stationary. Whenever possible, a vessel
should remain parallel to the whale’s
course while maintaining the 500-m
distance as it travels, avoiding abrupt
changes in direction until the whale is
no longer in the area.
(v) All vessels must maintain a
minimum separation distance of 100 m
from other whales. The following
avoidance measures must be taken if a
whale other than a right whale is within
100 m of any vessel:
(A) The vessel underway 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 a 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.
(vi) All vessels must maintain a
minimum separation distance of 50 m
from all other marine mammals, with an
exception made for those animals that
approach the vessel. If an animal is
encountered during transit, a vessel
shall attempt to remain parallel to the
animal’s course, avoiding excessive
speed or abrupt changes in course.
(k) All vessels associated with survey
activity (e.g., source vessels, chase
vessels, supply vessels) must have a
functioning Automatic Identification
System (AIS) onboard and operating at
all times, regardless of whether AIS
would otherwise be required. Vessel
names and call signs must be provided
to NMFS, and applicants must notify
NMFS when survey vessels are
operating.
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
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,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
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 successfully complete
relevant training, including completion
of all required coursework and passing
(80 percent or greater) a written and/or
oral examination developed for the
training program.
(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. We require that, at a
minimum, the following information be
reported:
(i) Vessel names (source vessel and
other vessels associated with survey)
and call signs
(ii) PSO names and affiliations
(iii) Dates of departures and returns to
port with port name
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
(iv) Dates and times (Greenwich Mean
Time) of survey effort and times
corresponding with PSO effort
(v) Vessel location (latitude/
longitude) when survey effort begins
and ends; vessel location at beginning
and end of visual PSO duty shifts
(vi) Vessel heading and speed at
beginning and end of visual PSO duty
shifts and upon any line change
(vii) 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
(viii) 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)
(ix) 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.)
(x) 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
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
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
(xi) 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) ION 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 as an ESRI
shapefile with all necessary files and
appropriate metadata. In addition to the
report, all raw observational data shall
be made available to NMFS. The report
must summarize data collected as
required under condition 5(d) of this
IHA and must provide corrected
numbers of marine mammals ‘‘taken,’’
using correction factors given in Table
19. 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
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 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
prohibited by this IHA (if issued), such
as serious injury or mortality, ION shall
immediately cease the specified
activities and immediately report the
incident to NMFS. The report must
include the following information:
(A) Time, date, and location (latitude/
longitude) of the incident;
(B) Name and type of vessel involved;
(C) Vessel’s speed during and leading
up to the incident;
(D) Description of the incident;
(E) Status of all sound source use in
the 24 hours preceding the incident;
(F) Water depth;
(G) Environmental conditions (e.g.,
wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea
state, cloud cover, and visibility);
(H) Description of all marine mammal
observations in the 24 hours preceding
the incident;
(I) Species identification or
description of the animal(s) involved;
(J) Fate of the animal(s); and
(K) 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 ION to determine
what measures are necessary to
minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA
compliance. ION may not resume their
activities until notified by NMFS.
(ii) In the event that ION 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), ION shall immediately
report the incident to NMFS. The report
must include the same information
identified in condition 6(b)(1) of this
IHA. Activities may continue while
NMFS reviews the circumstances of the
incident. NMFS will work with ION to
determine whether additional
mitigation measures or modifications to
the activities are appropriate.
(iii) In the event that ION 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
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
26325
with moderate to advanced
decomposition, or scavenger damage),
ION shall report the incident to NMFS
within 24 hours of the discovery. ION
shall provide photographs or video
footage or other documentation of the
stranded animal 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.
Western
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 Western’s IHA application and using
an array with characteristics specified in
the application, in the Atlantic Ocean
within BOEM’s Mid- and South Atlantic
OCS planning areas.
3. General Conditions
(a) A copy of this IHA must be in the
possession of Western, the vessel
operator and other relevant personnel,
the lead protected species observer
(PSO), and any other relevant designees
of Western operating under the
authority of this IHA.
(b) The species authorized for taking
are listed in Table 11. The taking, by
Level A and Level B harassment only,
is limited to the species and numbers
listed in Table 11.
(c) The taking by serious injury or
death of any of the species listed in
Table 11 or any taking of any other
species of marine mammal is prohibited
and may result in the modification,
suspension, or revocation of this IHA.
Any taking exceeding the authorized
amounts listed in Table 11 is prohibited
and may result in the modification,
suspension, or revocation of this IHA.
(d) Western 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.
Western shall instruct relevant vessel
personnel with regard to the authority of
the protected species monitoring team,
and shall ensure that relevant vessel
personnel and protected species
monitoring team participate in a joint
onboard briefing led by the vessel
operator and lead PSO to ensure that
responsibilities, communication
procedures, marine mammal monitoring
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
26326
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
protocol, operational procedures, and
IHA requirements are clearly
understood. This briefing must be
repeated when relevant new personnel
join the survey operations.
(e) During use of the acoustic source,
if the source vessel encounters any
marine mammal species that are not
listed in Table 11, then the acoustic
source must be shut down to avoid
unauthorized take.
4. Mitigation Requirements
The holder of this Authorization is
required to implement the following
mitigation measures:
(a) Western must use independent,
dedicated, trained PSOs, meaning that
the PSOs must be employed by a thirdparty observer provider, may 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
(including brief alerts regarding
maritime hazards), and must have
successfully completed an approved
PSO training course. NMFS must review
and approve PSO resumes accompanied
by a relevant training course
information packet that includes the
name and qualifications (i.e.,
experience, training completed, or
educational background) of the
instructor(s), the course outline or
syllabus, and course reference material
as well as a document stating successful
completion of the course.
(b) At least two PSOs must have a
minimum of 90 days at-sea experience
working as PSOs during a deep
penetration seismic survey, with no
more than 18 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), a minimum of two
PSOs must be on duty and conducting
visual observations at all times during
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
daylight hours (i.e., from 30 minutes
prior to sunrise through 30 minutes
following sunset) and 30 minutes prior
to and during nighttime ramp-ups of the
airgun array.
(ii) Visual monitoring must begin not
less than 30 minutes prior to ramp-up
and must continue until one hour after
use of the acoustic source ceases or until
30 minutes past sunset.
(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 acoustic PSOs,
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 two consecutive hours
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) Any observations of marine
mammals by crew members aboard any
vessel associated with the survey,
including chase vessels, shall be relayed
to the source vessel and to the PSO
team.
(vii) During good conditions (e.g.,
daylight hours; Beaufort sea state (BSS)
3 or less), visual PSOs shall conduct
observations when the acoustic source
is not operating for comparison of
sighting rates and behavior with and
without use of the acoustic source and
between acquisition periods, to the
maximum extent practicable.
(d) Acoustic Observation
(i) The source vessel 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.
(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) Acoustic PSOs may be on watch
for a maximum of four consecutive
hours followed by a break of at least two
hours between watches and may
conduct a maximum of 12 hours
observation per 24-hour period.
(iv) Survey activity may continue for
brief periods of time when the PAM
system malfunctions or is damaged.
Activity may continue for 30 minutes
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
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 BSS 4;
(B) No marine mammals (excluding
small delphinoids) 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) Buffer Zone and Exclusion Zone—
The PSOs shall establish and monitor a
500-m exclusion zone and a 1,000-m
buffer zone. These 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 within the buffer zone
(but outside the exclusion zone) shall be
communicated to the operator to
prepare for the potential shutdown of
the acoustic source. PSOs must monitor
the buffer zone for a minimum of 30
minutes prior to ramp-up (i.e., preclearance).
(f) 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.
Ramp-up may not be initiated if any
marine mammal is within the
designated buffer zone. If a marine
mammal is observed within the buffer
zone during the pre-clearance 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 30 minutes for all other
species). PSOs would monitor the buffer
zone during ramp-up, and ramp-up
must cease and the source shut down
upon observation of marine mammals
within or approaching the buffer zone.
Ramp-up may occur at times of poor
visibility if appropriate acoustic
monitoring has occurred with no
detections in the 30 minutes prior to
beginning ramp-up. Acoustic source
activation may only occur at times of
poor visibility where operational
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
planning cannot reasonably avoid such
circumstances. The operator must notify
a designated PSO of the planned start of
ramp-up as agreed-upon with the lead
PSO; the notification time should not be
less than 60 minutes prior to the
planned ramp-up. 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.
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. Total duration should be
approximately 20 minutes. The operator
must provide information to the PSO
documenting that appropriate
procedures were followed. Ramp-ups
shall be scheduled so as to minimize the
time spent with source activated prior to
reaching the designated run-in.
(g) Shutdown Requirements
(i) Any PSO on duty has the authority
to delay the start of survey operations or
to call for shutdown of the acoustic
source (visual PSOs on duty should be
in agreement on the need for delay or
shutdown before requiring such action).
When shutdown is called for by a PSO,
the acoustic source must be
immediately deactivated and any
dispute resolved only following
deactivation. The operator must
establish and maintain clear lines of
communication directly between PSOs
on duty and crew controlling the
acoustic source to ensure that shutdown
commands are conveyed swiftly while
allowing PSOs to maintain watch. 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.
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. 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 acoustic source
must be shut down as a precaution.
(ii) Upon completion of ramp-up, if a
marine mammal appears within, enters,
or appears on a course to enter the
exclusion zone, the acoustic source
must be shut down (i.e., power to the
acoustic source must be immediately
turned off). If a marine mammal is
detected acoustically, the acoustic
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
source must be shut down, unless the
acoustic PSO is confident that the
animal detected is outside the exclusion
zone or that the detected species is not
subject to the shutdown requirement.
(A) This shutdown requirement is
waived for dolphins of the following
genera: Steno, Tursiops, Stenella,
Delphinus, Lagenodelphis, and
Lagenorhynchus. 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 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,
shutdown must be implemented.
(iii) Shutdown of the acoustic source
is required upon observation of a right
whale at any distance.
(iv) Shutdown of the acoustic source
is required upon observation of a whale
(i.e., sperm whale or any baleen whale)
with calf at any distance, with ‘‘calf’’
defined as an animal less than twothirds the body size of an adult observed
to be in close association with an adult.
(v) Shutdown of the acoustic source is
required upon observation of a diving
sperm whale at any distance centered
on the forward track of the source
vessel.
(vi) Shutdown of the acoustic source
is required upon observation (visual or
acoustic) of a beaked whale or Kogia
spp. at any distance.
(vii) Shutdown of the acoustic source
is required upon observation of an
aggregation (i.e., six or more animals) of
marine mammals of any species that
does not appear to be traveling.
(viii) Upon implementation of
shutdown, the source may be
reactivated after the animal(s) has been
observed exiting the exclusion zone or
following a 30-minute clearance period
with no further observation of the
animal(s). Where there is no relevant
zone (e.g., shutdown due to observation
of a right whale), a 30-minute clearance
period must be observed following the
last observation of the animal(s).
(ix) If the acoustic source is shut
down for reasons other than mitigation
(e.g., mechanical difficulty) for brief
periods (i.e., 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 exclusion zone and
no acoustic detections have occurred.
For any longer shutdown, pre-clearance
watch and ramp-up are required. For
any shutdown at night or in periods of
poor visibility (e.g., BSS 4 or greater),
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
26327
ramp-up is required but if the shutdown
period was brief and constant
observation maintained, pre-clearance
watch is not required.
(h) Miscellaneous Protocols
(i) The acoustic source 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.
(i) Closure Areas
(i) No use of the acoustic source may
occur within 30 km of the coast.
(ii) From November 1 through April
30, no use of the acoustic source may
occur within an area bounded by the
greater of three distinct components at
any location: (1) A 47-km wide coastal
strip throughout the entire Mid- and
South Atlantic OCS planning areas; (2)
Unit 2 of designated critical habitat for
the North Atlantic right whale, buffered
by 10 km; and (3) the designated
southeastern seasonal management area
(SMA) for the North Atlantic right
whale, buffered by 10 km. North
Atlantic right whale dynamic
management areas (DMA; buffered by 10
km) are also closed to use of the
acoustic source when in effect. It is the
responsibility of the survey operators to
monitor appropriate media and to be
aware of designated DMAs.
(iii) No use of the acoustic source may
occur within the areas designated by
coordinates in Table 3 during applicable
time periods. Area #1 is in effect from
June 1 through August 31. Areas #2–4
are in effect year-round. Area #5 is in
effect from July 1 through September 30.
(j) Vessel Strike Avoidance
(i) Vessel operators and crews must
maintain a vigilant watch for all marine
mammals and slow down or stop their
vessel or alter course, as appropriate
and regardless of vessel size, to avoid
striking any marine mammal. A visual
observer aboard the vessel must monitor
a vessel strike avoidance zone around
the vessel according to the parameters
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
26328
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
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 and broadly to identify a
marine mammal as a right whale, other
whale, or other marine mammal (i.e.,
non-whale cetacean or pinniped). In this
context, ‘‘other whales’’ includes sperm
whales and all baleen whales other than
right whales.
(ii) All vessels, regardless of size,
must observe the 10 kn speed restriction
in DMAs, the Mid-Atlantic SMA (from
November 1 through April 30), and
critical habitat and the Southeast SMA
(from November 15 through April 15).
(iii) Vessel speeds must also be
reduced to 10 kn or less when mother/
calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages of
cetaceans are observed near a vessel.
(iv) All vessels must maintain a
minimum separation distance of 500 m
from right whales. If a whale is observed
but cannot be confirmed as a species
other than a right whale, the vessel
operator must assume that it is a right
whale and take appropriate action. The
following avoidance measures must be
taken if a right whale is within 500 m
of any vessel:
(A) While underway, the vessel
operator must steer a course away from
the whale at 10 kn or less until the
minimum separation distance has been
established.
(B) If a whale is spotted in the path
of a vessel or within 100 m of a vessel
underway, the operator shall reduce
speed and shift engines to neutral. The
operator shall re-engage engines only
after the whale has moved out of the
path of the vessel and is more than 100
m away. If the whale is still within 500
m of the vessel, the vessel must select
a course away from the whale’s course
at a speed of 10 kn or less. This
procedure must also be followed if a
whale is spotted while a vessel is
stationary. Whenever possible, a vessel
should remain parallel to the whale’s
course while maintaining the 500-m
distance as it travels, avoiding abrupt
changes in direction until the whale is
no longer in the area.
(v) All vessels must maintain a
minimum separation distance of 100 m
from other whales. The following
avoidance measures must be taken if a
whale other than a right whale is within
100 m of any vessel:
(A) The vessel underway 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
separation distance has been
established.
(B) If a 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.
(vi) All vessels must maintain a
minimum separation distance of 50 m
from all other marine mammals, with an
exception made for those animals that
approach the vessel. If an animal is
encountered during transit, a vessel
shall attempt to remain parallel to the
animal’s course, avoiding excessive
speed or abrupt changes in course.
(k) All vessels associated with survey
activity (e.g., source vessels, chase
vessels, supply vessels) must have a
functioning Automatic Identification
System (AIS) onboard and operating at
all times, regardless of whether AIS
would otherwise be required. Vessel
names and call signs must be provided
to NMFS, and applicants must notify
NMFS when survey vessels are
operating.
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
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 successfully complete
relevant training, including completion
of all required coursework and passing
(80 percent or greater) a written and/or
oral examination developed for the
training program.
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
(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. We require that, at a
minimum, the following information be
reported:
(i) Vessel names (source vessel and
other vessels associated with survey)
and call signs
(ii) PSO names and affiliations
(iii) Dates of departures and returns to
port with port name
(iv) Dates and times (Greenwich Mean
Time) of survey effort and times
corresponding with PSO effort
(v) Vessel location (latitude/
longitude) when survey effort begins
and ends; vessel location at beginning
and end of visual PSO duty shifts
(vi) Vessel heading and speed at
beginning and end of visual PSO duty
shifts and upon any line change
(vii) 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
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
(viii) 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)
(ix) 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.)
(x) 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
(xi) If a marine mammal is detected
while using the PAM system, the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
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) Western shall submit monthly
interim reports detailing the amount
and location of line-kms surveyed, all
marine mammal observations with
closest approach distance, and corrected
numbers of marine mammals ‘‘taken,’’
using correction factors given in Table
19.
(b) Western 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 as an ESRI
shapefile with all necessary files and
appropriate metadata. In addition to the
report, all raw observational data shall
be made available to NMFS. The report
must summarize the information
submitted in interim monthly reports as
well as additional data collected as
required under condition 5(d) of this
IHA. The draft report must be
accompanied by a certification from the
lead PSO as to the accuracy of the
report, and the lead PSO may submit
directly 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 on the draft
report.
(c) 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
prohibited by this IHA (if issued), such
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
26329
as serious injury or mortality, Western
shall immediately cease the specified
activities and immediately report the
incident to NMFS. The report must
include the following information:
(A) Time, date, and location (latitude/
longitude) of the incident;
(B) Name and type of vessel involved;
(C) Vessel’s speed during and leading
up to the incident;
(D) Description of the incident;
(E) Status of all sound source use in
the 24 hours preceding the incident;
(F) Water depth;
(G) Environmental conditions (e.g.,
wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea
state, cloud cover, and visibility);
(H) Description of all marine mammal
observations in the 24 hours preceding
the incident;
(I) Species identification or
description of the animal(s) involved;
(J) Fate of the animal(s); and
(K) 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 Western to
determine what measures are necessary
to minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA
compliance. Western may not resume
their activities until notified by NMFS.
(ii) In the event that Western
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),
Western shall immediately report the
incident to NMFS. The report must
include the same information identified
in condition 6(c)(1) of this IHA.
Activities may continue while NMFS
reviews the circumstances of the
incident. NMFS will work with Western
to determine whether additional
mitigation measures or modifications to
the activities are appropriate.
(iii) In the event that Western
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), Western shall report
the incident to NMFS within 24 hours
of the discovery. Western shall provide
photographs or video footage or other
documentation of the stranded animal
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
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
26330
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
NMFS determines the authorized taking
is having more than a negligible impact
on the species or stock of affected
marine mammals.
CGG
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 CGG’s IHA application and using an
array with characteristics specified in
the application, in the Atlantic Ocean
within BOEM’s Mid- and South Atlantic
OCS planning areas.
3. General Conditions
(a) A copy of this IHA must be in the
possession of CGG, the vessel operator
and other relevant personnel, the lead
protected species observer (PSO), and
any other relevant designees of CGG
operating under the authority of this
IHA.
(b) The species authorized for taking
are listed in Table 11. The taking, by
Level A and Level B harassment only,
is limited to the species and numbers
listed in Table 11.
(c) The taking by serious injury or
death of any of the species listed in
Table 11 or any taking of any other
species of marine mammal is prohibited
and may result in the modification,
suspension, or revocation of this IHA.
Any taking exceeding the authorized
amounts listed in Table 11 is prohibited
and may result in the modification,
suspension, or revocation of this IHA.
(d) CGG 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.
CGG shall instruct relevant vessel
personnel with regard to the authority of
the protected species monitoring team,
and shall ensure that relevant vessel
personnel and protected species
monitoring team participate in a joint
onboard briefing led by the vessel
operator and lead PSO to ensure that
responsibilities, communication
procedures, marine mammal monitoring
protocol, operational procedures, and
IHA requirements are clearly
understood. This briefing must be
repeated when relevant new personnel
join the survey operations.
(e) During use of the acoustic source,
if the source vessel encounters any
marine mammal species that are not
listed in Table 11, then the acoustic
source must be shut down to avoid
unauthorized take.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
4. Mitigation Requirements
The holder of this Authorization is
required to implement the following
mitigation measures:
(a) CGG must use independent,
dedicated, trained PSOs, meaning that
the PSOs must be employed by a thirdparty observer provider, may 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
(including brief alerts regarding
maritime hazards), and must have
successfully completed an approved
PSO training course. NMFS must review
and approve PSO resumes accompanied
by a relevant training course
information packet that includes the
name and qualifications (i.e.,
experience, training completed, or
educational background) of the
instructor(s), the course outline or
syllabus, and course reference material
as well as a document stating successful
completion of the course.
(b) At least two PSOs must have a
minimum of 90 days at-sea experience
working as PSOs during a deep
penetration 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), a minimum of 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) and 30 minutes prior
to and during nighttime ramp-ups of the
airgun array.
(ii) Visual monitoring must begin not
less than 30 minutes prior to ramp-up
and must continue until one hour after
use of the acoustic source ceases or until
30 minutes past sunset.
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
(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 acoustic PSOs,
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 two consecutive hours
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) Any observations of marine
mammals by crew members aboard any
vessel associated with the survey,
including chase vessels, shall be relayed
to the source vessel and to the PSO
team.
(vii) During good conditions (e.g.,
daylight hours; Beaufort sea state (BSS)
3 or less), visual PSOs shall conduct
observations when the acoustic source
is not operating for comparison of
sighting rates and behavior with and
without use of the acoustic source and
between acquisition periods, to the
maximum extent practicable.
(d) Acoustic Observation
(i) The source vessel 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.
(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) Acoustic PSOs may be on watch
for a maximum of four consecutive
hours followed by a break of at least two
hours between watches and may
conduct a maximum of 12 hours
observation per 24-hour period.
(iv) Survey activity may continue for
brief periods of time when 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 BSS 4;
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
(B) No marine mammals (excluding
small delphinoids) 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) Buffer Zone and Exclusion Zone—
The PSOs shall establish and monitor a
500-m exclusion zone and a 1,000-m
buffer zone. These 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 within the buffer zone
(but outside the exclusion zone) shall be
communicated to the operator to
prepare for the potential shutdown of
the acoustic source. PSOs must monitor
the buffer zone for a minimum of 30
minutes prior to ramp-up (i.e., preclearance).
(f) 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.
Ramp-up may not be initiated if any
marine mammal is within the
designated buffer zone. If a marine
mammal is observed within the buffer
zone during the pre-clearance 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 30 minutes for all other
species). PSOs would monitor the buffer
zone during ramp-up, and ramp-up
must cease and the source shut down
upon observation of marine mammals
within or approaching the buffer zone.
Ramp-up may occur at times of poor
visibility if appropriate acoustic
monitoring has occurred with no
detections in the 30 minutes prior to
beginning ramp-up. Acoustic source
activation may only occur at times of
poor visibility where operational
planning cannot reasonably avoid such
circumstances. The operator must notify
a designated PSO of the planned start of
ramp-up as agreed-upon with the lead
PSO; the notification time should not be
less than 60 minutes prior to the
planned ramp-up. A designated PSO
must be notified again immediately
prior to initiating ramp-up procedures
and the operator must receive
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
confirmation from the PSO to proceed.
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. Total duration should be
approximately 20 minutes. The operator
must provide information to the PSO
documenting that appropriate
procedures were followed. Ramp-ups
shall be scheduled so as to minimize the
time spent with source activated prior to
reaching the designated run-in.
(g) Shutdown Requirements
(i) Any PSO on duty has the authority
to delay the start of survey operations or
to call for shutdown of the acoustic
source (visual PSOs on duty should be
in agreement on the need for delay or
shutdown before requiring such action).
When shutdown is called for by a PSO,
the acoustic source must be
immediately deactivated and any
dispute resolved only following
deactivation. The operator must
establish and maintain clear lines of
communication directly between PSOs
on duty and crew controlling the
acoustic source to ensure that shutdown
commands are conveyed swiftly while
allowing PSOs to maintain watch. 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.
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. 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 acoustic source
must be shut down as a precaution.
(ii) Upon completion of ramp-up, if a
marine mammal appears within, enters,
or appears on a course to enter the
exclusion zone, the acoustic source
must be shut down (i.e., power to the
acoustic source must be immediately
turned off). If a marine mammal is
detected acoustically, the acoustic
source must be shut down, unless the
acoustic PSO is confident that the
animal detected is outside the exclusion
zone or that the detected species is not
subject to the shutdown requirement.
(A) This shutdown requirement is
waived for dolphins of the following
genera: Steno, Tursiops, Stenella,
Delphinus, Lagenodelphis, and
Lagenorhynchus. The shutdown waiver
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
26331
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 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,
shutdown must be implemented.
(iii) Shutdown of the acoustic source
is required upon observation of a right
whale at any distance.
(iv) Shutdown of the acoustic source
is required upon observation of a whale
(i.e., sperm whale or any baleen whale)
with calf at any distance, with ‘‘calf’’
defined as an animal less than twothirds the body size of an adult observed
to be in close association with an adult.
(v) Shutdown of the acoustic source is
required upon observation of a diving
sperm whale at any distance centered
on the forward track of the source
vessel.
(vi) Shutdown of the acoustic source
is required upon observation (visual or
acoustic) of a beaked whale or Kogia
spp. at any distance.
(vii) Shutdown of the acoustic source
is required upon observation of an
aggregation (i.e., six or more animals) of
marine mammals of any species that
does not appear to be traveling.
(viii) Upon implementation of
shutdown, the source may be
reactivated after the animal(s) has been
observed exiting the exclusion zone or
following a 30-minute clearance period
with no further observation of the
animal(s). Where there is no relevant
zone (e.g., shutdown due to observation
of a right whale), a 30-minute clearance
period must be observed following the
last observation of the animal(s).
(ix) If the acoustic source is shut
down for reasons other than mitigation
(e.g., mechanical difficulty) for brief
periods (i.e., 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 exclusion zone and
no acoustic detections have occurred.
For any longer shutdown, pre-clearance
watch and ramp-up are required. For
any shutdown at night or in periods of
poor visibility (e.g., BSS 4 or greater),
ramp-up is required but if the shutdown
period was brief and constant
observation maintained, pre-clearance
watch is not required.
(h) Miscellaneous Protocols
(i) The acoustic source 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.
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
26332
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
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.
(i) Closure Areas
(i) No use of the acoustic source may
occur within 30 km of the coast.
(ii) From November 1 through April
30, no use of the acoustic source may
occur within an area bounded by the
greater of three distinct components at
any location: (1) A 47-km wide coastal
strip throughout the entire Mid- and
South Atlantic OCS planning areas; (2)
Unit 2 of designated critical habitat for
the North Atlantic right whale, buffered
by 10 km; and (3) the designated
southeastern seasonal management area
(SMA) for the North Atlantic right
whale, buffered by 10 km. North
Atlantic right whale dynamic
management areas (DMA; buffered by 10
km) are also closed to use of the
acoustic source when in effect. It is the
responsibility of the survey operators to
monitor appropriate media and to be
aware of designated DMAs.
(iii) No use of the acoustic source may
occur within Areas #2–5, as designated
by coordinates in Table 3 during
applicable time periods. Areas #2–4 are
in effect year-round. Area #5 is in effect
from July 1 through September 30.
(j) Vessel Strike Avoidance
(i) Vessel operators and crews must
maintain a vigilant watch for all marine
mammals and slow down or stop their
vessel or alter course, as appropriate
and regardless of vessel size, to avoid
striking any marine mammal. 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 and broadly to identify a
marine mammal as a right whale, other
whale, or other marine mammal (i.e.,
non-whale cetacean or pinniped). In this
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
context, ‘‘other whales’’ includes sperm
whales and all baleen whales other than
right whales.
(ii) All vessels, regardless of size,
must observe the 10 kn speed restriction
in DMAs, the Mid-Atlantic SMA (from
November 1 through April 30), and
critical habitat and the Southeast SMA
(from November 15 through April 15).
(iii) Vessel speeds must also be
reduced to 10 kn or less when mother/
calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages of
cetaceans are observed near a vessel.
(iv) All vessels must maintain a
minimum separation distance of 500 m
from right whales. If a whale is observed
but cannot be confirmed as a species
other than a right whale, the vessel
operator must assume that it is a right
whale and take appropriate action. The
following avoidance measures must be
taken if a right whale is within 500 m
of any vessel:
(A) While underway, the vessel
operator must steer a course away from
the whale at 10 kn or less until the
minimum separation distance has been
established.
(B) If a whale is spotted in the path
of a vessel or within 100 m of a vessel
underway, the operator shall reduce
speed and shift engines to neutral. The
operator shall re-engage engines only
after the whale has moved out of the
path of the vessel and is more than 100
m away. If the whale is still within 500
m of the vessel, the vessel must select
a course away from the whale’s course
at a speed of 10 kn or less. This
procedure must also be followed if a
whale is spotted while a vessel is
stationary. Whenever possible, a vessel
should remain parallel to the whale’s
course while maintaining the 500-m
distance as it travels, avoiding abrupt
changes in direction until the whale is
no longer in the area.
(v) All vessels must maintain a
minimum separation distance of 100 m
from other whales. The following
avoidance measures must be taken if a
whale other than a right whale is within
100 m of any vessel:
(A) The vessel underway 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 a 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.
(vi) All vessels must maintain a
minimum separation distance of 50 m
from all other marine mammals, with an
exception made for those animals that
approach the vessel. If an animal is
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
encountered during transit, a vessel
shall attempt to remain parallel to the
animal’s course, avoiding excessive
speed or abrupt changes in course.
(k) All vessels associated with survey
activity (e.g., source vessels, chase
vessels, supply vessels) must have a
functioning Automatic Identification
System (AIS) onboard and operating at
all times, regardless of whether AIS
would otherwise be required. Vessel
names and call signs must be provided
to NMFS, and applicants must notify
NMFS when survey vessels are
operating.
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
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 successfully complete
relevant training, including completion
of all required coursework and passing
(80 percent or greater) a written and/or
oral examination developed for the
training program.
(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
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
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. We require that, at a
minimum, the following information be
reported:
(i) Vessel names (source vessel and
other vessels associated with survey)
and call signs
(ii) PSO names and affiliations
(iii) Dates of departures and returns to
port with port name
(iv) Dates and times (Greenwich Mean
Time) of survey effort and times
corresponding with PSO effort
(v) Vessel location (latitude/
longitude) when survey effort begins
and ends; vessel location at beginning
and end of visual PSO duty shifts
(vi) Vessel heading and speed at
beginning and end of visual PSO duty
shifts and upon any line change
(vii) 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
(viii) 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)
(ix) 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,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
ramp-up completion, end of operations,
streamers, etc.)
(x) 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
(xi) 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.)
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
26333
(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) CGG shall submit monthly interim
reports detailing the amount and
location of line-kms surveyed, all
marine mammal observations with
closest approach distance, and corrected
numbers of marine mammals ‘‘taken,’’
using correction factors given in Table
19.
(b) CGG 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 as an ESRI
shapefile with all necessary files and
appropriate metadata. In addition to the
report, all raw observational data shall
be made available to NMFS. The report
must summarize the information
submitted in interim monthly reports as
well as additional data collected as
required under condition 5(d) of this
IHA. The draft report must be
accompanied by a certification from the
lead PSO as to the accuracy of the
report, and the lead PSO may submit
directly 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 on the draft
report.
(c) 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
prohibited by this IHA (if issued), such
as serious injury or mortality, CGG shall
immediately cease the specified
activities and immediately report the
incident to NMFS. The report must
include the following information:
(A) Time, date, and location (latitude/
longitude) of the incident;
(B) Name and type of vessel involved;
(C) Vessel’s speed during and leading
up to the incident;
(D) Description of the incident;
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
26334
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 / Notices
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES2
(E) Status of all sound source use in
the 24 hours preceding the incident;
(F) Water depth;
(G) Environmental conditions (e.g.,
wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea
state, cloud cover, and visibility);
(H) Description of all marine mammal
observations in the 24 hours preceding
the incident;
(I) Species identification or
description of the animal(s) involved;
(J) Fate of the animal(s); and
(K) 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 CGG to determine
what measures are necessary to
minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA
compliance. CGG may not resume their
activities until notified by NMFS.
(ii) In the event that CGG discovers an
injured or dead marine mammal, and
the lead observer determines that the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:35 Jun 05, 2017
Jkt 241001
cause of the injury or death is unknown
and the death is relatively recent (e.g.,
in less than a moderate state of
decomposition), CGG shall immediately
report the incident to NMFS. The report
must include the same information
identified in condition 6(c)(1) of this
IHA. Activities may continue while
NMFS reviews the circumstances of the
incident. NMFS will work with CGG to
determine whether additional
mitigation measures or modifications to
the activities are appropriate.
(iii) In the event that CGG 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),
CGG shall report the incident to NMFS
within 24 hours of the discovery. CGG
shall provide photographs or video
footage or other documentation of the
stranded animal sighting to NMFS.
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
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.
Request for Public Comments
We request comment on our analyses,
the draft authorizations, and any other
aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHAs
for the proposed geophysical survey
activities. Please include with your
comments any supporting data or
literature citations to help inform our
final decision on the individual requests
for MMPA authorization.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2017–11542 Filed 6–5–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\06JNN2.SGM
06JNN2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 107 (Tuesday, June 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26244-26334]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11542]
[[Page 26243]]
Vol. 82
Tuesday,
No. 107
June 6, 2017
Part II
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking
Marine Mammals Incidental to Geophysical Surveys in the Atlantic Ocean;
Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 6, 2017 /
Notices
[[Page 26244]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XE283
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Geophysical Surveys in the Atlantic
Ocean
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; five proposed incidental harassment authorizations;
request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has received five requests for authorization to take
marine mammals incidental to conducting geophysical survey activity in
the Atlantic Ocean. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue incidental
harassment authorizations (IHA) to incidentally take marine mammals
during the specified activities.
DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than July 6,
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 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 and electronic comments
should be sent to ITP.Laws@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/oilgas.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.
Information Solicited: NMFS is seeking public input on these
requests for authorization as outlined below and request that
interested persons submit information, suggestions, and comments
concerning the applications. We will only consider comments that are
relevant to marine mammal species that occur in U.S. waters of the Mid-
and South Atlantic and the potential effects of geophysical survey
activities on those species and their habitat.
Comments indicating general support for or opposition to
hydrocarbon exploration or any comments relating to hydrocarbon
development (e.g., leasing, drilling) are not relevant to this request
for comments and will not be considered. Comments should indicate
whether they are general to the proposed authorizations described
herein or are specific to one or more of the five proposed
authorizations, and should be supported by data or literature citations
as appropriate.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben Laws, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability
Electronic copies of the applications 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/oilgas.htm.
In case of problems accessing these documents, please call the contact
listed above.
National Environmental Policy Act
In 2014, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) produced a
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) to evaluate
potential significant environmental effects of geological and
geophysical (G&G) activities on the Mid- and South Atlantic Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS), pursuant to requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). These activities include geophysical
surveys in support of hydrocarbon exploration, as are proposed in the
MMPA applications before NMFS. The PEIS is available online at:
www.boem.gov/Atlantic-G-G-PEIS/. NMFS participated in development of
the PEIS as a cooperating agency and believes it appropriate to adopt
the analysis in order to assess the impacts to the human environment of
issuance of the subject IHAs. Information in the IHA applications,
BOEM's PEIS, and this notice collectively provide the environmental
information related to proposed issuance of these IHAs for public
review and comment.
We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice as
we complete the NEPA process, including a final decision of whether to
adopt BOEM's PEIS and sign a Record of Decision related to issuance of
IHAs, prior to a final decision on the incidental take authorization
requests.
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.)
direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the
incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine
mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than
commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain
findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking
is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is
provided to the public for review.
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.''
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or
marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering (Level B harassment).
Summary of Requests
In 2014-15, we received five separate requests for authorization
for take of marine mammals incidental to geophysical surveys in support
of hydrocarbon exploration in the Atlantic Ocean. The applicants are
companies that provide services, such as geophysical data acquisition,
to the oil and gas industry. Upon review of these requests, we
submitted questions, comments, and requests for additional information
to the individual applicant companies. As a result of these
interactions, the applicant companies
[[Page 26245]]
provided revised versions of the applications that we determined were
adequate and complete.
On August 18, 2014, we received an application from Spectrum Geo
Inc. (Spectrum), followed by revised versions on November 25, 2014, May
14, 2015, and July 6, 2015. TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Company (TGS)
submitted an application on August 25, 2014, followed by revised
versions on November 17, 2014, and July 21, 2015. We also received a
request from ION GeoVentures (ION) on September 5, 2014, followed by a
revised version on June 24, 2015.
We subsequently posted these applications for public review and
sought public input (80 FR 45195; July 29, 2015), stating that we would
only consider comments relevant to marine mammal species that occur in
U.S. waters of the Mid- and South Atlantic and the potential effects of
geophysical survey activities on those species. We stated further that
any comments should be supported by data or literature citations as
appropriate, that comments indicating general support for or opposition
to oil and gas exploration and development would not be considered
inasmuch as such comments are not relevant to our consideration of the
requests under the MMPA, and that we were particularly interested in
information addressing the following topics:
1. Best available scientific information and appropriate use of
such information in assessing potential effects of the specified
activities on marine mammals and their habitat;
2. Application approaches to estimating acoustic exposure and take
of marine mammals; and,
3. Appropriate mitigation measures and monitoring requirements for
these activities.
We note that this notice for proposed IHAs does not concern one
additional company (TDI-Brooks International, Inc. (TDI Brooks)) whose
application was referenced in our July 29, 2015, Federal Register
notice, and includes two other companies (WesternGeco, LLC (Western)
and CGG) whose applications were not included in our July 29, 2015,
notice. TDI-Brooks International, Inc. submitted a request for
authorization related to a proposed survey to conduct deep water
multibeam bathymetry and sub-bottom profiler data acquisition on
October 22, 2014. However, public comment indicated that this
application was improperly considered adequate and complete, and we
subsequently concurred with this assessment and returned the
application to TDI-Brooks for revision. We will provide separate notice
of any proposed authorization related to this applicant upon receipt of
an adequate and complete application, if appropriate.
The comments and information received during this public review
period informed development of the proposed IHAs discussed in this
notice, and all letters received are available online at
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/oilgas.htm.
Following the close of the public review period, we received
revised versions of several applications: From Spectrum on September
18, 2015, and from TGS on February 10, 2016. We received additional
information from ION on February 29, 2016. Spectrum revised the scope
of their proposed survey effort, while TGS and ION revised their
estimates of the number of potential incidents of marine mammal
exposure to underwater noise. Western submitted a request for
authorization on March 3, 2015, followed by a revised version on
February 17, 2016, that we determined was adequate and complete. CGG
submitted a request for authorization on December 21, 2015, followed by
revised versions on February 18, 2016, April 6, 2016, and May 26, 2016.
These applications are adequate and complete at this time and are
substantially similar to other applications previously released for
public review. We do not anticipate offering additional discretionary
public review of applications should we receive further requests for
authorization related to proposed geophysical survey activity in the
Atlantic Ocean.
All requested authorizations would be valid for the statutory
maximum of one year from the date of effectiveness. All applicants
propose to conduct two-dimensional (2D) marine seismic surveys using
airgun arrays. Generally speaking, these surveys may occur within the
U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (i.e., to 200 nautical miles (nmi)) from
Delaware to approximately Cape Canaveral, Florida and corresponding
with BOEM's Mid- and South Atlantic OCS planning areas, as well as
additional waters out to 350 nmi from shore (Figure 1). Please see the
applications for specific details of survey design. The use of airgun
arrays is expected to produce underwater sound at levels that have the
potential to result in harassment of marine mammals. Multiple cetacean
species with the expected potential to be present during all or a
portion of the proposed surveys are described below.
Because the specified activity, specified geographic region, and
proposed dates of activity are substantially similar for the five
separate requests for authorization, we have determined it appropriate
to provide a joint notice for the five proposed authorizations.
However, while we provide relevant information together, we consider
the potential impacts of the specified activities independently and
make preliminary determinations specific to each request for
authorization, as required by the MMPA.
Description of the Specified Activities
In this section, we provide a generalized discussion that is
broadly applicable to all five requests for authorization, with
project-specific portions indicated.
Overview
The five applicants propose to conduct deep penetration seismic
surveys using airgun arrays as an acoustic source. Seismic surveys are
one method of obtaining geophysical data used to characterize the
subsurface structure, in this case in support of hydrocarbon
exploration. The proposed surveys would be 2D surveys, designed to
acquire data over large areas in order to screen for potential
hydrocarbon prospectivity. To contrast, three-dimensional surveys may
use similar acoustic sources but are designed to cover smaller areas
with greater resolution (e.g., with closer survey line spacing). A deep
penetration survey uses an acoustic source suited to provide data on
geological formations that may be thousands of meters (m) beneath the
seafloor, as compared with a survey that may be intended to evaluate
shallow subsurface formations or the seafloor itself (e.g., for
hazards).
An airgun is a device used to emit acoustic energy pulses into the
seafloor, and generally consists of a steel cylinder that is charged
with high-pressure air. Release of the compressed air into the water
column generates a signal that reflects (or refracts) off of the
seafloor and/or subsurface layers having acoustic impedance contrast.
When fired, a brief (~0.1 second (s)) pulse of sound is emitted by all
airguns nearly simultaneously. The airguns are silent during the
intervening periods, with the array typically fired on a fixed distance
(or shot point) interval. This interval may vary depending on survey
objectives, but a typical interval for a 2D survey in relatively deep
water might be 25 m (approximately every 10 s, depending on vessel
speed). The return signal is recorded by a listening device and later
analyzed with computer interpretation and mapping systems used to
depict the subsurface. In this
[[Page 26246]]
case, towed streamers contain hydrophones that would record the return
signal.
Individual airguns are available in different volumetric sizes and,
for deep penetration seismic surveys, are towed in arrays (i.e., a
certain number of airguns of varying sizes in a certain arrangement)
designed according to a given company's method of data acquisition,
seismic target, and data processing capabilities. A typical large
airgun array, as was considered in BOEM's PEIS (BOEM, 2014a), may have
a total volume of approximately 5,400 in\3\. The notional array modeled
by BOEM consists of 18 airguns in three identical strings of six
airguns each, with individual airguns ranging in volume from 105-660
in\3\. Sound levels for airgun arrays are typically modeled or measured
at some distance from the source and a nominal source level then back-
calculated. Because these arrays constitute a distributed acoustic
source rather than a single point source (i.e., the ``source'' is
actually comprised of multiple sources with some pre-determined spatial
arrangement), the highest sound levels measurable at any location in
the water will be less than the nominal source level. A common analogy
is to an array of light bulbs; at sufficient distance the array will
appear to be a single point source of light but individual sources,
each with less intensity than that of the whole, may be discerned at
closer distances. In addition, the effective source level for sound
propagating in near-horizontal directions (i.e., directions likely to
impact most marine mammals in the vicinity of an array) is likely to be
substantially lower than the nominal source level applicable to
downward propagation because of the directional nature of the sound
from the airgun array. The horizontal propagation of sound is reduced
by noise cancellation effects created when sound from neighboring
airguns on the same horizontal plane partially cancel each other out.
Survey protocols generally involve a predetermined set of survey,
or track, lines. The seismic acquisition vessel (source vessel) will
travel down a linear track for some distance until a line of data is
acquired, then turn and acquire data on a different track. In addition
to the line over which data acquisition is desired, full-power
operation may include run-in and run-out. Run-in is approximately 1
kilometer (km) of full-power source operation before starting a new
line to ensure equipment is functioning properly, and run-out is
additional full-power operation beyond the conclusion of a trackline
(typically half the distance of the acquisition streamer behind the
source vessel) to ensure that all data along the trackline are
collected by the streamer. Line turns typically require two to three
hours due to the long trailing streamers (e.g., 10 km). Spacing and
length of tracks varies by survey. Survey operations often involve the
source vessel, supported by a chase vessel. Chase vessels typically
support the source vessel by protecting the long hydrophone streamer
from damage (e.g., from other vessels) and otherwise lending logistical
support (e.g., returning to port for fuel, supplies, or any necessary
personnel transfers). Chase vessels do not deploy acoustic sources for
data acquisition purposes; the only potential effects of the chase
vessels are those associated with normal vessel operations.
Dates and Duration
All companies requested IHAs covering the statutory maximum of one
year from the date of issuance, but the expected temporal extent of
survey activity varies by company and may be subject to
unpredictability due to inclement weather days, equipment maintenance
and/or repair, transit to and from ports to survey locations, and other
contingencies. Spectrum plans a six-month data acquisition program,
consisting of an expected 165 days of seismic operations. TGS plans a
full year data acquisition program, with an estimated 308 days of
seismic operations. ION plans a six-month data acquisition program,
with an estimated 70 days of seismic data collection. Western plans a
full year data acquisition program, with an estimated 208 days of
seismic operations. CGG plans a six-month data acquisition program
(July-December), with an estimated 155 days of seismic operations.
Seismic operations would typically occur 24 hours per day.
Specific Geographic Region
The proposed survey activities would occur off the Atlantic coast
of the U.S., within BOEM's Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic OCS planning
areas (i.e., from Delaware to Cape Canaveral, FL), and out to 350 nmi
(648 km) (see Figure 1, reproduced from BOEM, 2014a). The seaward limit
of the region is based on the maximum constraint line for the extended
continental shelf (ECS) under the United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea. Until such time as an ECS is established by the U.S., the
region between the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) boundary and the
ECS maximum constraint line (i.e., 200-350 nmi from shore) is part of
the global commons, and BOEM determined it appropriate to include this
area within the area of interest for geophysical survey activity.
The specific survey areas differ within this region; please see
maps provided in the individual applications (Spectrum: Figure 1;
Western: Figures 1-1 to 1-4; TGS: Figures 1-1 to 1-4; ION: Figure 1;
CGG: Figure 3). A map of all proposed surveys may be viewed online at:
www.boem.gov/Atlantic-G-and-G-Permitting/ (accessed on October 18,
2016); however, note that this map displays all permits requested from
BOEM, including potential surveys for companies who have not yet
requested authorization under the MMPA. The survey shown as
``GXTechnology'' on the referenced map is the same as what we describe
here as being proposed by ION. In addition to general knowledge and
other citations contained herein, this section relies upon the
descriptions found in Sherman and Hempel (2009) and Wilkinson et al.
(2009). As referred to here, productivity refers to fixated carbon
(i.e., g C/m\2\/yr) which relates to the carrying capacity of an
ecosystem.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 26247]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06JN17.000
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
The entire U.S. Atlantic coast region extends from the Gulf of
Maine past Cape Hatteras to Florida. The region is characterized by its
temperate climate and proximity to the Gulf Stream Current, and is
generally considered to be of moderately high productivity, although
the portion of the region from Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras is one of the
most productive areas in the world due to upwellings along the shelf
break created by the western edge of the Gulf Stream. Sea surface
temperatures (SST) exhibit a broad range across this region, with
winter temperatures ranging from 2-20 [deg]C in the north and 15-22
[deg]C in the south, while summer temperatures, consistent in the south
at approximately 28 [deg]C, range from 15-27 [deg]C in the northern
portion.
[[Page 26248]]
The northern portion of this region (i.e., north of Cape Hatteras)
is more complex, with four major sub-areas, only one of which is within
the specified geographic region: The Mid-Atlantic Bight (MAB). South of
Cape Cod, there is strong stratification along the coast where large
estuaries occur (e.g., Chesapeake Bay, Pamlico Sound). The Gulf Stream
is highly influential on both the northern and southern portions of the
region, but in different ways. Meanders of the current directly affect
the southern portion of the region, where the Gulf Stream is closer to
shore, while warm-core rings indirectly affect the northern portion
(Belkin et al., 2009). In addition, subarctic influences can reach as
far south as the MAB, but the convergence of the Gulf Stream with the
coast near Cape Hatteras does not allow for significant northern
influence into waters of the South Atlantic Bight.
The MAB includes the continental shelf and slope waters from
Georges Bank to Cape Hatteras, NC. The retreat of the last ice sheet
shaped the morphology and sediments of this area. The continental shelf
south of New England is broad and flat, dominated by fine grained
sediments (sand and silt). The shelf slopes gently away from the shore
out to approximately 100 to 200 km offshore, where it transforms into
the continental slope at the shelf break (at water depths of 100 to 200
m). Along the shelf break, numerous deep-water canyons incise the slope
and shelf. The sediments and topography of the canyons are much more
heterogeneous than the predominantly sandy top of the shelf, with steep
walls and outcroppings of bedrock and deposits of clay.
The southwestern flow of cold shelf water feeding out of the Gulf
of Maine and off Georges Bank dominates the circulatory patterns in
this area. The countervailing Gulf Stream provides a source of warmer
water along the coast as warm-core rings and meanders break off from
the Gulf Stream and move shoreward, mixing with the colder shelf and
slope water. As the shelf plain narrows to the south (the extent of the
continental shelf is narrowest at Cape Hatteras), the warmer Gulf
Stream waters run closer to shore.
The southeast continental shelf area extends approximately 1,500 km
from Cape Hatteras, NC south to the Straits of Florida (Yoder, 1991).
The continental shelf in the region reaches up to approximately 200 km
offshore. The Gulf Stream influences the region with minor upwelling
occurring along the Gulf Stream front. The area is approximately
300,000 km\2\, includes several protected areas and coral reefs
(Aquarone, 2008); numerous estuaries and bays, nearshore and barrier
islands; and extensive coastal marshes that provide habitats for
numerous marine and estuarine species. A 10-20 km wide coastal zone is
characterized by high levels of primary production throughout the year,
while offshore, on the middle and outer shelf, upwelling along the Gulf
Stream front and intrusions from the Gulf Stream cause seasonal
phytoplankton blooms. Because of its high productivity, this sub-region
supports active commercial and recreational fisheries (Shertzer et al.,
2009).
Detailed Description of Activities
Detailed survey descriptions, as given in specific applications,
are provided here without regard for the mitigation measures proposed
by NMFS. In some cases, our proposed mitigation measures may affect the
proposed survey plan (e.g., distance from coast, areas to be avoided at
certain times of year). Please see ``Proposed Mitigation,'' later in
this document, for details on those proposed mitigation requirements.
Please see Table 1 for a summary of airgun array characteristics.
ION--ION proposes to conduct a 2D marine seismic survey off the
U.S. east coast from Delaware to northern Florida (~38.5[deg] N. to
~27.9[deg] N.), and from 20 km from the coast to >600 km from the coast
(see Figure 1 of ION's application). The survey would involve one
source vessel, the M/V Discoverer, and one chase vessel, the M/V
Octopus, or similar (see ION's application for vessel details). The
Discoverer has a cruising speed of 9.5 knots (kn), maximum speed of 10
kn, and would tow gear during data acquisition at ~4 kn. The survey
plan consists of five widely-spaced transect lines (~20-190 km apart)
roughly parallel to the coast and 14 widely-spaced transect lines (~30-
220 km apart) in the onshore-offshore direction totaling ~13,062 km of
data acquisition line. Effort planned by depth bin is as follows: ~48
percent >3,000 m; ~18 percent 1,000-3,000 m; ~22 percent 100-1,000 m;
~12 percent <100 m. There would be limited additional operations
associated with equipment testing, startup, line changes, and repeat
coverage of any areas where initial data quality is sub-standard.
Therefore, there could be some small amount of use of the acoustic
source not accounted for in the total estimated line-km; however, this
activity is difficult to quantify in advance and would represent an
insignificant increase in effort.
The acoustic source planned for deployment is a 36-airgun array
with a total volume of 6,420 in\3\. The source vessel would tow a
single hydrophone streamer, up to 12 km long. The 36-airgun array would
consist of a mixture of Bolt 1500LL and sleeve airguns ranging in
volume from 40 in\3\ to 380 in\3\; the larger (300-380 in\3\) airguns
would be Bolt airguns, and the smaller (40-150 in\3\) airguns would be
sleeve airguns. The difference between the two types of airguns is in
the mechanical parts that release the pressurized air; however, the
bubble and acoustic energy released by the two types of airguns are
effectively the same. The airguns would be configured as four identical
linear arrays or ``strings'' (see Figure 3 of ION's application). Each
string would have nine airguns; the first and last airguns in the
strings would be spaced ~15.5 m apart.
The four airgun strings would be distributed across an approximate
area of 34 x 15.5 m behind the vessel and would be towed ~50-100 m
behind the vessel at 10-m depth. The firing pressure of the array would
be 2,000 pounds per square inch (psi). The airgun array would fire
every 50 m or 20-24 s, depending on exact vessel speed--a longer
interval than is typical of most industry seismic surveys. ION provided
modeling results for their array, including notional source signatures,
1/3-octave band source levels as a function of azimuth angle, and
received sound levels as a function of distance and direction at 16
representative sites in the proposed survey area. For more detail,
please see ``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment,'' later in this
document, as well as Figures 4-6 and Appendix A of ION's application.
Spectrum--Spectrum proposes to conduct a 2D marine seismic survey
off the U.S. east coast from Delaware to northern Florida, extending
throughout BOEM's Mid- and South Atlantic OCS planning areas. The
survey would be conducted on an approximately 25 x 32 km grid; grid
size may vary to minimize overall survey distance (see Figure 1 of
Spectrum's application). The closest trackline to shore would be
approximately 35 km (off Cape Hatteras). The survey would involve one
source vessel and one chase vessel (see Spectrum's application for
vessel details). The survey plan includes a total of approximately
21,635 km of data acquisition line, including allowance for lines
expected to be resurveyed due to environmental or technical reasons.
Water depths range from 30 to 5,410 m. There would be limited
additional operations associated with equipment testing, startup, and
repeat coverage of any areas where initial data quality is sub-
standard.
[[Page 26249]]
The acoustic source planned for deployment is a 32-airgun array
with a total volume of 4,920 in\3\. The source vessel would tow a
single 12-km hydrophone streamer. The 32-airgun array would consist of
individual airguns ranging in volume from 50 in\3\ to 250 in\3\. The
firing pressure of the array would be 2,000 psi. The airguns would be
configured as four subarrays (see Figure 2 in Appendix A of Spectrum's
application). Each string would have eight to ten airguns and strings
would be spaced 10 m apart; the total array dimensions would be 40 m
wide x 30 m long.
The four airgun strings would be towed at 6 to 10-m depth and the
airgun array would fire every 25 m or 10 s, depending on exact vessel
speed (expected to be 4-5 kn). Spectrum provided modeling results for
their array, including notional source signatures, 1/3-octave band
source levels as a function of azimuth angle, and received sound levels
as a function of distance and direction at 16 representative sites in
the proposed survey area. For more detail, please see Appendix A of
Spectrum's application, as well as ``Estimated Take by Incidental
Harassment,'' later in this document.
TGS--TGS proposes to conduct a 2D marine seismic survey off the
U.S. east coast from Delaware to northern Florida, extending throughout
BOEM's Mid- and South Atlantic OCS planning areas (see Figure 1-1 of
TGS's application). The survey would involve two source vessels
operating independently of one another (expected to operate at least
100 km apart), with each attended by one chase vessel. This approach
was selected to allow TGS to complete the survey plan within one year
rather than spread over multiple years. The survey plan consists of two
contiguous survey grids with differently spaced lines (see Figures 1-1
to 1-4 of TGS's application). Lines are spaced 100 km apart in
approximately the eastern half of the project area and approximately 25
km apart in the western portion of the survey area. A third, more
detailed grid (6-10 km spacing) covers the continental shelf drop-off,
approximately near the center of the proposed survey area from north to
south. The closest trackline to the coast would be 25 km. The survey
plan includes a total of 55,133 km of data acquisition line plus an
additional 3,167 km of trackline expected for run-in/run-out, for a
total of 58,300 km. Water depths range from 25-5,500 m. There would be
limited additional operations associated with equipment testing,
startup, line changes, and repeat coverage of any areas where initial
data quality is sub-standard.
The acoustic sources planned for deployment are 48-airgun arrays
with a total volume of 4,808 in\3\. However, only 40 individual airguns
would be used at any given time, with remaining airguns held in reserve
in case of equipment failure. The source vessels would tow a single 12-
km long hydrophone streamer. The airgun array would use Sodera G-gun II
airguns ranging in volume from 22 in\3\ to 250 in\3\. The airguns would
be configured as four identical subarrays (see Figure 3 in Appendix B
of TGS's application), with individual elements spaced 8 m apart and
arranged such that the largest elements are in the middle of each
subarray and smaller sources at the front and end. The four airgun
strings would be towed behind the vessel at 7-m depth. The airgun array
would fire every 25 m (approximately every 10 s, depending on vessel
speed), with expected transit speed of 4-5 kn. More detail regarding
TGS's acoustic source and modeling related to TGS's application is
provided in ``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment,'' later in this
document, as well as Appendix B of TGS's application.
Western--Western proposes to conduct a 2D marine seismic survey off
the U.S. east coast from Maryland to northern Florida, extending
through the majority of BOEM's Mid- and South Atlantic OCS planning
areas (see Figure 1-1 of Western's application). The survey plan
consists of a survey grid with differently spaced lines (see Figures 1-
1 to 1-4 of Western's application). Lines are spaced 25 km apart in
approximately the southwestern third of the project area and
approximately 6 km apart in the remainder of the survey area. The
closest trackline to the coast would be 30 km. The survey plan includes
a total of 26,641 km of data acquisition line plus an additional 689 km
of lines expected for run-in/run-out, for a total of 27,330 km. Water
depths range from 20-4,700 m. The survey would involve one source
vessel, the M/V Western Pride, as well as two chase vessels, the M/V
Michael Lawrence and M/V Amber G, and a supply vessel, the M/V Melinda
B. Adams or similar (see Appendix B of Western's application for vessel
details). There would be limited additional operations associated with
equipment testing, startup, and repeat coverage of any areas where
initial data quality is sub-standard.
The seismic source planned for deployment is a 24-airgun array with
a total volume of 5,085 in\3\. The source vessel would tow a single
10.5-km hydrophone streamer. The 24-airgun array would consist of
individual Bolt v5085 airguns. The airguns would be configured as three
identical subarrays of eight airguns each with 8 m spacing between
strings. The three airgun strings would be towed at 10-m depth and the
airgun array would fire every 37.5 m (approximately every 16 s,
depending on vessel speed), with expected transit speed of 4-5 kn. More
detail regarding Western's acoustic source and modeling related to
Western's application is provided in ``Estimated Take by Incidental
Harassment,'' later in this document, as well as Appendix B of
Western's application.
CGG--CGG proposes to conduct a 2D marine seismic survey off the
U.S. east coast from Virginia to Georgia, extending through the
majority of BOEM's Mid- and South Atlantic OCS planning areas (see
Figure 3 of CGG's application). The survey plan consists of 53 survey
tracklines in a 20 km by 20 km orthogonal grid (see Figure 3 of CGG's
application). The tracklines would be 300 to 750 km in length, with the
closest trackline to the coast at 80 km. The survey plan includes a
total of 28,670 km of data acquisition line, in water depths ranging
from 100-5,000 m. The survey would involve one source vessel, as well
as two support vessels. There would be limited additional operations
associated with equipment testing, startup, and repeat coverage of any
areas where initial data quality is sub-standard.
The seismic source planned for deployment is a 36-airgun array with
a total volume of 5,400 in.\3\ The source vessel would tow a single 10
to 12-km hydrophone streamer. The 36-airgun array would consist of
individual Bolt 1900/1500 airguns. The airguns would be configured as
four subarrays of nine airguns each (see Figure 2 in CGG's
application), with total dimensions of 24 m width by 16.5 m length and
8 m separation between strings. The four airgun strings would be towed
at 7-m depth and the airgun array would fire every 25 m (approximately
every 16 s, depending on vessel speed), with expected transit speed of
4.5 kn. More detail regarding CGG's acoustic source and modeling
related to CGG's application is provided in ``Estimated Take by
Incidental Harassment,'' later in this document, as well as CGG's
application.
[[Page 26250]]
Table 1--Survey and Airgun Array Characteristics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Total Nominal source output (downward) \1\ Shot
Company planned volume Number of Number of ------------------------------------------- interval Tow depth
survey (km) (in\3\) guns strings 0-pk pk-pk rms (m) (m)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ION.................................... 13,062 6,420 36 4 257 263 4 247 50 10
Spectrum............................... 21,635 4,920 32 4 266 272 243 25 6-10
TGS.................................... 58,300 4,808 40 4 255 \3\ 240 25 7
Western................................ 27,330 5,085 24 3 \3\ 262 235 37.5 10
CGG.................................... 28,670 5,400 36 4 \3\ 259 3 4 243 25 7
BOEM \2\............................... n/a 5,400 18 3 247 \3\ 233 n/a 6.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See ``Description of Active Acoustic Sound Sources,'' later in this document, for discussion of these concepts.
\2\ Notional array characteristics modeled and source characterization outputs from BOEM's PEIS (2014a) provided for comparison.
\3\ Values not given; however, SPL (pk-pk) is usually considered to be approximately 6 dB higher than SPL (0-pk) (Greene, 1997).
\4\ Value decreased from modeled 0-pk value by minimum 10 dB (Greene, 1997).
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. 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)). Here we provide a single
description of proposed mitigation measures, including those contained
in the applicants' requests, as we propose to require the same measures
of all applicants.
We reviewed the applicants' proposals, the requirements specified
in BOEM's PEIS, seismic mitigation protocols required or recommended
elsewhere (e.g., DOC, 2013; IBAMA, 2005; Kyhn et al., 2011; JNCC, 2010;
DEWHA, 2008; BOEM, 2016a; DFO, 2008; MMOA, 2015; Nowacek and Southall,
2016), and the available scientific literature. We also considered
recommendations given in a number of review articles (e.g., Weir and
Dolman, 2007; Compton et al., 2008; Parsons et al., 2009; Wright and
Cosentino, 2015; Stone, 2015). The suite of mitigation measures
proposed here differs in some cases from the measures proposed by the
applicants and/or those specified by BOEM in their PEIS and Record of
Decision (ROD) in order to reflect what we believe to be the most
appropriate suite of measures to satisfy the requirements of the MMPA.
In carrying out the MMPA's mandate, we apply a context-specific balance
between the manner in which and the degree to which measures are
expected to reduce impacts to the affected species or stocks and their
habitat and practicability for the applicant. (The framework for such
an evaluation is explained further in 82 FR 19460, 19502 (April 27,
2017) (Proposed Rule for Take of Marine Mammals Incidental to U.S. Navy
Operation of Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency
Active (SURTASS LFA) Sonar.) Both of these facets point to the need for
a basic system of seismic mitigation protocols (which may be augmented
as necessary) that may be implemented in the field, reduce subjective
decision-making for observers to the extent possible, and appropriately
weighs a range of potential outcomes from sound exposure in determining
what should be avoided or minimized where possible.
Past mitigation protocols for geophysical survey activities using
airgun arrays have focused on avoidance of exposures to received sound
levels exceeding NMFS's historical injury criteria (e.g., 180 dB rms),
rather than also weighing the potentially detrimental effects of
increased input of sound at lower levels into the environment (e.g.,
through use of mitigation guns or extended periods on the water to
reshoot lines following shutdowns of the acoustic source), while also
unrealistically assuming that shutdown protocols are capable of
avoiding all potential for auditory injury. In addition to a basic
suite of seismic mitigation protocols, we also include measures that
might not be required for other activities (e.g., time-area closures
specific to the proposed surveys discussed here) but that are warranted
here given the proposed spatiotemporal scope of these specified
activities and associated potential for population-level effects and/or
take of large numbers of individuals of certain species.
Mitigation-Related Monitoring
Monitoring by independent, dedicated, trained marine mammal
observers is required. Note that, although we propose requirements
related only to observation of marine mammals, we hereafter use the
generic term ``protected species observer'' (PSO) to avoid confusion
with protocols that may be required of the applicants pursuant to other
relevant statutes. Independent observers are employed by a third-party
observer provider; vessel crew may not serve as PSOs. Dedicated
observers are those who have no tasks other than to conduct
observational effort, record observational data, and communicate with
and instruct the seismic survey operator (i.e., vessel captain and
crew) with regard to the presence of marine mammals and mitigation
requirements. Communication with the operator may include brief alerts
regarding maritime hazards. Trained PSOs have successfully completed an
approved PSO training course (see ``Proposed Monitoring and
Reporting''), and experienced PSOs have additionally gained a minimum
of 90 days at-sea experience working as a PSO during a deep penetration
seismic survey, with no more than 18 months elapsed since the
conclusion of the at-sea experience. Both visual and acoustic
monitoring is required; training and experience is specific to either
visual or acoustic PSO duties. An experienced visual PSO must have
completed approved, relevant training and gained the requisite
experience working as a visual PSO. An experienced acoustic PSO must
have completed a passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) operator training
course and gained the requisite experience working as an acoustic PSO
(i.e., PAM operator).
NMFS does not currently approve specific training courses;
observers may be considered appropriately trained by having
satisfactorily completed training that meets all the requirements
specified
[[Page 26251]]
herein (see ``Proposed Monitoring and Reporting''). In order for PSOs
to be approved, NMFS must review and approve PSO resumes accompanied by
a relevant training course information packet that includes the name
and qualifications (i.e., experience, training completed, or
educational background) of the instructor(s), the course outline or
syllabus, and course reference material as well as a document stating
successful completion of the course. A PSO may be trained and/or
experienced as both a visual PSO and PAM operator and may perform
either duty, pursuant to scheduling requirements. PSO watch schedules
shall be devised in consideration of the following restrictions: (1) A
maximum of two consecutive hours on watch followed by a break of at
least one hour between watches for visual PSOs; (2) a maximum of four
consecutive hours on watch followed by a break of at least two
consecutive hours between watches for PAM operators; and (3) a maximum
of 12 hours observation per 24-hour period. Further information
regarding PSO requirements may be found in the ``Proposed Monitoring
and Reporting'' section, later in this document.
Visual--All source vessels must carry a minimum of one experienced
visual PSO, who shall be designated as the lead PSO, coordinate duty
schedules and roles, and serve as primary point of contact for the
operator. While it is desirable for all PSOs to be qualified through
experience, we do not wish to foreclose opportunity for newly trained
PSOs to gain the requisite experience. Therefore, the lead PSO shall
devise the duty schedule such that experienced PSOs are on duty with
trained PSOs (i.e., those PSOs with appropriate training but who have
not yet gained relevant experience) to the maximum extent practicable
in order to provide necessary mentorship. 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), a minimum of 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) and 30 minutes
prior to and during nighttime ramp-ups of the airgun array (see ``Ramp-
ups'' below). PSOs should use NOAA's solar calculator
(www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/) to determine sunrise and sunset
times at their specific location. We recognize that certain daytime
conditions (e.g., fog, heavy rain) may reduce or eliminate
effectiveness of visual observations; however, on-duty PSOs shall
remain alert for marine mammal observational cues and/or a change in
conditions.
With regard to specific observational protocols, we largely follow
those described in Appendix C of BOEM's PEIS (BOEM, 2014a). The lead
PSO shall determine the most appropriate observation posts that will
not interfere with navigation or operation of the vessel while
affording an optimal, elevated view of the sea surface. PSOs shall
coordinate to ensure 360[deg] visual coverage around the vessel, and
shall conduct visual observations using binoculars and the naked eye
while free from distractions and in a consistent, systematic, and
diligent manner. Within these broad outlines, the lead PSO and PSO team
will have discretion to determine the most appropriate vessel- and
survey-specific system for implementing effective marine mammal
observational effort. Any observations of marine mammals by crew
members aboard any vessel associated with the survey, including chase
vessels, should be relayed to the source vessel and to the PSO team.
Visual monitoring must begin not less than 30 minutes prior to
ramp-up and must continue until one hour after use of the acoustic
source ceases or until 30 minutes past sunset. If any marine mammal is
observed at any distance from the vessel, a PSO would record the
observation and monitor the animal's position (including latitude/
longitude of the vessel and relative bearing and estimated distance to
the animal) until the animal dives or moves out of visual range of the
observer. A PSO would continue to observe the area to watch for the
animal to resurface or for additional animals that may surface in the
area. Visual PSOs shall communicate all observations to PAM operators,
including any determination by the PSO regarding species
identification, distance, and bearing and the degree of confidence in
the determination.
During good conditions (e.g., daylight hours; Beaufort sea state
(BSS) 3 or less), PSOs should 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.
Acoustic--All source vessels must use a towed PAM system for
potential detection of marine mammals. The system must be monitored at
all times during use of the acoustic source, and acoustic monitoring
must begin at least 30 minutes prior to ramp-up. All source vessels
shall carry a minimum of one experienced PAM operator. PAM operators
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. We acknowledge generally that PAM has significant
limitations. For example, animals may only be detected when vocalizing,
species making directional vocalizations must vocalize towards the
array to be detected, species identification and localization may be
difficult, etc. However, we believe that for certain species and in
appropriate environmental conditions it is a useful complement to
visual monitoring during good sighting conditions and that it is the
only meaningful monitoring technique during periods of poor visibility.
Further detail regarding PAM system requirements may be found in the
``Proposed Monitoring'' section, later in this document. The
effectiveness of PAM depends to a certain extent on the equipment and
methods used and competency of the PAM operator, but no established
standards are currently in place. We do offer some specifications later
in this document and each applicant has provided a PAM plan.
Following protocols described by the New Zealand Department of
Conservation for seismic surveys conducted in New Zealand waters (DOC,
2013), survey activity may continue for brief periods of time when 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:
Daylight hours and sea state is less than or equal to
Beaufort sea state (BSS) 4;
No marine mammals (excluding small delphinoids; see below)
detected solely by PAM in the exclusion zone (see below) in the
previous two hours;
NMFS is notified via email as soon as practicable with the
time and location in which operations began without an active PAM
system; and
Operations with an active acoustic source, but without an
operating PAM system, do not exceed a cumulative total of four hours in
any 24-hour period.
As noted previously, all source vessels must carry a minimum of one
experienced visual PSO and one experienced PAM operator. Although a
given PSO may carry out either visual PSO or PAM operator duties during
a survey (assuming appropriate training),
[[Page 26252]]
the required experienced PSOs may not be the same person. The observer
designated as lead PSO (including the full team of visual PSOs and PAM
operators) must be an experienced visual PSO. The applicant may
determine how many PSOs are required to adequately fulfill the
requirements specified here. To summarize, these requirements are: (1)
Separate experienced visual PSOs and PAM operators; (2) 24-hour
acoustic monitoring during use of the acoustic source; (3) visual
monitoring during use of the acoustic source by two PSOs during all
daylight hours and during nighttime ramp-ups; (4) maximum of two
consecutive hours on watch followed by a minimum of one hour off watch
for visual PSOs and a maximum of four consecutive hours on watch
followed by a minimum of two consecutive hours off watch for PAM
operators; and (5) maximum of 12 hours of observational effort per 24-
hour period for any PSO, regardless of duties.
Buffer Zone and Exclusion Zone
The PSOs shall establish and monitor a 500-m exclusion zone and a
1,000-m buffer zone. These 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 within the buffer zone
(but outside the exclusion zone) should be communicated to the operator
to prepare for the potential shutdown of the acoustic source. Use of
the buffer zone in relation to ramp-up is discussed under ``Ramp-up.''
Further detail regarding the exclusion zone and shutdown requirements
is given under ``Exclusion Zone and Shutdown Requirements.''
Ramp-Up
Ramp-up of an acoustic source is intended to provide a gradual
increase in sound levels, enabling animals to move away from the source
if the signal is sufficiently aversive prior to its reaching full
intensity. We infer on the basis of behavioral avoidance studies and
observations that this measure results in some reduced potential for
auditory injury and/or more severe behavioral reactions. Dunlop et al.
(2016) studied the effect of ramp-up during a seismic airgun survey on
migrating humpback whales, finding that although behavioral response
indicating potential avoidance was observed, there was no evidence that
ramp-up was more effective at causing aversion than was a constant
source. Regardless, the majority of whale groups did avoid the source
vessel at distances greater than the radius of most mitigation zones
(Dunlop et al., 2016). Although this measure is not proven and some
arguments have been made that use of ramp-up may not have the desired
effect of aversion (which is itself a potentially negative impact
assumed to be better than the alternative), ramp-up remains a
relatively low cost, common sense component of standard mitigation.
Ramp-up is most likely to be effective for more sensitive species
(e.g., beaked whales) with known behavioral responses at greater
distances from an acoustic source (e.g., Tyack et al., 2011; DeRuiter
et al., 2013; Miller et al., 2015).
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 is required at
all times as part of the activation of the acoustic source (including
source tests; see ``Miscellaneous Protocols'' for more detail) and may
occur at times of poor visibility, assuming appropriate acoustic
monitoring with no detections in the 30 minutes prior to beginning
ramp-up. Acoustic source activation should only occur at night where
operational planning cannot reasonably avoid such circumstances. For
example, a nighttime initial ramp-up following port departure is
reasonably avoidable and may not occur. Ramp-up may occur at night
following acoustic source deactivation due to line turn or mechanical
difficulty. The operator must notify a designated PSO of the planned
start of ramp-up as agreed-upon with the lead PSO; the notification
time should not be less than 60 minutes prior to the planned ramp-up. 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.
Ramp-up procedures follow the recommendations of IAGC (2015). Ramp-
up would begin by activating a single airgun (i.e., array element) of
the smallest volume in the array. Ramp-up continues in stages by
doubling the number of active elements at the commencement of each
stage, with each stage of approximately the same duration. Total
duration should be approximately 20 minutes. There will generally be
one stage in which doubling the number of elements is not possible
because the total number is not even. This should be the last stage of
the ramp-up sequence. These requirements may be modified on the basis
of any new information presented that justifies a different protocol.
The operator must provide information to the PSO documenting that
appropriate procedures were followed. Ramp-ups should be scheduled so
as to minimize the time spent with source activated prior to reaching
the designated run-in. We adopt this approach to ramp-up (increments of
array elements) because it is relatively simple to implement for the
operator as compared with more complex schemes involving activation by
increments of array volume, or activation on the basis of element
location or size. Such approaches may also be more likely to result in
irregular leaps in sound output due to variations in size between
individual elements within an array and their geometric interaction as
more elements are recruited. It may be argued whether smooth
incremental increase is necessary, but stronger aversion than is
necessary should be avoided. The approach proposed here is intended to
ensure a perceptible increase in sound output per increment while
employing increments that produce similar degrees of increase at each
step.
PSOs must monitor a 1,000-m buffer zone for a minimum of 30 minutes
prior to ramp-up (i.e., pre-clearance). The pre-clearance period may
occur during any vessel activity (i.e., transit, line turn). Ramp-up
should be planned to occur during periods of good visibility when
possible; operators should not target the period just after visual PSOs
have gone off duty. Following deactivation of the source for reasons
other than mitigation, the operator must communicate the near-term
operational plan to the lead PSO with justification for any planned
nighttime ramp-up. Any suspected patterns of abuse should be reported
by the lead PSO and would be investigated by NMFS. Ramp-up may not be
initiated if any marine mammal (including small delphinoids) is within
the designated buffer zone. If a marine mammal is observed within the
buffer zone during the pre-clearance 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 30 minutes for all other species).
PSOs will monitor the buffer zone during ramp-up, and ramp-up must
cease and the source shut down upon observation of marine mammals
within or approaching the buffer zone.
Exclusion Zone and Shutdown Requirements
An exclusion zone is a defined area within which occurrence of a
marine mammal triggers mitigation action intended to reduce potential
for certain outcomes, e.g., auditory injury,
[[Page 26253]]
disruption of critical behaviors. The PSOs must establish a minimum
exclusion zone with a 500 m radius as a perimeter around the airgun
array (rather than being centered on the array or around the vessel
itself). If a marine mammal appears within, enters, or appears on a
course to enter this zone, the acoustic source must be shut down (i.e.,
power to the acoustic source must be immediately turned off). If a
marine mammal is detected acoustically, the acoustic source must be
shut down, unless the PAM operator is confident that the animal
detected is outside the exclusion zone or that the detected species is
not subject to the shutdown requirement (see below).
This shutdown requirement is 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 shutdown
requirement applies solely to specific genera of small dolphins--Steno,
Tursiops, Stenella, Delphinus, Lagenodelphis, and Lagenorhynchus (see
Table 4)--and only applies if the animals are 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 shutdown 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, shutdown
must be implemented. We do not require that a PSO determine the intent
of the animal(s)--an inherently subjective proposition--but simply
whether any potential intersection of the animal with the 500-m
exclusion zone would be caused due to the vessel's approach towards
relatively stationary animals.
We propose this small delphinoid exception because a shutdown
requirement for small delphinoids under all circumstances is of known
concern regarding practicability for the applicant due to increased
shutdowns, without likely commensurate benefit 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'' later
in this document 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 increased shutdowns resulting from such a measure would
require source vessels 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 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 shutdown requirement for large delphinoids in that it
simplifies somewhat the total array of decision-making 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.
BOEM's PEIS (BOEM, 2014a) provided modeling results for auditory
injury zones on the basis of auditory injury criteria described by
Southall et al. (2007). These zones were less than 10 m on the basis of
maximum peak pressure, and a maximum of 18 m on the basis of cumulative
sound exposure level (including application of relevant M-weighting
filters). However, the recent finalization of NMFS's new technical
acoustic guidance made these predictions irrelevant (NMFS, 2016). We
calculated potential radial distances to auditory injury zones on the
basis of maximum peak pressure using values provided by the applicants
(Table 1) and assuming a simple model of spherical spreading
propagation. These are as follows: Low-frequency cetaceans, 50-224 m;
mid-frequency cetaceans, 14-63 m; and high-frequency cetaceans, 355-
1,585 m. The 500-m radial distance of the standard exclusion zone is
intended to be precautionary in the sense that it would be expected to
contain sound exceeding peak pressure injury criteria for all hearing
groups other than high-frequency cetaceans, while also providing a
consistent, reasonably observable zone within which PSOs would
typically be able to conduct effective observational effort. 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 exclusion zone based on cumulative sound exposure
level (cSEL) 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, it is
likely that exclusion zone radii would be larger for low-frequency
cetaceans, because their most susceptible hearing range overlaps the
low frequencies produced by airguns, but that the zones would remain
very small for mid-frequency cetaceans (i.e., including the ``small
delphinoids'' described above), whose range of best hearing largely
does not overlap with frequencies produced by airguns. In order to more
realistically incorporate the technical guidance's weighting functions
over a seismic array's full acoustic band, we obtained unweighted
spectrum data (modeled in 1 Hz bands) for a reasonably equivalent
acoustic source (i.e., a 36-airgun array with total volume of 6,600
in\3\. Using these data, we made adjustments (dB) to the unweighted
spectrum levels, by frequency, according to the weighting functions for
each relevant marine mammal hearing group. We then converted these
adjusted/weighted spectrum levels 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 NMFS's
[[Page 26254]]
User Spreadsheet (i.e., 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, a source velocity of
4.5 kn, shot intervals specified by the applicants, and pulse duration
of 100 ms, we then calculated potential radial distances to auditory
injury zones. These distances were smaller than those calculated on the
basis of the peak pressure criterion, with the exception of the low-
frequency cetacean hearing group (calculated zones range from 80-4,766
m). Therefore, our proposed 500-m exclusion zone contains the entirety
of any potential injury zone for mid-frequency cetaceans, while the
zones within which injury could occur may be larger for high-frequency
cetaceans (on the basis of peak pressure and depending on the specific
array) and for low-frequency cetaceans (on the basis of cumulative
sound exposure). Only three species of high-frequency cetacean could
occur in the proposed survey areas: the harbor porpoise and two species
of the Family Kogiidae. Harbor porpoise are expected to occur rarely
and only in the northern portion of the survey area. However, we
propose a shutdown measure for Kogia spp. to address these potential
injury concerns (described later in this section).
However, it is important to note that consideration of 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 consideration of peak pressure
thresholds is most relevant, as compared with cumulative sound exposure
level thresholds, as the latter requires that an animal accumulate some
level of sound energy exposure over some period of time (e.g., 24
hours). 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.
Therefore, definition of an exclusion zone based on cSEL thresholds is
of questionable relevance given relative motion of the source and
receiver (i.e., the animal). Cumulative SEL thresholds are likely more
relevant for purposes of modeling the potential for auditory injury
than they are for informing real-time mitigation. 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 and high-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 zone is not based directly on any quantitative
understanding of the range at which auditory injury would be entirely
precluded or any range specifically related to disruption of behavioral
patterns. Rather, we believe it is a reasonable combination of factors.
This zone would contain all potential auditory injury for mid-frequency
cetaceans, would contain all potential auditory injury for both low-
and mid-frequency cetaceans as assessed against peak pressure
thresholds (NMFS, 2016), and has been proven as a feasible measure
through past implementation by operators in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM; 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 this has the advantage of familiarity and simplicity while
still providing in most cases a zone larger than relevant auditory
injury zones, given realistic movement of source and receiver.
Increased shutdowns, without a firm idea of the outcome the measure
seeks to avoid, simply displace seismic activity in time and increase
the total duration of acoustic influence as well as total sound energy
in the water (due to additional ramp-up and overlap where data
acquisition was interrupted).
Shutdown of the acoustic source is also required (at any distance)
in other circumstances:
Upon observation of a right whale at any distance. Recent
data concerning the North Atlantic right whale, one of the most
endangered whale species (Best et al., 2001), indicate uncertainty
regarding the population's recovery and a possibility of decline (Kraus
et al., 2005; Waring et al., 2016; Pettis and Hamilton, 2016). We
believe it appropriate to eliminate potential effects to individual
right whales to the extent possible.
For TGS only, due to a high predicted amount of exposures
(Table 10), we propose that shutdown be required upon observation of a
fin whale at any distance. If the observed fin whale is within the
behavioral harassment zone, it would still be considered to have
experienced harassment, but by immediately shutting down the acoustic
source the duration of harassment is minimized and the significance of
the harassment event reduced as much as possible. This measure is not
proposed for implementation by Spectrum, ION, CGG, or Western.
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. Disturbance of cow-calf pairs, for
example, could potentially result in separation of vulnerable calves
from adults. Given the endangered status of most large whale species
and the difficulty of correctly identifying some rorquals at greater
distances, as well as the functional sensitivity of the mysticete
whales to frequencies associated with the subject geophysical survey
activity, we believe this measure is necessary.
Upon observation of a diving sperm whale at any distance
centered on the forward track of the source vessel. Disturbance of
deep-diving species such as sperm whales could result in avoidance
behavior such as diving and, given their diving capabilities, it is
possible that the vessel's course could take it closer to the submerged
animals. As noted by Weir and Dolman (2007), a whale diving ahead of
the source vessel within 2 km may remain on the vessel trackline until
the ship approaches the whale's position before beginning horizontal
movement. If undetected by PAM, it is possible that a shutdown might
not be triggered and a severe behavioral response caused.
Upon any observation (visual or acoustic) of a beaked
whale or Kogia spp. Similar to the sperm whale measure described above,
these species are deep divers and it is possible that disturbance could
provoke a severe behavioral response leading to injury. Unlike the
sperm whale, we recognize that there are generally low detection
probabilities for beaked whales and Kogia spp., meaning that many
animals of these species may go undetected. For
[[Page 26255]]
example, Barlow and Gisiner (2006) predict a roughly 24-48 percent
reduction in the probability of detecting beaked whales during seismic
mitigation monitoring efforts as compared with typical research survey
efforts (Barlow (1999) estimates such probabilities at 0.23 to 0.45 for
Cuvier's and Mesoplodont beaked whales, respectively). Similar
detection probabilities have been noted for Kogia spp., though they
typically travel in smaller groups and are less vocal, thus making
detection more difficult (Barlow and Forney, 2007). As discussed later
in this document (see ``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment''),
there are high levels of predicted exposures for beaked whales in
particular. Because it is likely that only a small proportion of beaked
whales and Kogia spp. potentially affected by the proposed surveys
would actually be detected, it is important to avoid potential impacts
when possible. Additionally for Kogia spp.--the one species of high-
frequency cetacean likely to be encountered--auditory injury zones
relative to peak pressure thresholds may range from approximately 350-
1,500 m from the acoustic source, depending on the specific array
characteristics (NMFS, 2016).
Upon observation of an aggregation of marine mammals of
any species that does not appear to be traveling. Under these
circumstances, we assume that the animals are engaged in some important
behavior (e.g., feeding, socializing) that should not be disturbed. By
convention, we define an aggregation as six or more animals. This
definition may be modified on the basis of any new information
presented that justifies a different assumption.
Any PSO on duty has the authority to delay the start of survey
operations or to call for shutdown of the acoustic source (visual PSOs
on duty should be in agreement on the need for delay or shutdown before
requiring such action). When shutdown is called for by a PSO, the
acoustic source must be immediately deactivated and any dispute
resolved only following deactivation. The operator must establish and
maintain clear lines of communication directly between PSOs on duty and
crew controlling the acoustic source to ensure that shutdown commands
are conveyed swiftly while allowing PSOs to maintain watch; hand-held
UHF radios are recommended. When both visual PSOs and PAM operators are
on duty, all detections must be immediately communicated to the
remainder of the on-duty team for potential verification of visual
observations by the PAM operator or of acoustic detections by visual
PSOs and initiation of dialogue as necessary. 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. When only the PAM operator is on duty and a
detection is made, if there is uncertainty regarding species
identification or distance to the vocalizing animal(s), the acoustic
source must be shut down as a precaution.
Upon implementation of shutdown, the source may be reactivated
after the animal(s) has been observed exiting the exclusion zone or
following a 30-minute clearance period with no further observation of
the animal(s). Where there is no relevant zone (e.g., shutdowns at any
distance), a 30-minute clearance period must be observed following the
last observation of the animal(s). We recognize that BOEM may require a
longer clearance period (e.g., 60 minutes). However, at typical survey
speed of approximately 4.5 kn, the vessel would cover greater than 4 km
during the 30-minute clearance period. Although some deep-diving
species are capable of remaining submerged for periods up to an hour,
it is unlikely that they would do so both while experiencing potential
adverse reaction to the acoustic stimulus and remaining within the
exclusion zone of the moving vessel. Extending the clearance period
would not appreciably increase the likelihood of detecting the animals
prior to reactivating the acoustic source.
If the acoustic source is shut down for reasons other than
mitigation (e.g., mechanical difficulty) for brief periods (i.e., 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 exclusion zone
and no acoustic detections have occurred. We define ``brief periods''
in keeping with other clearance watch periods and to avoid unnecessary
complexity in protocols for PSOs. For any longer shutdown (e.g., during
line turns), pre-clearance watch and ramp-up are required. For any
shutdown at night or in periods of poor visibility (e.g., BSS 4 or
greater), ramp-up is required but if the shutdown period was brief and
constant observation maintained, pre-clearance watch is not required.
Power-Down
Power-down can be used either as a reverse ramp-up or may simply
involve reducing the array to a single element or ``mitigation
source,'' and has been allowed in past MMPA authorizations as a
substitute for full shutdown. We address use of a mitigation source
below. In a power-down scenario, it is assumed that turning off power
to individual array elements reduces the size of the ensonified area
such that an observed animal is then outside some designated area.
However, we have no information as to the effect of powering down the
array on the resulting sound field. In 2012, NMFS and BOEM held a
monitoring and mitigation workshop focused on seismic survey activity.
Industry representatives indicated that the end result may ultimately
be increased sound input to the marine environment due to the need to
re-shoot the trackline to prevent gaps in data acquisition (unpublished
workshop report, 2012). For this reason and because a power-down may
not actually be useful, our proposal requires full shutdown in all
applicable circumstances; power-down is not allowed.
Mitigation Source
Mitigation sources may be separate individual airguns or may be an
airgun of the smallest volume in the array, and are often used when the
full array is not being used (e.g., during line turns) in order to
allow ramp-up during poor visibility. The general premise is that this
lower-intensity source, if operated continuously, would be sufficiently
aversive to marine mammals to ensure that they are not within an
exclusion zone, and therefore, ramp-up may occur at times when pre-
clearance visual watch is minimally effective. There is no information
to suggest that this is an effective protective strategy, yet we are
certain that this technique involves input of extraneous sound energy
into the marine environment, even when use of the mitigation source is
limited to some maximum time period. For these reasons, we do not
believe use of the mitigation source is appropriate and do not propose
to allow its use. However, as noted above, ramp-up may occur under
periods of poor visibility assuming that no acoustic or visual
detections are made during a 30-minute pre-clearance period. This is a
change from how mitigation sources have been considered in the past in
that the visual pre-clearance period is typically assumed to be highly
effective during good visibility conditions and viewed as critical to
avoiding auditory injury and, therefore, maintaining some likelihood of
aversion through use of mitigation sources during poor visibility
conditions is valuable.
In light of the available information, we think it more appropriate
to acknowledge the limitations of visual observations--even under good
[[Page 26256]]
conditions, not all animals will be observed and cryptic species may
not be observed at all--and recognize that while visual observation is
a common sense mitigation measure its presence should not be
determinative of when survey effort may occur. Given the lack of proven
efficacy of visual observation in preventing auditory injury, its
absence should not imply such potentially detrimental impacts on marine
mammals, nor should use of a mitigation source be deemed a sensible
substitute component of seismic mitigation protocols. We also believe
that consideration of mitigation sources in the past has reflected an
outdated balance, in which the possible prevention of relatively few
instances of auditory injury is outweighed by many more instances of
unnecessary behavioral disturbance of animals and degradation of
acoustic habitat.
Miscellaneous Protocols
The acoustic source must be deactivated when not acquiring data or
preparing to acquire data, except as necessary for testing. Unnecessary
use of the acoustic source should be avoided. Firing of the acoustic
source at any volume above the stated production volume is not
authorized for these proposed IHAs; the operator must provide
information to the lead PSO at regular intervals confirming the firing
volume.
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.
We encourage the applicant companies and operators to pursue the
following objectives in designing, tuning, and operating acoustic
sources: (1) Use the minimum amount of energy necessary to achieve
operational objectives (i.e., lowest practicable source level); (2)
minimize horizontal propagation of sound energy; and (3) minimize the
amount of energy at frequencies above those necessary for the purpose
of the survey. However, we are not aware of available specific measures
by which to achieve such certifications. In fact, BOEM recently
announced that an expert panel convened to determine whether it would
be feasible to develop standards to determine a lowest practicable
source level has determined that it would not be reasonable or
practicable to develop such metrics (see Appendix L in BOEM, 2016b).
Minimizing production of sound at frequencies higher than are necessary
would likely require design, testing, and use of wholly different
airguns than are proposed for use by the applicants. At minimum,
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 for reporting. The lead PSO
must be granted access to relevant instrumentation documenting acoustic
source power and/or operational volume.
There has been some attention paid to the establishment of minimum
separation distances between operating source vessels, and BOEM may
require a minimum 40-km geographic separation distance (BOEM, 2014b).
The premise regarding this measure is either to provide a relatively
noise-free corridor between vessels conducting simultaneous surveys
such that animals may pass through rather than traveling larger
distances to go around the source vessels or to reduce the cumulative
sound exposure for an animal in a given location. There is no
information supporting the effectiveness of this measure, and
participants in a 2012 monitoring and mitigation workshop focused on
seismic survey activity held by NMFS and BOEM were skeptical regarding
potential efficacy of this measure (unpublished workshop report, 2012).
Unintended consequences were a concern of some participants, including
the possibility that converging sound fields could confuse animals and/
or prevent egress from an area. In fact, it may be more effective as a
protective measure to group acoustic sources as closely together as
possible, in which case the SEL exposure would not be appreciably
louder and an animal would have a better chance of avoiding exposure
than through the supposed corridor (thus also potentially shortening
total duration of sound exposure).
The desired effect of such a measure is too speculative and would
impose additional burden on applicants. Therefore, we do not propose to
require any minimum separation distance between source vessels.
Operators do typically maintain a minimum separation of about 17.5 km
between concurrent surveys to avoid interference (i.e., overlapping
reflections received from multiple source arrays) (BOEM, 2014a). As
noted previously, TGS (the only company proposing to use two source
vessels) plans to maintain a minimum separation of approximately 100 km
between their own source vessels.
Closure Areas
Coastal Restriction--No seismic survey effort may occur within 30
km of the coast. The intent of this restriction is to provide
additional protection for coastal stocks of bottlenose dolphin, all of
which are designated as depleted under the MMPA because they were
determined to be below their optimum sustainable population level
(i.e., the number of animals that will result in the maximum
productivity of the population, keeping in mind the carrying capacity
of their ecosystem). Already designated as depleted, an Unusual
Mortality Event (UME) affected bottlenose dolphins along the Atlantic
coast, from New York to Florida, from 2013-15. Genetic analyses
performed to date indicate that 99 percent of dolphins impacted were of
the coastal ecotype, which may be expected to typically occur within 20
km of the coast. A 10 km buffer is provided to encompass the area
within which sound exceeding 160 dB rms would reasonably be expected to
occur (see additional discussion in next section). Further discussion
of this UME is provided under ``Description of Marine Mammals in the
Area of the Specified Activity,'' later in this document.
The coastal form of bottlenose dolphin is known to occur further
offshore than 20 km, but available information suggests that exclusion
of harassing sound from a 20 km coastal zone would avoid the vast
majority of impacts. There is generally a discontinuity in bottlenose
dolphin distribution between nearshore areas inhabited by coastal
ecotype dolphins and the deeper offshore waters inhabited by offshore
ecotype dolphins (Kenney, 1990; Roberts et al., 2016), with some
possibility that this discontinuity represents habitat partitioning
between bottlenose dolphins and Atlantic spotted dolphins (which occur
in high density on the shelf in areas where there is generally low
density of bottlenose dolphin). The separation between offshore and
coastal morphotypes varies depending on location and season, with the
ranges overlapping to some degree south of Cape Hatteras. Coastwide,
systematic biopsy collection surveys were conducted during the summer
and winter to evaluate the degree of spatial overlap between the two
morphotypes. North of Cape Lookout, North Carolina, there was a clear
discontinuity with coastal ecotype dolphins found in waters less than
20 m depth and offshore ecotype dolphins found in waters greater than
40 m depth. South of Cape Lookout, spatial overlap was
[[Page 26257]]
found although the probability of a sampled group being from the
coastal ecotype decreased with increasing depth (Garrison et al.,
2003). Prior to these surveys, coastal ecotype dolphins were
provisionally assumed to occur within a spatial boundary of 27 km from
shore for the region south of Cape Hatteras during winter and a
boundary of 12 km from shore for the region north of Cape Hatteras
during summer (Garrison, 2001 in Garrison et al., 2003). Here, we adopt
a coastwide 20 km spatial boundary for simplicity and under the
assumption that it would contain the vast majority of coastal
bottlenose dolphins.
Proposal of this measure should not be interpreted as NMFS's
determination that harassment of coastal bottlenose dolphins cannot be
authorized. However, when considering the likely benefit to the species
against the impact to applicants, we believe that inclusion of this
measure is warranted. Approximately 1,650 dolphin carcasses were
recovered during the UME, and it is likely that many more dolphins died
whose carcasses were not recovered. Considering just the known dead
could represent greater than five percent of the pre-UME abundance for
all coastal ecotype dolphins within the affected area. Ongoing areas of
research related to the UME include understanding its impacts on the
status of the affected stocks, as well as continuing monitoring and
modeling designed to inform understanding of impacts on the surviving
population. Given this uncertainty, a precautionary approach is
warranted. We note that three applicants, Spectrum, CGG, and Western,
do not propose to conduct survey effort within 30 km of the coast, and
effort within 30 km for the other two applicants would represent a
small fraction of overall survey effort.
North Atlantic Right Whale--We propose seasonal restriction of
survey effort such that particular areas of expected importance for
North Atlantic right whales are not ensonified by levels of sound
expected to result in behavioral harassment, including designated
critical habitat, vessel speed limit seasonal management areas (SMAs),
a coastal strip containing SMAs, and vessel speed limit dynamic
management areas (DMAs). Although right whales may also use areas
farther offshore, these areas are expected to provide substantial
protection of right whales within the migratory corridor and calving
and nursery grounds and, when coupled with the absolute shutdown
provision described previously for right whales, may reasonably be
expected to eliminate most potential for behavioral harassment of right
whales.
The North Atlantic right whale was severely depleted by historical
whaling, and currently has a small population abundance (i.e., less
than 500 individuals) that is considered to be extremely low relative
to the optimum sustainable population (Waring et al., 2016). Surveys in
recent years have detected an important shift in habitat use patterns,
with fewer whales observed in feeding areas and counts for calves and
adults on the southeastern calving grounds the lowest recorded since
those surveys began (Waring et al., 2016). At the same time, the
current estimate of the minimum number of whales alive (as described in
NMFS's draft 2016 stock assessment report) suggests that abundance has
declined. While the authors caution that this apparent decrease should
be interpreted with caution and in conjunction with apparent shifts in
habitat use, it is possible that the population has declined. An
increased number of carcasses were recovered in 2004-05, including six
adult females. Kraus et al. (2005) determined that this mortality rate
increase would reduce population growth by approximately ten percent
per year, a trend not detected in subsequent years. Furthermore, the
current annual estimate of anthropogenic mortality is over five times
the potential biological removal level (see ``Description of Marine
Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity'' for further discussion
of these concepts). The small population size and low annual
reproductive rate of right whales suggest that human sources of
mortality may have a greater effect relative to population growth rates
than for other whales (Waring et al., 2016). Given these
considerations, and the likelihood that any disturbance of right whales
is consequential, here we take a precautionary approach to mitigation.
Mid-Atlantic SMAs for vessel speed limits are in effect from
November 1 through April 30, while southeast SMAs are in effect from
November 15 through April 15 (see 50 CFR 224.105). However, as a
precautionary approach all areas discussed here for proposed mitigation
would be in effect from November 1 through April 30. Because we intend
to use these areas to reduce the likelihood of exposing right whales to
noise from airgun arrays that might result in harassment, we require
that source vessels maintain a minimum standoff of 10 km from the area.
Sound propagation modeling results provided for a notional large airgun
array in BOEM's PEIS indicate that a 10 km distance would likely
contain received levels of sound exceeding 160 dB rms under a wide
variety of conditions (e.g., 21 scenarios encompassing four depth
regimes, four seasons, two bottom types). See Appendix D of BOEM's PEIS
for more detail. The 95 percent ranges (i.e., the radius of a circle
encompassing 95 percent of grid points equal to or greater than the 160
dB threshold value) provided in Table D-22 of BOEM's PEIS range from
4,959-9,122 m, with mean of 6,838 m. Restricting scenario results to
fall/winter and water depths <1,000 m reduces the number of relevant
scenarios to six, with the range of radial distances from 8,083-8,896 m
(mean of 8,454 m).
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 26258]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06JN17.001
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
The portion of critical habitat within the proposed survey area
includes nearshore and offshore waters of the southeastern U.S.,
extending from Cape Fear, North Carolina south to 28[deg] N. The
specific area designated as critical habitat, as defined by regulation
(81 FR 4838; January 27, 2016), is demarcated by rhumb lines connecting
the specific points identified in Table 2. This area is depicted in
Figure 2, and the restriction on survey effort within 10 km of this
area would be in effect from November
[[Page 26259]]
through April, when right whales are known to use the area.
A coastal strip containing all SMAs would also be avoided by a
minimum standoff distance of 10 km, as would DMAs. These are areas in
which right whales are likely to be present when such areas are in
effect; mandatory or voluntary speed restrictions for certain vessels
are in place in these areas respectively when in effect to reduce the
risk of ship strike. Because these areas are intended to reduce the
risk of ship strike involving right whales, they are designated in
consideration of both right whale presence during migratory periods and
commercial shipping traffic. Our concern is not limited to ship strike;
therefore the standoff areas based on the SMAs are extended to a
continuous coastal strip with a 10 km buffer. Mid-Atlantic SMAs (from
Delaware to northern Georgia) are intended to protect whales on the
migratory route and are generally defined as a 20 nmi (37 km) radial
distance around the entrance to certain ports. Therefore, no survey
effort may occur within 47 km of the coast between November and April.
This strip is superseded where either designated critical habitat or
the southeast SMA provides a larger restricted area. The southeast SMA,
intended to protect whales on the calving and nursery grounds, includes
the area bounded to the north by 31[deg]27' N., to the south by
29[deg]45' N., and to the east by 80[deg]51'36'' W. No survey effort
may occur within 10 km of this area between November and April. The
combined area of our proposed restriction--composed of the greater of
designated critical habitat, the 20 nmi coastal strip, and the
southeastern SMA (all buffered by 10 km)--is depicted in Figure 3.
Table 2--Boundaries of Designated Critical Habitat for North Atlantic
Right Whales
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
33[deg]51' N. At shoreline 29[deg]08' N. 80[deg]51' W.
33[deg]42' N. 77[deg]43' W. 28[deg]50' N. 80[deg]39' W.
33[deg]37' N. 77[deg]47' W. 28[deg]38' N. 80[deg]30' W.
33[deg]28' N. 78[deg]33' W. 28[deg]28' N. 80[deg]26' W.
32[deg]59' N. 78[deg]50' W. 28[deg]24' N. 80[deg]27' W.
32[deg]17' N. 79[deg]53' W. 28[deg]21' N. 80[deg]31' W.
31[deg]31' N. 80[deg]33' W. 28[deg]16' N. 80[deg]31' W.
30[deg]43' N. 80[deg]49' W. 28[deg]11' N. 80[deg]33' W.
30[deg]30' N. 81[deg]01' W. 28[deg]00' N. 80[deg]29' W.
29[deg]45' N. 81[deg]01' W. 28[deg]00' N. At shoreline.
29[deg]15' N. 80[deg]55' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reproduced from 50 CFR 226.203(b)(2).
DMAs are also associated with a scheme established by the final
rule for vessel speed limits (73 FR 60173; October 10, 2008; extended
by 78 FR 73726; December 9, 2013) to reduce the risk of ship strike for
right whales. In association with those regulations, NMFS established a
program whereby vessels are requested, but not required, to abide by
speed restrictions or avoid locations when certain aggregations of
right whales are detected outside SMAs. Generally, the DMA construct is
intended to acknowledge that right whales can occur outside of areas
where they predictably and consistently occur due to, e.g., varying
oceanographic conditions that dictate prey concentrations. NMFS
establishes DMAs by surveying right whale habitat and, when a specific
aggregation is sighted, creating a temporary zone (i.e., DMA) around
the aggregation. DMAs are in effect for 15 days when designated and
automatically expire at the end of the period, but may be extended if
whales are re-sighted in the same area.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 26260]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06JN17.002
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
Designation of DMAs follows certain protocols identified in 73 FR
60173 (October 10, 2008):
1. A circle with a radius of at least 3 nmi (5.6 km) is drawn
around each observed group. This radius is adjusted for the number of
right whales seen in the group such that the density of four right
whales per 100 nmi\2\ (185 km\2\) is maintained. The length of the
radius is determined by taking the inverse of the four right whales per
100 nmi\2\ density (24 nmi\2\ per whale). That figure is
[[Page 26261]]
equivalent to an effective radial distance of 3 nmi for a single right
whale sighted, 4 nmi for two whales, 5 nmi for three whales, etc.
2. If any circle or group of contiguous circles includes three or
more right whales, this core area and its surrounding waters become a
candidate temporary zone. After NMFS identifies a core area containing
three or more right whales, as described here, it will expand this
initial core area to provide a buffer area in which the right whales
could move and still be protected.
NMFS determines the extent of the DMA zone by:
3. Establishing a 15-nmi (27.8-km) radius from the sighting
location used to draw a larger circular zone around each core area
encompassing a concentration of right whales. The sighting location is
the geographic center of all sightings on the first day of an event;
and
4. Identifying latitude and longitude lines drawn outside but
tangential to the circular buffer zone(s).
NMFS issues announcements of DMAs to mariners via its customary
maritime communication media (e.g., NOAA Weather radio, Web sites,
email and fax distribution lists) and any other available media
outlets. Information on the possibility of establishment of such zones
is provided to mariners through written media such as U.S. Coast Pilots
and Notice to Mariners including, in particular, information on the
media mariners should monitor for notification of the establishment of
a DMA. Upon notice via the above media of DMA designation, survey
operators must cease operation if within 10 km of the boundary of a
designated DMA and may not conduct survey operations within 10 km of a
designated DMA during the period in which the DMA is active. It is the
responsibility of the survey operators to monitor appropriate media and
to be aware of designated DMAs.
Proposal of this measure should not be interpreted as NMFS's
determination that harassment of right whales cannot be authorized.
However, when considering the current status of the species, likely
benefit of the measure to the species, and likely impact to applicants,
we believe that inclusion of this measure is warranted.
Other Species--Predicted acoustic exposures are moderate to high
for certain potentially affected marine mammal species (see Table 10)
and, regardless of the absolute numbers of predicted exposures, the
scope of proposed activities (i.e., proposed survey activity throughout
substantial portions of many species range and for substantial portions
of the year) gives rise to concern regarding the impact on certain
potentially affected stocks. Therefore, we take the necessary step of
identifying additional spatiotemporal restrictions on survey effort, as
described here (Figure 4 and Table 3). Our qualitative assessment leads
us to believe that implementation of these measures is expected to
provide both meaningful control on the numbers of animals affected as
well as biologically meaningful benefit for the affected animals by
restricting survey activity and the effects of the sound produced in
areas of residency and/or preferred habitat that support higher
densities for the stocks during substantial portions of the year.
The restrictions described here are primarily targeted towards
protection of sperm whales, beaked whales (i.e., Cuvier's beaked whale
or Mesoplodon spp. but not the northern bottlenose whale; see
``Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified
Activity''), Atlantic spotted dolphin, and pilot whales. For all four
species or guilds, the amount of predicted exposures is moderate to
high. For the Atlantic spotted dolphin, our impetus in delineating a
restriction on survey effort is solely due to this high amount of
predicted exposures to survey noise. For other species, the moderate to
high amount of predicted exposures in conjunction with other contextual
elements provides the impetus to develop appropriate restrictions.
Beaked whales are considered to be a particularly acoustically
sensitive species. The sperm whale is an endangered species, also
considered to be acoustically sensitive and potentially subject to
significant disturbance of important foraging behavior. Pilot whale
populations in U.S. waters of the Atlantic are considered vulnerable
due to high levels of mortality in commercial fisheries, and are
therefore likely to be less resilient to other stressors, such as
disturbance from the proposed surveys.
In some cases, we expect substantial subsidiary benefit for
additional species that also find preferred habitat in the designated
area of restriction. In particular, Area #5 (Figure 4), although
delineated in order to specifically provide an area of anticipated
benefit to beaked whales, sperm whales, and pilot whales, is expected
to host a diverse cetacean fauna (e.g., McAlarney et al., 2015). Our
analysis (described below) indicates that species most likely to derive
subsidiary benefit from this time-area restriction include the
bottlenose dolphin, Risso's dolphin, and common dolphin. For species
with density predicted through stratified models, similar analysis is
not possible and assumptions regarding potential benefit of time-area
restrictions are based on known ecology of the species and sightings
patterns and are less robust. Nevertheless, subsidiary benefit for
Areas #2-4 (Figure 4) should be expected for species known to be
present in these areas (e.g., assumed affinity for slope/abyss areas
off Cape Hatteras): Kogia spp., pantropical spotted dolphin, Clymene
dolphin, and rough-toothed dolphin.
In order to consider potential restriction of survey effort in time
and space, we considered the outputs of habitat-based predictive
density models (Roberts et al., 2016) as well as available information
concerning focused marine mammal studies within the proposed survey
areas, e.g., photo-identification, telemetry, acoustic monitoring. The
latter information was used primarily to provide verification for some
of the areas and times considered, and helps to confirm that areas of
high predicted density are in fact preferred habitat for these species.
Please see ``Marine Mammal Density Information,'' later in this
document, for a full description of the density models. We used the
density model outputs by creating core abundance areas, i.e., an area
that contains some percentage of predicted abundance for a given
species or species group. The purpose of a core abundance area is to
represent the smallest area containing some percentage of the predicted
abundance of each species. Summing all the cells (pixels) in the
species distribution product gives the total predicted abundance. Core
area is calculated by ranking cells by their abundance value from
greatest to least, then summing cells with the highest abundance values
until the total is equal to or greater than the specified percentage of
the total predicted abundance. For example, if a 50 percent core
abundance area is produced, half of the predicted abundance falls
within the identified core area, and half occurs outside of it. In
creating core abundance areas, we considered data outputs over the
entire Atlantic coast scale rather than limiting to the proposed survey
areas. This is appropriate because we are concerned with impacts to a
stock as a whole, and therefore were interested in core abundance based
on total predicted abundance rather than just abundance predicted over
some subset of a stock's range. We were not able to consider core
abundance areas for species with stratified models showing uniform
density; however, this information informs us as to whether those
species may receive subsidiary
[[Page 26262]]
benefit from a given time-area restriction.
To determine core abundance areas, we follow a three-step process:
Determine the predicted total abundance of a species/time
period by adding up all cells of the density raster (grid) for the
species/time period. For the Roberts et al. (2016) density rasters,
density is specified as the number of animals per 100 km\2\ cell.
Sort the cells of the species/time period density raster
from highest density to the lowest.
Sum and select the raster cells from highest to lowest
until a certain percentage of the total abundance is reached.
The selected cells represent the smallest area that represents a
given percentage of abundance. We created a range of core abundance
areas for each species of interest, but ultimately determined that 25
percent core abundance area was appropriate in most cases for our
purpose. The larger the percentage of abundance captured, the larger
the area. Generally speaking, we found that 25 percent core abundance
provided the best balance between the areas given by larger
(impracticably large areas for purposes of restricting survey effort)
and smaller (ineffective areas for purposes of providing meaningful
protection) areas. However, for sperm whales, our analysis showed that
the 25 percent core abundance area covered a large portion of slope
waters in the northern mid-Atlantic region and, therefore, what we
believe to be an impracticably large area for potential restriction of
survey effort. Although sperm whales are broadly distributed on the
slope throughout the year, at the five percent core abundance threshold
we found that the model predictions indicate a relatively restricted
area of preferred habitat across all seasons in the vicinity of the
shelf break to the north of Cape Hatteras. This area, together with
spatially separated canyon features contained within the 25 percent
core abundance areas and previously identified as preferred habitat for
beaked whales, form the basis for our proposed time-space restriction
for sperm whales. Core abundance maps are provided online at
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/oilgas.htm.
In summary, we propose the following closure areas (depicted in
Figure 4):
In order to protect coastal bottlenose dolphins, a 30-km
coastal strip (20 km plus 10 km buffer) would be closed to use of the
acoustic source year-round.
An area proposed for protection of the North Atlantic
right whale (Figure 3). The area is comprised of the furthest extent at
any location of three distinct components: (1) A 47-km coastal strip
(20-nmi plus 10 km buffer) throughout the entire Mid- and South
Atlantic OCS planning areas; (2) designated critical habitat, buffered
by 10 km; and (3) the designated southeastern seasonal management area,
buffered by 10 km. This area would be closed to use of the acoustic
source from November through April. Dynamic management areas (buffered
by 10 km) are also closed to use of the acoustic source when in effect.
The 10-km buffer (intended to reasonably prevent sound output from
the acoustic source exceeding received levels expected to result in
behavioral harassment from entering the proposed closure areas) is
built into the areas defined below and in Table 3. Therefore, we do not
separately mention the addition of the buffer.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 26263]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06JN17.003
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
An area proposed for protection of Atlantic spotted
dolphin (Area #1, Figure 4). The area contains the on-shelf portion of
a 25 percent core abundance area for the species, and is comprised of
lines that demarcate the northern and southern extent of this area,
connected by a line marking 100 km distance from shore (as indicated in
Table 3). This area would be closed to use of the acoustic source from
June through August. This restriction would not be required for ION or
CGG.
Deepwater canyon areas. Areas #2-4 (Figure 4) are proposed
as defined in Table 3 and would be closed to use of
[[Page 26264]]
the acoustic source year-round. Although they may be protective of
additional species (e.g., Kogia spp.), Area #2 is expected to be
particularly beneficial for beaked whales and Areas #3-4 are expected
to be particularly beneficial for both beaked whales and sperm whales.
Shelf break off Cape Hatteras and to the north, including
slope waters around ``The Point.'' Area #5 is proposed as defined in
Table 3 and would be closed to use of the acoustic source from July
through September. Although this closure is expected to be beneficial
for a diverse species assemblage, Area #5 is expected to be
particularly beneficial for beaked whales, sperm whales, and pilot
whales.
Beaked Whale
Beaked whales are typically deep divers, foraging for mesopelagic
squid and fish, and are often found in deep water near high-relief
bathymetric features, such as slopes, canyons, and escarpments where
these prey are found (e.g., Madsen et al., 2014; MacLeod and D'Amico,
2006; Moors-Murphy, 2014). Sightings of Cuvier's beaked whale are
almost exclusively in the continental shelf edge and continental slope
areas, while Mesoplodon spp. sightings have occurred principally along
the shelf-edge and deeper oceanic waters (CETAP, 1982; Waring et al.,
1992; Tove, 1995; Waring et al., 2001; Hamazaki, 2002; Palka, 2006;
Waring et al., 2014). Roberts et al. (2016)'s results suggest that
beaked whales do not undertake large seasonal migrations, and are
therefore associated with significant habitat features year-round or
with some degree of residency (Roberts et al., 2015l; Gowans et al.,
2000; MacLeod and D'Amico, 2006). In support of patterns seen in the
density model outputs, MacLeod and D'Amico (2006) state that beaked
whale occurrence is linked particularly to features such as slopes,
canyons, escarpments and oceanic islands. Northern bottlenose whales
and Sowerby's beaked whales were found to preferentially occur in a
marine canyon rather than the neighboring shelf, slope and abyssal
areas (Hooker et al., 1999, 2002). Cuvier's beaked whales are also
known to associate with canyons (D'Amico et al., 2003; Williams et al.,
1999), and Blainville's beaked whales were also found to preferentially
occur over the upper reaches of a canyon (MacLeod and Zuur, 2005).
Sighting rates of beaked whales in the western North Atlantic are
significantly higher within canyon areas than non-canyon areas (Waring
et al., 2001). It is possible, however, that such occurrence patterns
are linked more strongly to oceanographic features influencing prey
distribution, which may or may not be permanently linked to seabed
topography (MacLeod and D'Amico, 2006).
Submarine canyons are important features of the shelf and slope
region from Cape Hatteras to the north, with both major and minor
canyons abundant in the region. Roberts et al. (2016) predicted beaked
whale density at year-round temporal resolution, with model predictions
showing concentrated distribution in deep waters over high-relief
bathymetry where high prey density would be expected due to entrainment
of nutrient-rich sediments and organic material (Moors-Murphy, 2014).
Highest densities were predicted in areas along the continental slope
and in and around submarine canyons (Roberts et al., 2016). The core
abundance area analysis highlighted three such submarine canyon areas
as being of year-round importance to beaked whales (Areas #2-4, see
Figure 4). Area #3 is centered on Hatteras Canyon, a major canyon
system that cuts a deep valley across the upper continental rise before
terminating on the lower rise. Area #2, in deeper water, encompasses
the Hatteras Transverse Canyon (HTC). HTC is downslope of and fed by
both Hatteras and Albemarle Canyons (which dissect the slope) and their
channel extensions, as well as smaller unnamed canyons and canyon
channels, and is bounded by the Hatteras Ridge, which is a major
transverse barrier deflecting turbidity currents into the HTC (Gardner
et al., 2016). Area #4 is centered on a large, deepwater valley system
that is fed by a complex series of canyons and gullies incising the
slope between Hendrickson and Baltimore Canyons (note that the entire
shelf break north of Cape Hatteras, including many of these canyons and
gullies, is included in our Area #5 (Figure 4) which is discussed
below). In delineating the actual area proposed for restriction on
survey effort, we expanded from 10 x 10 km grid cells specifically
predicted as being within the beaked whale 25 percent core abundance
area to include adjacent cells that also cover the relevant bathymetric
feature. Assuming that beaked whales are present in these areas, their
use of these habitat areas would not be expected to be restricted
within the feature and we delineate the proposed closure areas
accordingly. We assume that beaked whales associate with these features
year-round, and each of the three areas is proposed as a year-round
closure.
Area #5 (Figure 4) was designed as a multi-species area, primarily
focused on pilot whales, beaked whales, and sperm whales. This area is
focused on a particularly dynamic and highly productive environment off
of Cape Hatteras (sometimes referred to as ``Hatteras Corner'' or ``The
Point'') and the shelf break environment running to the north (to the
boundary of BOEM's Mid-Atlantic OCS planning area) and to the south.
This environment off of Cape Hatteras is created through the confluence
of multiple currents and water masses, including the Gulf Stream
(SAFMC, 2003), over complex bottom topography and hosts a high density
and diversity of cetaceans (e.g., McAlarney et al., 2015). For beaked
whales, our core abundance area analysis predicts that the shelf break
area running from The Point to the southern extent of Area #5 would be
within the 25 percent core abundance area, while the remainder of the
shelf break to the north would be within the 50 percent core abundance
area. This finding is supported by passive acoustic monitoring effort,
which detected echolocation signals from Cuvier's beaked whales
consistently throughout the year (95 percent of 741 recording days
across all seasons), suggesting that beaked whales are resident to this
area (Stanistreet et al., 2015). Gervais' beaked whales were detected
more sporadically (33 percent of recording days). Monthly aerial
surveys conducted from 2011-2014 in the same region, from shallow
continental shelf waters across the continental shelf break and into
deep pelagic waters, also detected beaked whales in all months of the
year (McLellan et al., 2015). All beaked whale sightings occurred along
the continental shelf break. Baird et al. (2015) reported results from
three tagged Cuvier's beaked whales, which largely remained in slope
waters off the coasts of North Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland.
Although this limited number of tags makes it difficult to draw
conclusions, the authors hypothesize that the observed movements may be
representative of a resident population.
Although beaked whales are likely present in this area year-round,
there is significant overlap between this proposed restriction and the
area of highest interest by the applicant companies. Therefore, we
determined that practicability concerns dictate that we establish a
temporal component to this closure rather than designate this area as a
year-round closure (as is the case for Areas #2-4). Roberts et al.
(2016) predicted density for pilot whales and beaked whales at year-
round
[[Page 26265]]
temporal resolution; therefore, the output of those models does not
help to designate a temporal aspect to this proposed restriction.
However, the model produced for sperm whales predicts density at a
monthly resolution and informed our delineation of temporal bounds for
this closure. The model predicts the greatest density of sperm whales
in this region from June through October, with the highest overall
abundance predicted for July through September (Roberts et al., 2015n).
Therefore, we propose that Area #5 be in effect as a seasonal area
closure from July through September.
Sperm Whale
Although sperm whales are one of the most widely distributed marine
mammals, they are typically more abundant in areas of high primary
productivity (Jaquet et al., 1996) and thus may be expected to occur in
greater numbers in areas where physiographic and oceanographic features
serve to aggregate prey (e.g., squid). Sperm whales are in fact
commonly associated with submarine canyons (Moors-Murphy, 2014) and,
specifically in this region, have been found to be associated with
canyons (Whitehead et al., 1992), the north wall of the Gulf Stream
(Waring et al., 1993), and temperature fronts and warm-core eddies
(Waring et al., 2001; Griffin, 1999). Areas #3-4 (Figure 4), described
above for beaked whales, were also identified as areas of high
predicted density for sperm whales. Roberts et al. (2016) predicted
sperm whale density at monthly temporal resolution, and core abundance
analysis conducted at a monthly time-step predicts that Area #3 is of
year-round importance for sperm whales, while Area #4 is within the
sperm whale 25 percent core abundance area for seven months of the year
(Jun-Dec). CETAP (1982) reported sightings of sperm whales north of
Cape Hatteras off the shelf and along the shelf break during all four
seasons, while acoustic monitoring detected sperm whales every month of
the year off the shelf near Onslow Bay, North Carolina (Stanistreet et
al., 2012; Hodge and Read, 2014; Debich et al., 2014; Hodge et al.,
2015).
As noted above, Area #5 (Figure 4) is a multi-species area,
primarily focused on pilot whales, beaked whales, and sperm whales, and
is proposed to be in effect from July through September. In particular,
Area #5's ``bulge'' to the north and east of Cape Hatteras was
indicated as high-density sperm whale habitat contained within the five
percent core abundance area in all months, but as a larger area and
with higher predicted density during July through September, as
discussed above. During these months, the 25 percent core abundance
area for sperm whales is predicted as covering a large swath of the
region from the region of The Point off and to the south of Cape
Hatteras north to the planning area boundary and including shelf break
waters east over the entire slope and into abyssal waters in some
locations. As described previously, due to the large size of this area,
we based this component of Area #5 on the relevant portion of the five
percent core abundance are for sperm whales. This area, predicted to
host the highest density of sperm whales, was contiguous to and
somewhat overlapping with the shelf break strip suggested by core
abundance area analysis for beaked whales and pilot whales. We believe
this reflects the appropriate balance between necessary protective
measures for this species and practicability for the applicant
companies, which would be severely restricted in their ability to
survey the area of interest were our proposed closure larger in terms
of either space or time.
Pilot Whale
Pilot whales are distributed primarily along the continental shelf
edge, occupying areas of high relief or submerged banks, and are also
associated with the Gulf Stream wall and thermal fronts along the shelf
edge (Waring et al., 2016). Roberts et al. (2016) predicted pilot whale
density at year-round temporal resolution. High pilot whale density was
predicted throughout the year at an area of the shelf break and
continental slope north of where the Gulf Stream separates from the
shelf at Cape Hatteras. Sightings were reported in this vicinity in
nearly every month of the year (Roberts et al., 2015c).The entire shelf
break area from Cape Hatteras north to the boundary of the planning
area was predicted as being within the pilot whale 25 percent core
abundance area. However, within this predicted core abundance area, the
region immediately offshore of the Cape Hatteras shelf break and to the
north extending into waters over the slope was predicted as containing
notably higher density of pilot whales. This area is retained within
the core abundance area even when the threshold is reduced to 5
percent, indicating that it is one of the most important areas in the
region for any species. These patterns are supported by observation,
including telemetry. Thorne et al. (2015) tracked the movements of 18
short-finned pilot whales off Cape Hatteras between May and December
2014 (mean tag deployment of 57 days) and quantified their habitat use
relative to environmental variables. Results showed that pilot whales
have a strong affinity for the shelf break, with more than 90 percent
of locations occurring within 20 km of the shelf break (i.e., 1,000 m
depth contour) and more than 65 percent occurring within 5 km of the
shelf break, and highlight the importance of static habitat features
for the species. As a result of similar tagging work, Foley et al.
(2015) found that, despite long-distance movements, pilot whales
displayed a high degree of site fidelity off Cape Hatteras. Intra- and
inter-annual as well as intra- and inter-seasonal matches to an
existing photo-identification catalog were made, and some individuals
were matched over periods of up to eight years. The authors hypothesize
that that the shelf break offshore of Cape Hatteras is an important
area for this species, to which individuals return frequently. Area #5
(Figure 4) was designed accordingly to encompass these important pilot
whale habitat areas and, as described previously, is proposed to be in
effect from July through September.
Atlantic Spotted Dolphin
Atlantic spotted dolphins are widely distributed in tropical and
warm temperate waters of the western North Atlantic, and regularly
occur in continental shelf waters south of Cape Hatteras and in
continental shelf edge and continental slope waters north of this
region (Payne et al., 1984; Mullin and Fulling, 2003). Sightings have
also been made along the north wall of the Gulf Stream and warm-core
ring features (Waring et al., 1992). This disjunct distribution may be
due to the occurrence of two ecotypes of the species: A larger form
that inhabits the continental shelf and is usually found inside or near
the 200-m isobath and a smaller offshore form (Mullin and Fulling,
2003; Waring et al., 2014). Morphometric, genetic, and acoustic data
support the suggestion that two ecotypes inhabit this region (Baron et
al., 2008; Viricel and Rosel, 2014) and observational data are
consistent with this distribution pattern. Existing data show a dense
cluster of observations along the continental shelf between Florida and
Virginia and a second, more dispersed cluster off the shelf and north
of the Gulf Stream (north of Cape Hatteras) (Roberts et al., 2015o). As
would be expected from these patterns, results from Roberts et al.
(2016) predict the following density pattern: Low near the shore, high
in the mid-shelf, low near the shelf break, then higher again offshore.
[[Page 26266]]
Although there are no relevant considerations with regard to
population context or specific stressors that lead us to develop
mitigation focused on Atlantic spotted dolphins, the predicted amount
of acoustic exposure for the species is among the highest for all
species across three of the five applicant companies. Therefore, we
believe it appropriate to delineate a time-area restriction for the
sole purpose of reducing likely acoustic exposures for the species, for
those three companies (i.e., we propose that this restriction be
implemented for Spectrum, TGS, and Western but not for CGG or ION). As
noted above, observational data indicate that the area of likely
highest density for Atlantic spotted dolphin is on-shelf south of Cape
Hatteras. This is also an area of relatively little interest to the
applicant companies (in contrast with the second area of relatively
high density for Atlantic spotted dolphin, off the shelf to the north
of the Gulf Stream). Our core abundance area analysis indeed suggests
that the two areas comprise the 25 percent core abundance area for the
species, with the on-shelf region roughly contained by the 100-m
isobath offshore of Georgia and South Carolina. We thus delineate our
proposed closure area by the northern and southern extent of the
predicted on-shelf component of the 35 percent core abundance area,
bounded by a line 100 km from shore (which roughly corresponds with the
100-m isobath). We assume that this may present a simpler, more
practicable way for vessel operators to mark the area to be avoided,
but invite public comment regarding operators' capacity to mark areas
to be avoided using different methods (e.g., coordinates, depth
contours, specific distances from shore, shapefiles).
Our assumption here is that given the absence of other contextual
factors demanding special protection of spotted dolphins, a seasonal
restriction would be sufficient to guarantee that the species is
afforded some protection from harassment in one of the areas most
important for it. Because there is little information about the species
migration patterns, and Roberts et al. (2016) predicted density at a
year-round temporal resolution, we delineate the proposed closure on
the basis of NMFS' observational data. Current shipboard observational
data was collected during June-August 2011 (Waring et al., 2014).
Although Roberts et al. (2015o) suggest that monthly model results
should not be relied upon, we note that these results do show likely
highest abundance in this portion of the proposed survey areas in the
summer months (June through September). Therefore, we propose that Area
#1 be in effect from June through August.
Table 3--Boundaries of Proposed Time-Area Restrictions Depicted in Figure 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area Latitude Longitude Area Latitude Longitude
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................ 30[deg] 20' At shoreline 4.................. 36[deg] 55' 72[deg] 26'
50'' N. 20'' N. 18'' W.
1 \1\............................ 30[deg] 22' 80[deg] 19' 4.................. 37[deg] 52' 72[deg] 22'
25'' N. 55'' W. 21'' N. 31'' W.
1 \1\............................ 33[deg] 17' 78[deg] 04' 4.................. 37[deg] 43' 72[deg] 00'
03'' N. 00'' W. 53'' N. 32'' W.
1................................ 33[deg] 45' At shoreline 4.................. 37[deg] 43' 72[deg] 00'
01'' N. 54'' N. 40'' W.
2................................ 33[deg] 31' 72[deg] 52' 4.................. 37[deg] 09' 72[deg] 04'
16'' N. 07'' W. 52'' N. 31'' W.
2................................ 33[deg] 10' 72[deg] 59' 4.................. 36[deg] 52' 71[deg] 24'
05'' N. 59'' W. 01'' N. 31'' W.
2................................ 33[deg] 11' 73[deg] 19' 5.................. 37[deg] 08' 74[deg] 01'
23'' N. 36'' W. 30'' N. 42'' W.
2................................ 33[deg] 43' 73[deg] 17' 5.................. 36[deg] 15' 73[deg] 48'
34'' N. 43'' W. 12'' N. 37'' W.
2................................ 33[deg] 59' 73[deg] 10' 5.................. 35[deg] 53' 73[deg] 49'
43'' N. 16'' W. 14'' N. 02'' W.
2................................ 34[deg] 15' 72[deg] 55' 5.................. 34[deg] 23' 75[deg] 21'
10'' N. 37'' W. 07'' N. 33'' W.
2................................ 34[deg] 14' 72[deg] 36' 5.................. 33[deg] 47' 75[deg] 27'
02'' N. 00'' W. 37'' N. 25'' W.
2................................ 34[deg] 03' 72[deg] 37' 5.................. 33[deg] 48' 75[deg] 52'
33'' N. 27'' W. 31'' N. 58'' W.
2................................ 33[deg] 53' 72[deg] 44' 5.................. 34[deg] 23' 75[deg] 52'
00'' N. 31'' W. 57'' N. 50'' W.
3................................ 34[deg] 13' 74[deg] 07' 5.................. 35[deg] 22' 74[deg] 51'
21'' N. 33'' W. 29'' N. 50'' W.
3................................ 34[deg] 00' 74[deg] 26' 5.................. 36[deg] 32' 74[deg] 49'
07'' N. 41'' W. 31'' N. 31'' W.
3................................ 34[deg] 38' 75[deg] 05' 5.................. 37[deg] 05' 74[deg] 45'
40'' N. 52'' W. 39'' N. 37'' W.
3................................ 34[deg] 53' 74[deg] 51' 5.................. 37[deg] 27' 74[deg] 32'
24'' N. 11'' W. 53'' N. 40'' W.
4................................ 36[deg] 41' 71[deg] 25' 5.................. 38[deg] 23' 73[deg] 45'
17'' N. 47'' W. 15'' N. 06'' W.
4................................ 36[deg] 43' 72[deg] 13' 5.................. 38[deg] 11' 73[deg] 06'
20'' N. 25'' W. 17'' N. 36'' W.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These two points are connected by a line marking 100 km distance from shoreline.
National Marine Sanctuaries--As a result of consultation between
BOEM and NOAA's Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, all surveys
would maintain a minimum buffer of 15 km around the boundaries of the
Gray's Reef and Monitor National Marine Sanctuaries. Gray's Reef NMS is
located approximately 26 km off the Georgia coast and protects 57
km\2\. The Monitor NMS is located approximately 26 km off the North
Carolina coast and protects the wreck of the USS Monitor. Any benefit
to marine mammals from these restrictions would likely be minimal.
Coastal Zone Management Act--As a result of coordination with
relevant states pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act, Spectrum
agreed to certain closure requirements (which may be partially or
entirely subsumed by proposed closures described above):
No survey operations within 125 nmi (232 km) of Maryland's
coast from April 15 to November 15.
No survey operations within the 30-m depth isobath off the
South Carolina coast.
No survey operations within 20 nmi (37 km) of Georgia's
coast from April 1 to September 15 and within 30 nmi (56 km) of
Georgia's coast from November 15 to April 15.
Vessel Strike Avoidance
These proposed measures generally follow those described in BOEM's
PEIS. These measures apply to all vessels associated with the proposed
survey activity (e.g., source vessels, chase vessels, supply vessels)
and include the following:
1. Vessel operators and crews must maintain a vigilant watch for
all marine mammals and slow down or stop their vessel or alter course,
as appropriate and regardless of vessel size, to avoid striking any
marine mammal. A visual observer aboard the vessel must monitor a
vessel strike avoidance zone around the vessel, according to the
parameters stated below, to ensure the potential for strike is
minimized. Visual observers monitoring the vessel strike avoidance zone
can be either third-party observers or crew members, but crew members
responsible for these duties must be provided sufficient training to
[[Page 26267]]
distinguish marine mammals from other phenomena and broadly to identify
a marine mammal as a right whale, other whale, or other marine mammal
(i.e., non-whale cetacean or pinniped). In this context, ``other
whales'' includes sperm whales and all baleen whales other than right
whales.
2. All vessels, regardless of size, must observe the 10 kn speed
restriction in DMAs, the Mid-Atlantic SMA (from November 1 through
April 30), and critical habitat and the Southeast SMA (from November 15
through April 15). See www.fisheries.noaa.gov/pr/shipstrike/ for more
information on these areas.
3. Vessel speeds must also be reduced to 10 kn or less when mother/
calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages of cetaceans are observed near a
vessel. A single cetacean at the surface may indicate the presence of
submerged animals in the vicinity of the vessel; therefore,
precautionary measures should be exercised when an animal is observed.
4. All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 500 m
from right whales. If a whale is observed but cannot be confirmed as a
species other than a right whale, the vessel operator must assume that
it is a right whale and take appropriate action. The following
avoidance measures must be taken if a right whale is within 500 m of
any vessel:
a. While underway, the vessel operator must steer a course away
from the whale at 10 kn or less until the minimum separation distance
has been established.
b. If a whale is spotted in the path of a vessel or within 500 m of
a vessel underway, the operator shall reduce speed and shift engines to
neutral. The operator shall re-engage engines only after the whale has
moved out of the path of the vessel and is more than 500 m away. If the
whale is still within 500 m of the vessel, the vessel must select a
course away from the whale's course at a speed of 10 kn or less. This
procedure must also be followed if a whale is spotted while a vessel is
stationary. Whenever possible, a vessel should remain parallel to the
whale's course while maintaining the 500-m distance as it travels,
avoiding abrupt changes in direction until the whale is no longer in
the area.
5. All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 100 m
from other whales. The following avoidance measures must be taken if a
whale other than a right whale is within 100 m of any vessel:
a. The vessel underway 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 a 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.
6. All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 50 m
from all other marine mammals, with an exception made for those animals
that approach the vessel. If an animal is encountered during transit, a
vessel shall attempt to remain parallel to the animal's course,
avoiding excessive speed or abrupt changes in course.
General Measures
All vessels associated with survey activity (e.g., source vessels,
chase vessels, supply vessels) must have a functioning Automatic
Identification System (AIS) onboard and operating at all times,
regardless of whether AIS would otherwise be required. Vessel names and
call signs must be provided to NMFS, and applicants must notify NMFS
when survey vessels are operating.
We have carefully evaluated the suite of mitigation measures
described here to preliminarily determine whether they are likely to
effect the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal
species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential
measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to
one another: (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the
successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize
adverse impacts to marine mammals, (2) the proven or likely efficacy of
the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and (3)
the practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.
Any mitigation measure(s) we prescribe should be able to
accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on
current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of
the general goals listed below:
(1) Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals
wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).
(2) A reduction in the number (total number or number at
biologically important time or location) of individual marine mammals
exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental take (this goal may
contribute to 1, above, or to reducing takes by behavioral harassment
only).
(3) A reduction in the number (total number or number at
biologically important time or location) of times any individual marine
mammal would be exposed to stimuli expected to result in incidental
take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to reducing takes by
behavioral harassment only).
(4) A reduction in the intensity of exposure to stimuli expected to
result in incidental take (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to
reducing the severity of behavioral harassment only).
(5) Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal
habitat, paying particular attention to the prey base, blockage or
limitation of passage to or from biologically important areas,
permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary disturbance of habitat
during a biologically important time.
(6) For monitoring directly related to mitigation, an increase in
the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more
effective implementation of the mitigation.
Based on our evaluation of these measures, we have preliminarily
determined that they provide the means of effecting the least
practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their
habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and
areas of similar significance.
We recognize that BOEM may require more stringent measures through
survey-specific permits issued to applicant companies under its
authorities pursuant to the OCSLA (43 U.S.C. 1331-1356). NMFS's
Endangered Species Act Interagency Cooperation Division (Interagency
Cooperation Division) may also require that more stringent or
additional measures be included in any issued IHAs via any required
consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
Please see ``Proposed Authorizations,'' below, for requirements
specific to each proposed IHA.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity
We have reviewed the applicants' species descriptions--which
summarize available information regarding status and trends,
distribution and habitat preferences, behavior and life history, and
auditory capabilities of the potentially affected species--for accuracy
and completeness and refer the reader to Sections 3 and 4 of the
applications, as well as to NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SAR;
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/), instead of reprinting the information
here. Additional general information about these species (e.g.,
physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found
[[Page 26268]]
on NMFS's Web site (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/), in BOEM's
PEIS, or in the U.S. Navy's Marine Resource Assessments (MRA) for
relevant operating areas (i.e., Virginia Capes, Cherry Point, and
Charleston/Jacksonville (DoN, 2008a,b,c)). The MRAs are available
online at: www.navfac.navy.mil/products_and_services/ev/products_and_services/marine_resources/marine_resource_assessments.html. Table 4 lists all species with
expected potential for occurrence in the mid- and south Atlantic and
summarizes information related to the population or stock, including
potential biological removal (PBR). For taxonomy, we follow Committee
on Taxonomy (2016). 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, is considered in concert with known
sources of ongoing anthropogenic mortality (as described in NMFS's
SARs). Species that could potentially occur in the proposed survey
areas but are not expected to have reasonable potential to be harassed
by any proposed survey are described briefly but omitted from further
analysis. These include extralimital species, which are species that do
not normally occur in a given area but for which there are one or more
occurrence records that are considered beyond the normal range of the
species. For status of species, we provide information regarding U.S.
regulatory status under the MMPA and ESA.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or
the total number estimated within a particular study area. NMFS's stock
abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of
individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that
stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S.
waters. Survey abundance (as compared to stock or species abundance) is
the total number of individuals estimated within the survey area, which
may or may not align completely with a stock's geographic range as
defined in the SARs. These surveys may also extend beyond U.S. waters.
In some cases, species are treated as guilds. In general ecological
terms, a guild is a group of species that have similar requirements and
play a similar role within a community. However, for purposes of stock
assessment or abundance prediction, certain species may be treated
together as a guild because they are difficult to distinguish visually
and many observations are ambiguous. For example, NMFS's Atlantic SARs
assess Mesoplodon spp. and Kogia spp. as guilds. Here, we consider
pilot whales, beaked whales (excluding the northern bottlenose whale),
and Kogia spp. as guilds. In the following discussion, reference to
``pilot whales'' includes both the long-finned and short-finned pilot
whale, reference to ``beaked whales'' includes the Cuvier's,
Blainville's, Gervais, Sowerby's, and True's beaked whales, and
reference to ``Kogia spp.'' includes both the dwarf and pygmy sperm
whale.
Thirty-four species (with 39 managed stocks) are considered to have
the potential to co-occur with the proposed survey activities.
Extralimital species or stocks unlikely to co-occur with survey
activity include nine estuarine bottlenose dolphin stocks, four
pinniped species, the white-beaked dolphin (Lagenorhynchus
albirostris), and the beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas). The white-
beaked dolphin is generally found only to southern New England, with
sightings concentrated in the Gulf of Maine and around Cape Cod. Beluga
whales have rarely been sighted as far south as New Jersey, but are
considered extralimital in New England. Seals in the western Atlantic
are, in general, occurring more frequently in areas further south than
are considered typical and increases in pinniped sightings and
stranding events have been documented in the mid-Atlantic. However, all
seals are considered rare or extralimital in the mid-Atlantic and,
further, would generally be expected to occur in relatively shallow
nearshore waters outside the proposed survey areas (note also that we
propose a restriction on survey activity in coastal waters ranging from
a minimum of 30 km (year-round) out to 47 km (November-April)). The
gray seal's (Halichoerus grypus grypus) winter range extends south to
New Jersey, while the harp seal (Pagophilus groenlandicus) is generally
found in Canada, although individual seals are observed as far south as
New Jersey during January-May. The harbor seal's (Phoca vitulina
concolor) winter range is generally from southern New England to New
Jersey, though it may occasionally extend south to northern North
Carolina. Unpublished marine mammal stranding records for the most
recent five-year period (2011-2015) for the Atlantic coast from
Delaware to Georgia show 38, 24, and 44 strandings for these three
species, respectively (with one additional record of an unidentified
seal). These occurrences are generally limited to the mid-Atlantic
(Delaware to North Carolina), with one harbor seal recorded from South
Carolina and no records from Georgia. The hooded seal (Cystophora
cristata) generally remains near Newfoundland in winter and spring, and
visits the Denmark Strait for molting in summer. However, hooded seals
are highly migratory, preferring deeper water than other seals, and
individuals have been observed in deep water as far south as Florida
and the Caribbean. Such observations are rare and unpredictable, and
there were no recorded strandings of hooded seals during the 2011-2015
period.
Estuarine stocks of bottlenose dolphin primarily inhabit inshore
waters of bays, sounds, and estuaries, and stocks are defined adjacent
to the proposed survey area from Pamlico Sound, North Carolina to
Indian River Lagoon, Florida. However, NMFS's SARs generally describe
estuarine stock ranges as including coastal waters to 1 km (though
North Carolina stocks are described as occurring out to 3 km at certain
times of year). Therefore, these stocks would not be impacted by the
proposed seismic surveys. In addition, the West Indian manatee
(Trichechus manatus latirostris) may be found in coastal waters of the
Atlantic. However, manatees are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and are not considered further in this document. All managed
stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS's U.S. Atlantic SARs (e.g.,
Waring et al., 2016). All values presented in Table 4 are the most
recent available at the time of publication and are available in the
2015 SARs (Waring et al., 2016) and draft 2016 SARs (available online
at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/draft.htm).
[[Page 26269]]
Table 4--Marine Mammals Potentially Present in the Vicinity of Proposed Survey Activities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMFS stock
ESA/MMPA status; abundance (CV, Predicted
Common name Scientific name Stock strategic (Y/N) Nmin, most recent abundance (CV) PBR Annual M/SI
\1\ abundance survey) \3\ (CV) \4\
\2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Balaenidae
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Atlantic right whale..... Eubalaena Western North E/D; Y 440 (n/a; 440; n/ * 535 (0.45) 1.0 5.66
glacialis. Atlantic (WNA). a).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humpback whale................. Megaptera Gulf of Maine..... -; N 823 (n/a; 823; * 1,637 (0.07) 13 9.05
novaeangliae 2008).
novaeangliae.
Minke whale.................... Balaenoptera Canadian East -; N 2,591 (0.81; * 2,112 (0.05) 14 8.25
acutorostrata Coast. 1,425; 2011).
acutorostrata.
Bryde's whale.................. B. edeni brydei... None defined \5\.. -; n/a n/a............... 7 (0.58) n/a n/a
Sei whale...................... B. borealis Nova Scotia....... E/D; Y 357 (0.52; 236; * 717 (0.30) 0.5 0.8
borealis. 2011).
Fin whale...................... B. physalus WNA............... E/D; Y 1,618 (0.33; 4,633 (0.08) 2.5 3.8
physalus. 1,234; 2011).
Blue whale..................... B. musculus WNA............... E/D; Y Unknown (n/a; 440; 11 (0.41) 0.9 Unk
musculus. n/a).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Physeteridae
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sperm whale.................... Physeter North Atlantic.... E/D; Y 2,288 (0.28; 5,353 (0.12) 3.6 0.8
macrocephalus. 1,815; 2011).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Kogiidae
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pygmy sperm whale.............. Kogia breviceps... WNA............... -; N 3,785 (0.47; \6\ 678 (0.23) 21 3.5 (1.0)
2,598; 2011) \6\.
Dwarf sperm whale.............. K. sima........... WNA............... -; N
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Ziphiidae (beaked whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cuvier's beaked whale.......... Ziphius WNA............... -; N 6,532 (0.32; \6\ 14,491 50 0.4
cavirostris. 5,021; 2011). (0.17)
Gervais beaked whale........... Mesoplodon WNA............... -; N 7,092 (0.54; 46 0.2
europaeus. 4,632; 2011) \6\.
Blainville's beaked whale...... M. densirostris... WNA............... -; N
Sowerby's beaked whale......... M. bidens......... WNA............... -; N
True's beaked whale............ M. mirus.......... WNA............... -; N
Northern bottlenose whale...... Hyperoodon WNA............... -; N Unknown........... 90 (0.63) Undet. 0
ampullatus.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Delphinidae
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rough-toothed dolphin.......... Steno bredanensis. WNA............... -; N 271 (1.0; 134; 532 (0.36) 1.3 0
2011).
Common bottlenose dolphin...... Tursiops truncatus WNA Offshore...... -; N 77,532 (0.40; \6\ 97,476 561 39.4 (0.29)
truncatus. 56,053; 2011). (0.06)
WNA Coastal, D; Y 11,548 (0.36; 86 1.0-7.5
Northern 8,620; 2010-11).
Migratory.
WNA Coastal, D; Y 9,173 (0.46; 63 0-12
Southern 6,326; 2010-11).
Migratory.
WNA Coastal, South D; Y 4,377 (0.43; 31 1.2-1.6
Carolina/Georgia. 3,097; 2010-11).
WNA Coastal, D; Y 1,219 (0.67; 730; 7 0.4
Northern Florida. 2010-11).
WNA Coastal, D; Y 4,895 (0.71; 29 0.2
Central Florida. 2,851; 2010-11).
Clymene dolphin................ Stenella clymene.. WNA............... -; N 6,086 (0.93; 12,515 (0.56) Undet. 0
3,132; 1998) \7\.
Atlantic spotted dolphin....... S. frontalis...... WNA............... -; N 44,715 (0.43; 55,436 (0.32) 316 0
31,610; 2011).
Pantropical spotted dolphin.... S. attenuata WNA............... -; N 3,333 (0.91; 4,436 (0.33) 17 0
attenuata. 1,733; 2011).
Spinner dolphin................ S. longirostris WNA............... -; N Unknown........... 262 (0.93) Undet. 0
longirostris.
Striped dolphin................ S. coeruleoalba... WNA............... -; N 54,807 (0.3; 75,657 (0.21) 428 0
42,804; 2011).
Short-beaked common dolphin.... Delphinus delphis WNA............... -; N 70,184 (0.28; 86,098 (0.12) 557 409 (0.10)
delphis. 55,690; 2011).
Fraser's dolphin............... Lagenodelphis WNA............... -; N Unknown........... 492 (0.76) Undet. 0
hosei.
[[Page 26270]]
Atlantic white-sided dolphin... Lagenorhynchus WNA............... -; N 48,819 (0.61; 37,180 (0.07) 304 74 (0.2)
acutus. 30,403; 2011).
Risso's dolphin................ Grampus griseus... WNA............... -; N 18,250 (0.46; 7,732 (0.09) 126 53.6 (0.28)
12,619; 2011).
Melon-headed whale............. Peponocephala WNA............... -; N Unknown........... 1,175 (0.50) Undet. 0
electra.
Pygmy killer whale............. Feresa attenuata.. WNA............... -; N Unknown........... n/a Undet. 0
False killer whale............. Pseudorca WNA............... -; Y 442 (1.06; 212; 95 (0.84) 2.1 Unk
crassidens. 2011).
Killer whale................... Orcinus orca...... WNA............... -; N Unknown........... 11 (0.82) Undet. 0
Short-finned pilot whale....... Globicephala WNA............... -; Y 21,515 (0.37; \6\ 18,977 159 192 (0.17)
macrorhynchus. 15,913; 2011). (0.11)
Long-finned pilot whale........ G. melas melas.... WNA............... -; Y 5,636 (0.63; 35 38 (0.15)
3,464; 2011).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor porpoise................ Phocoena phocoena Gulf of Maine/Bay -; N 79,833 (0.32; * 45,089 706 437 (0.18)
phocoena. of Fundy. 61,415; 2011). (0.12)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Endangered 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.
\2\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of
stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable. For the right whale, the abundance value represents a count of individually identifiable
animals; therefore there is only a single abundance estimate with no associated CV. For humpback whales, the stock abundance estimate of 823 is based
on photo-identification evidence and represents the minimum number alive in 2008, specific to the Gulf of Maine stock. The minimum estimate of 440
blue whales represents recognizable photo-identified individuals.
\3\ This information represents species- or guild-specific abundance predicted by recent habitat-based cetacean density models (Roberts et al., 2016).
These models provide the best available scientific information regarding predicted density patterns of cetaceans in the U.S. Atlantic Ocean, and we
provide the corresponding abundance predictions as a point of reference. Total abundance estimates were produced by computing the mean density of all
pixels in the modeled area and multiplying by its area. Roberts et al. (2016) did not produce a density model for pygmy killer whales off the east
coast. For those species marked with an asterisk, the available information supported development of either two or four seasonal models; each model
has an associated abundance prediction. Here, we report the maximum predicted abundance.
\4\ These values, found in NMFS's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g.,
commercial fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV
associated with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.
\5\ Bryde's whales are occasionally reported off the southeastern U.S. and southern West Indies. NMFS defines and manages a stock of Bryde's whales
believed to be resident in the northern Gulf of Mexico, but does not define a separate stock in the Atlantic Ocean.
\6\ Abundance estimates are in some cases reported for a guild or group of species when those species are difficult to differentiate at sea. Similarly,
the habitat-based cetacean density models produced by Roberts et al. (2016) are based in part on available observational data which, in some cases, is
limited to genus or guild in terms of taxonomic definition. NMFS's SARs present pooled abundance estimates for Kogia spp. and Mesoplodon spp., while
Roberts et al. (2016) produced density models to genus level for Kogia spp. and Globicephala spp. and as a guild for most beaked whales (Ziphius
cavirostris and Mesoplodon spp.). Finally, Roberts et al. (2016) produced a density model for bottlenose dolphins that does not differentiate between
offshore and coastal stocks.
\7\ NMFS's abundance estimates for the Clymene dolphin is greater than eight years old and not considered current. PBR is therefore considered
undetermined for this stock, as there is no current minimum abundance estimate for use in calculation. We nevertheless present the most recent
abundance estimate.
For the majority of species potentially present in the specific
geographic region, NMFS has designated only a single generic stock
(e.g., ``western North Atlantic'') for management purposes. This
includes the ``Canadian east coast'' stock of minke whales, which
includes all minke whales found in U.S. waters. For the humpback and
sei whales, NMFS defines stocks on the basis of feeding locations,
i.e., Gulf of Maine and Nova Scotia, respectively. However, our
reference to humpback whales and sei whales in this document refers to
any individuals of the species that are found in the specific
geographic region. For the bottlenose dolphin, NMFS defines an oceanic
stock and multiple coastal stocks.
In Table 4 above, we report two sets of abundance estimates: Those
from NMFS's SARs and those predicted by Roberts et al. (2016). Please
see footnotes 2-3 for more detail. The estimates found in NMFS's SARs
remain the best estimates of current stock abundance in most cases.
These estimates are typically generated from the most recent shipboard
and/or aerial surveys conducted, and often incorporate correction for
detection bias. However, for purposes of assessing estimated exposures
relative to abundance--used in this case to understand the scale of the
predicted takes compared to the population and to inform our small
numbers finding--we generally believe that the Roberts et al. (2016)
abundance predictions are most appropriate because the outputs of these
models were used in most cases to generate the exposure estimates and
therefore provide the most appropriate comparison. The Roberts et al.
(2016) abundance estimates represent the output of predictive models
derived from observations and associated environmental parameters and
are in fact based on substantially more data than are NMFS's SAR
abundance estimates, which are typically derived from only the most
recent survey effort. In some cases, the use of more data to inform an
abundance estimate can lead to a conclusion that there may be a more
appropriate abundance estimate to use for the specific comparison to
exposure estimates noted above than that provided in the SARs. For
example, NMFS's pilot whale abundance estimates show substantial year-
to-year variability. For the Florida to Bay of Fundy region, single-
year estimates from 2004 and 2011 (the most recent offered in the SARs)
differed by 21 percent, indicating that it may be more appropriate to
use the model prediction, as the model incorporates data from 1992-
2013.
As a further illustration of the distinction between the SARs and
model-predicted abundance estimates, the current NMFS stock abundance
estimate for the Atlantic spotted dolphin is based on direct
observations from shipboard and aerial surveys conducted in 2011 and
corrected for detection bias whereas the exposure estimates presented
herein for Atlantic spotted dolphin are based on the abundance
predicted by a density
[[Page 26271]]
surface model informed by observations from 1992-2014 and covariates
associated at the observation level. To directly compare the estimated
exposures predicted by the outputs of the Roberts et al. (2016) model
to NMFS's SAR abundance would therefore not be meaningful. However, our
use of the Roberts et al. (2016) abundance predictions for this purpose
should not be interpreted as a statement that those predictions are
considered to be more accurate than those presented in NMFS's SARs;
rather they are a different set of information entirely and more
appropriate, at times, for our analysis. For the example of Atlantic
spotted dolphin, we make relative comparisons between the exposures
predicted by the outputs of the model and the overall abundance
predicted by the model. The best current abundance estimate for the
western North Atlantic stock of Atlantic spotted dolphins is still
appropriately considered to be that presented in the SAR. Where there
are other considerations that lead us to believe that an abundance
other than that predicted by Roberts et al. (2016) is most appropriate
for use here, we provide additional discussion below.
NMFS's abundance estimate for the North Atlantic right whale is
based on a census of individual whales identified using photo-
identification techniques and is therefore the most appropriate
abundance estimate; the current estimate represents whales known to be
alive in 2012 (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/draft.htm).
The 2007 Canadian Trans-North Atlantic Sighting Survey (TNASS),
which provided full coverage of the Atlantic Canadian coast (Lawson and
Gosselin, 2009), provided abundance estimates for multiple stocks. The
abundance estimates from this survey were corrected for perception and
availability bias, when possible. In general, where the TNASS survey
effort provided superior coverage of a stock's range (as compared with
NOAA shipboard survey effort), we elect to use the resulting abundance
estimate over either the current NMFS abundance estimate (derived from
survey effort with inferior coverage of the stock range) or the Roberts
et al. (2016) prediction. The TNASS data were not made available to the
model authors (Roberts et al., 2015a).
We use the TNASS abundance estimate for the Canadian North Atlantic
stock of minke whales and for the short-beaked common dolphin. The
TNASS survey also produced an abundance estimate of 3,522 (CV = 0.27)
fin whales. Although Waring et al. (2016) suggest that the current
abundance estimate of 1,618 fin whales, derived from 2011 NOAA
shipboard surveys, is the best because it represents the most current
data (despite not including a significant portion of the stock's
range), we believe the TNASS estimate is most appropriate for use here
precisely because it better covered the stock's range. Note that, while
the same TNASS survey produced an abundance estimate of 2,612 (CV =
0.26) humpback whales, the survey did not provide superior coverage of
the stock's range in the same way that it did for minke and fin whales
(Waring et al., 2016; Lawson and Gosselin, 2011). In addition, based on
photo-identification only 39 percent of individual humpback whales
observed along the mid- and south Atlantic U.S. coast are from the Gulf
of Maine stock (Barco et al., 2002). Therefore, we use the Roberts et
al. (2016) prediction for humpback whales.
The TNASS also provided an abundance estimate for pilot whales
(16,058; CV = 0.79), but covered habitats expected to contain long-
finned pilot whales exclusively (Waring et al., 2016). Pilot whale
biopsy samples collected from 1998-2007 and analyzed to support an
analysis of the likelihood that a sample is from a given species of
pilot whale as a function of sea surface temperature and water depth
showed that all pilot whales observed in offshore waters near the Gulf
Stream are most likely short-finned pilot whales, though there is an
area of overlap between the two species primarily along the shelf break
off the coast of New Jersey (between 38-40[deg] N.) (Waring et al.,
2016). Therefore, most pilot whales potentially affected by the
proposed surveys would likely be short-finned pilot whales.
NMFS's current abundance estimate for Kogia spp. is substantially
higher than that provided by Roberts et al. (2016). However, the data
from which NMFS's estimate is derived was not made available to the
authors (Roberts et al., 2015h), and those more recent surveys reported
observing substantially greater numbers of Kogia spp. than did earlier
surveys (43 sightings, more than the combined total of 31 reported from
all surveys from 1992-2014 considered by Roberts et al. (2016)) (NMFS,
2011). A 2013 NOAA survey, also not available to the model authors,
reported 68 sightings of Kogia spp. (NMFS, 2013a). In addition, the
SARs report an increase in Kogia spp. strandings (92 from 2001-05; 187
from 2007-11) (Waring et al., 2007; 2013). A simultaneous increase in
at-sea observations and strandings suggests increased abundance of
Kogia spp., though NMFS has not conducted any trend analysis (Waring et
al., 2013). Therefore, we believe the most appropriate abundance
estimate for use here is that currently reported by NMFS. In fact,
Waring et al. (2013) suggest that because this estimate was corrected
for perception bias but not availability bias, the true estimate could
be two to four times larger.
Biologically Important Areas--Several biologically important areas
for marine mammals are recognized from proposed survey areas in the
mid- and south Atlantic. As referenced previously under ``Proposed
Mitigation'', critical habitat is designated for the North Atlantic
right whale within the southeast U.S. (81 FR 4838; January 27, 2016).
Critical habitat is defined by section 3 of the ESA as (1) the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time
it is listed, on which are found those physical or biological features
(a) essential to the conservation of the species and (b) which may
require special management considerations or protection; and (2)
specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at
the time it is listed, upon a determination by the Secretary that such
areas are essential for the conservation of the species. Critical
habitat for the right whale in the southeast U.S. (i.e., Unit 2)
encompasses calving habitat and is designated on the basis of the
following essential features: (1) Calm sea surface conditions of Force
4 or less on the Beaufort Wind Scale; (2) sea surface temperatures from
a minimum of 7 [deg]C, and never more than 17 [deg]C; and (3) water
depths of 6 to 28 m, where these features simultaneously co-occur over
contiguous areas of at least 231 nmi\2\ of ocean waters during the
months of November through April. When these features are available,
they are selected by right whale cows and calves in dynamic
combinations that are suitable for calving, nursing, and rearing, and
which vary, within the ranges specified, depending on factors such as
weather and age of the calves. The specific area associated with such
features and designated as critical habitat was described previously
under ``Proposed Mitigation.'' There is no critical habitat designated
for any other species within the proposed survey area.
Biologically important areas for North Atlantic right whales in the
mid- and south Atlantic were further described by LaBrecque et al.
(2015). The authors describe an area of importance for reproduction
that somewhat expands the boundaries of the critical habitat
designation, including waters out to the 25-m isobath from Cape
Canaveral to Cape Lookout from mid-November to mid-April, on the basis
of habitat analyses (Good, 2008; Keller et al.,
[[Page 26272]]
2012) and sightings data (e.g., Keller et al., 2006; Schulte and
Taylor, 2012) indicating that sea surface temperatures between 13 to 15
[deg]C and water depths between 10-20 m are critical parameters for
calving. Right whales leave northern feeding grounds in November and
December to migrate along the continental shelf to the calving grounds
or to unknown winter areas before returning to northern areas by late
spring. Right whales are known to travel along the continental shelf,
but it is unknown whether they use the entire shelf area or are
restricted to nearshore waters (Schick et al., 2009; Whitt et al.,
2013). LaBrecque et al. (2015) define an important area for migratory
behavior on the basis of aerial and vessel-based survey data, photo-
identification data, radio-tracking data, and expert judgment; we
compared our composite right whale closure area (described previously
under ``Proposed Mitigation'') in a GIS to that defined by the authors
and found that it is contained within our area.
As noted by LaBrecque et al. (2015), although additional cetacean
species are known to have strong links to bathymetric features, there
is currently insufficient information to specifically identify these
areas. For example, pilot whales and Risso's dolphins aggregate at the
shelf break in the proposed survey area, and Atlantic spotted dolphins
occupy the shelf region from southern Virginia to Florida. These and
other locations predicted as areas of high abundance (Roberts et al.,
2016) form the basis of proposed spatiotemporal restrictions on survey
effort as described under ``Proposed Mitigation.'' In addition, other
data indicate potential areas of importance that are not yet fully
described. Risch et al. (2014) describe minke whale presence offshore
of the shelf break (evidenced by passive acoustic recorders), which may
be indicative of a migratory area, while other data provides evidence
that sei whales aggregate near meandering frontal eddies over the
continental shelf in the Mid-Atlantic Bight (Newhall et al., 2012).
Unusual Mortality Events (UME)--A UME is defined under the MMPA as
``a stranding that is unexpected; involves a significant die-off of any
marine mammal population; and demands immediate response.'' From 1991
to the present, there have been approximately ten formally recognized
UMEs affecting marine mammals in the proposed survey area and involving
species under NMFS's jurisdiction. One involves ongoing investigation.
The most recent of these, which is ongoing, involves humpback whales. A
recently ended UME involved bottlenose dolphins.
Since January 2016, elevated humpback whale mortalities have
occurred along the Atlantic coast from Maine through North Carolina.
Partial or full necropsy examinations have been conducted on
approximately half of the 42 known cases. Of the 20 cases examined, 10
cases had evidence of blunt force trauma or pre-mortem propeller wounds
indicative of vessel strike, which is over six times above the 16-year
average of 1.5 whales showing signs of vessel strike in this region.
Because this finding of pre-mortem vessel strike is not consistent
across all of the whales examined, more research is needed. NOAA is
consulting with researchers that are conducting studies on the humpback
whale populations, and these efforts may provide information on changes
in whale distribution and habitat use that could provide additional
insight into how these vessel interactions occurred. Three previous
UMEs involving humpback whales have occurred since 2000, in 2003, 2005,
and 2006. More information is available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/2017humpbackatlanticume.html (accessed May 22, 2017).
Beginning in July 2013, elevated strandings of bottlenose dolphins
were observed along the Atlantic coast from New York to Florida. The
investigation was closed in 2015, with the UME ultimately being
attributed to cetacean morbillivirus (though additional contributory
factors are under investigation; www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/midatldolphins2013.html; accessed June 21, 2016). Dolphin strandings
during 2013-15 were greater than six times higher than the average from
2007-12, with the most strandings reported from Virginia, North
Carolina, and Florida. A total of approximately 1,650 bottlenose
dolphins stranded from June 2013 to March 2015 and, additionally, a
small number of individuals of several other cetacean species stranded
during the UME and tested positive for morbillivirus (humpback whale,
fin whale, minke whale, pygmy sperm whale, and striped dolphin). Only
one offshore ecotype dolphin has been identified, meaning that over 99
percent of affected dolphins were of the coastal ecotype (D. Fauquier;
pers. comm.). Research, to include analyses of stranding samples and
post-UME monitoring and modeling of surviving populations, will
continue in order to better understand the impacts of the UME on the
affected stocks. Notably, an earlier major UME in 1987-88 was also
caused by morbillivirus. Over 740 stranded dolphins were recovered
during that event.
Additional recent UMEs include various localized events with
undetermined cause involving bottlenose dolphins (e.g., South Carolina
in 2011; Virginia in 2009); an event affecting common dolphins and
Atlantic white-sided dolphins from North Carolina to New Jersey (2008;
undetermined); and humpback whales in the North Atlantic (2006;
undetermined). For more information on UMEs, please visit: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/mmume/.
Take Reduction Planning--Take reduction plans are designed to help
recover and prevent the depletion of strategic marine mammal stocks
that interact with certain U.S. commercial fisheries, as required by
Section 118 of the MMPA. The immediate goal of a take reduction plan is
to reduce, within six months of its implementation, the mortality and
serious injury of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing to
less than the potential biological removal level. The long-term goal is
to reduce, within five years of its implementation, the mortality and
serious injury of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing to
insignificant levels, approaching a zero serious injury and mortality
rate, taking into account the economics of the fishery, the
availability of existing technology, and existing state or regional
fishery management plans. Take reduction teams are convened to develop
these plans.
There are several take reduction plans in place for marine mammals
in the proposed survey areas of the mid- and south Atlantic. We
described these here briefly in order to fully describe, in conjunction
with referenced material, the baseline conditions for the affected
marine mammal stocks. The Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan
(ALWTRP) was implemented in 1997 to reduce injuries and deaths of large
whales due to incidental entanglement in fishing gear. The ALWTRP is an
evolving plan that changes as we learn more about why whales become
entangled and how fishing practices might be modified to reduce the
risk of entanglement. It has several components, including restrictions
on where and how gear can be set and requirements for entangling gears
(i.e., trap/pot and gillnet gears). The ALWTRP addresses those species
most affected by fishing gear entanglements, i.e., North Atlantic right
whale, humpback whale, fin whale, and minke whale. Annual human-caused
mortality exceeds PBR for the first three of these
[[Page 26273]]
species, all of which are listed as endangered under the ESA. More
information is available online at:
www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected/whaletrp/.
NMFS implemented a Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan (HPTRP) to
reduce interactions between harbor porpoise and commercial gillnet gear
in both New England and the mid-Atlantic. The HPTRP has several
components including restrictions on where, when, and how gear can be
set, and in some areas requires the use of acoustic deterrent devices.
More information is available online at:
www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected/porptrp/.
The Atlantic Trawl Gear Take Reduction Team was developed to
address the incidental mortality and serious injury of pilot whales,
common dolphins, and white-sided dolphins incidental to Atlantic trawl
fisheries. More information is available online at:
www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/Protected/mmp/atgtrp/.
Separately, NMFS established a Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Plan
(PLTRP) to address the incidental mortality and serious injury of pilot
whales in the mid-Atlantic region of the Atlantic pelagic longline
fishery. The PLTRP includes a special research area, gear
modifications, outreach material, observer coverage, and captains'
communications. Pilot whales incur substantial incidental mortality and
serious injury due to commercial fishing (annual human-caused mortality
equal to 121 and 109 percent of PBR for short- and long-finned pilot
whales, respectively), and therefore are of particular concern. More
information is available online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/interactions/trt/pl-trt.html.
Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals
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 will include a quantitative analysis of the
number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity.
The ``Negligible Impact Analyses'' section will include an analysis of
how these specific activities will impact marine mammals and will
consider 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 from that on the affected marine mammal populations or stocks. In
the following discussion, we provide general background information on
sound and marine mammal hearing before considering potential effects to
marine mammals from ship strike and sound produced through use of
airgun arrays.
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 hertz (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 ([mu]Pa)), 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 [mu]Pa), while the received level is the SPL at the
listener's position (referenced to 1 [mu]Pa).
Root mean square (rms) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over
the duration of an impulse. Rms is calculated by squaring all of the
sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the square
root of the average (Urick, 1983). Rms 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, 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 [mu]Pa\2\-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
[[Page 26274]]
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.
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.
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.
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 non-pulsed 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.
The active acoustic sound sources proposed for use (i.e., airgun
arrays) produce pulsed signals. No other active acoustic systems are
proposed for use for data acquisition purposes. Airguns produce sound
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.
Vessel noise, produced largely by cavitation of propellers and by
machinery inside the hull, is considered a non-pulsed sound. Sounds
emitted by survey vessels are low frequency and continuous, but would
be widely dispersed in both space and time. Survey vessel traffic is of
very low density compared to commercial shipping traffic or commercial
fishing vessels and would therefore be expected to represent an
insignificant incremental increase in the total amount of anthropogenic
sound input to the marine environment. We do not consider vessel noise
further in this analysis.
Acoustic Effects
Here, we first provide background information on marine mammal
hearing before discussing the potential effects of the use of active
acoustic sources on marine mammals.
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 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 low-
frequency cetaceans where the lower bound was deemed to be biologically
implausible and the lower bound from Southall et al. (2007) retained.
Pinniped functional hearing is not discussed here, as no pinnipeds are
expected to be affected by the specified activity. 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
[[Page 26275]]
estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and 35 kHz, with best
hearing estimated to be from 100 Hz to 8 kHz;
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;
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.
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency
ranges, please see NMFS (2016) for a review of available information.
Thirty-four marine mammal species, all cetaceans, have the reasonable
potential to co-occur with the proposed survey activities. Please refer
to Table 4. Of the species that may be present, seven are classified as
low-frequency cetaceans (i.e., all mysticete species), 24 are
classified as mid-frequency cetaceans (i.e., all delphinid and ziphiid
species and the sperm whale), and three are classified as high-
frequency cetaceans (i.e., harbor porpoise and Kogia spp.).
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. Note that, in the following discussion, we refer
in many cases to a recent review article concerning studies of noise-
induced hearing loss conducted from 1996-2015 (i.e., Finneran, 2015).
For study-specific citations, please see that work. 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; G[ouml]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 effects certain non-auditory physical
or physiological effects only briefly as we do not expect that use of
airgun arrays are 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 mid-frequency tactical
sonar that are associated with these types of effects.
When a live or dead marine mammal swims or floats onto shore and is
incapable of returning to sea, the event is termed a ``stranding'' (16
U.S.C. 1421h(3)). Marine mammals are known to 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 (e.g., Geraci et al., 1999). However, the
cause or causes of most strandings are unknown (e.g., Best, 1982).
Combinations of dissimilar stressors may combine to kill an animal or
dramatically reduce its fitness, even though one exposure without the
other would not be expected to produce the same outcome (e.g., Sih et
al., 2004). For further description of specific stranding events see,
e.g., Southall et al., 2006, 2013; Jepson et al., 2013; Wright et al.,
2013.
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 in\3\ (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 high-intensity 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.
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
[[Page 26276]]
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 peak-pressure 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 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 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 (Neophocoena asiaeorientalis)) 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
[[Page 26277]]
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 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 phase-in 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
[[Page 26278]]
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 [mu]Pa\2\-
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 cSEL 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 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).
Forney et al. (2017) detail the potential effects of noise on
marine mammal populations with high site fidelity, including
displacement and auditory masking, noting that a lack of observed
response does not imply absence of fitness costs and that apparent
tolerance of disturbance may have population-level impacts that are
less obvious and difficult to document. As we discuss in describing our
proposed mitigation earlier in this document, avoidance of overlap
between disturbing noise and areas and/or times of particular
importance for sensitive species may be critical to avoiding
population-level impacts and because, particularly for animals with
high site fidelity, there may be a strong motivation to remain in the
area despite negative impacts. Forney et al. (2017) state that, for
these animals, remaining in a disturbed area may reflect a lack of
alternatives rather than a lack of effects. Among other case studies,
the authors discuss beaked whales off Cape Hatteras, noting the
apparent importance of this area to the species and citing studies
indicating long-term, year-round fidelity. This information leads the
authors to conclude that failure to appropriately address potential
effects in this particular area could lead to severe biological
consequences for these beaked whales, in part because displacement may
adversely affect foraging rates, reproduction, or health, while an
overriding instinct to remain could lead to more severe acute effects
(Forney et al., 2017).
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 five-day 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 in\3\ or more) were firing, lateral displacement,
more localized
[[Page 26279]]
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-
pituitary-adrenal 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 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 high-frequency 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),
[[Page 26280]]
contribute to elevated ambient sound levels, thus intensifying masking.
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.
In an effort to reduce the number and severity of strikes of the
endangered North Atlantic right whale, NMFS implemented speed
restrictions in 2008 (73 FR 60173; October 10, 2008). These
restrictions require that vessels greater than or equal to 65 ft (19.8
m) in length travel at less than or equal to 10 kn near key port
entrances and in certain areas of right whale aggregation along the
U.S. eastern seaboard. Conn and Silber (2013) estimated that these
restrictions reduced total ship strike mortality risk levels by 80 to
90 percent.
For vessels used in seismic survey activities, vessel speed while
towing gear is typically only 4-5 kn. At these speeds, 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 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 x 10-6; 95% CI
= 0-5.5 x 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 vessels associated with seismic surveys
striking a marine mammal are 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 seismic data acquisition vessels towing
gear, while not impossible, represent unlikely, unpredictable events
for which there are no preventive measures. Given the required
mitigation measures, the relatively slow speeds of vessels towing gear,
the presence of bridge crew watching for obstacles at all times
(including marine mammals), the presence of marine mammal observers,
and the small number of seismic survey cruises, 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.
Other Potential Impacts--Here, we briefly address the potential
risks due to entanglement and contaminant spills. 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. Any permits issued by BOEM
would include guidance for the handling and disposal of marine trash
and debris, similar to the Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement's (BSEE) NTL 2012-G01 (``Marine Trash and Debris Awareness
and Elimination'') (BSEE, 2012; BOEM, 2014b). There are no meaningful
entanglement risks posed by the described activity, and entanglement
risks are not discussed further in this document.
[[Page 26281]]
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 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. In general, impacts to marine mammal prey species are
expected to be minor and temporary due to the short timeframe in which
any given acoustic source vessel would be operating in any given area.
However, adverse impacts may occur to a few species of fish which may
still be present in the project area despite operating in a reduced
work window in an attempt to avoid important fish spawning time
periods.
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 habitat-mediated
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 by Incidental Harassment
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).''
Anticipated takes would primarily be by Level B harassment, as use
of the acoustic source (i.e., airgun array) has the potential to result
in disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals.
There is also some potential for auditory injury (Level A harassment)
to result from use of the acoustic source, primarily for either high-
frequency or low-frequency hearing specialists due to larger predicted
auditory injury zones (on the basis of peak pressure and cumulative
SEL, respectively). Auditory injury is unlikely to occur for most mid-
frequency hearing specialists (e.g., dolphins, sperm whale). The
proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize
the severity of such taking to the extent practicable. It is unlikely
that lethal takes would occur
[[Page 26282]]
even in the absence of the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures,
and no such takes are anticipated or proposed for authorization.
Sound Thresholds
We have historically used generic acoustic thresholds (see Table 5)
to determine when an activity that produces sound might result in
impacts to a marine mammal such that a take by harassment might occur.
These thresholds should be considered guidelines for estimating when
harassment may occur (i.e., when an animal is exposed to levels equal
to or exceeding the relevant criterion) in specific contexts; however,
useful contextual information that may inform our assessment of effects
is typically lacking and we consider these thresholds as step
functions. We are aware of suggestions regarding new criteria
concerning behavioral disruption (e.g., Nowacek et al., 2015), but
there is currently no scientific agreement on the matter. NMFS will
consider potential changes to the historical criteria for behavioral
harassment in the future.
Table 5--Historical Acoustic Exposure Criteria for Impulsive Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criterion Definition Threshold
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A harassment............ Injury (onset PTS--any 180 dB rms
level above that (cetaceans).
which is known to
cause TTS).
Level B harassment............ Behavioral disruption. 160 dB rms
(impulse
sources).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, NMFS has recently introduced new technical guidance for
auditory injury (equating to Level A harassment under the MMPA); for
more information, please visit www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/guidelines.htm (NMFS, 2016). Historical threshold levels for auditory
injury were developed in the late 1990s using the best information
available at the time (e.g., HESS, 1999). Since the adoption of these
historical thresholds, our understanding of the effects of noise on
marine mammal hearing has greatly advanced (e.g., Southall et al.,
2007; Finneran, 2015). The new 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's historical criteria. The technical guidance reflects the
best available science on the potential for noise to affect auditory
sensitivity by:
Dividing sound sources into two groups (i.e., impulsive
and non-impulsive) based on their potential to affect hearing
sensitivity;
Choosing metrics that better address the impacts of noise
on hearing sensitivity, i.e., peak sound pressure level (peak SPL)
(better reflects the physical properties of impulsive sound sources, to
affect hearing sensitivity) and cumulative sound exposure level (cSEL)
(accounts for not only level of exposure but also durations of
exposure);
Dividing marine mammals into hearing groups and developing
auditory weighting functions based on the science supporting that not
all marine mammals hear and use sound in the same manner.
NMFS's new technical guidance (NMFS, 2016) builds upon the
foundation provided by Southall et al. (2007), while incorporating new
information available since development of that work (e.g., Finneran,
2015). Southall et al. (2007) recommended specific thresholds under the
dual metric approach (i.e., peak SPL and cumulative SEL) and that
marine mammals be divided into functional hearing groups based on
measured or estimated functional hearing ranges. The premise of the
dual criteria approach is that, while there is no definitive answer to
the question of which acoustic metric is most appropriate for assessing
the potential for injury, both the received level and duration of
received signals are important to an understanding of the potential for
auditory injury. Therefore, peak SPL is used to define a pressure
criterion above which auditory injury is predicted to occur, regardless
of exposure duration (i.e., any single exposure at or above this level
is considered to cause auditory injury), and cSEL is used to account
for the total energy received over the duration of sound exposure
(i.e., both received level and duration of exposure) (Southall et al.,
2007; NMFS, 2016). As a general principle, whichever criterion is
exceeded first (i.e., results in the largest isopleth) would be used as
the effective injury criterion (i.e., the more precautionary of the
criteria). Note that cSEL acoustic threshold levels incorporate marine
mammal auditory weighting functions, while peak pressure thresholds do
not (i.e., flat or unweighted). NMFS (2016) recommends 24 hours as a
maximum accumulation period relative to cSEL thresholds. For further
discussion of auditory weighting functions and their application,
please see NMFS (2016). Table 6 displays thresholds provided by NMFS
(2016).
Table 6--Exposure Criteria for Auditory Injury for Impulsive Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative
Peak sound
Hearing group pressure exposure
\1\ (dB) level \2\
(dB)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency cetaceans....................... 219 183
Mid-frequency cetaceans....................... 230 185
High-frequency cetaceans...................... 202 155
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Referenced to 1 [mu]Pa; unweighted within generalized hearing range.
\2\ Referenced to 1 [mu]Pa\2\s; weighted according to appropriate
auditory weighting function.
NMFS considers these updated thresholds and associated weighting
functions to be the best available information for assessing whether
exposure to specific activities is likely to result in changes in
marine mammal hearing sensitivity. However, all applications were
submitted and declared adequate and complete prior to finalization of
the technical guidance, based on the best available information at the
time. BOEM's PEIS (BOEM, 2014a) does provide information enabling a
reasonable approximation of potential acoustic exposures relative to
the ``Southall criteria.'' While the peer-reviewed criteria provided by
Southall et al. (2007) differ from that described by NMFS (2016), they
do function substantively as a reasonable precursor to the new
technical guidance. We derived applicant specific exposure estimates
for Level A harassment from BOEM's PEIS and then corrected these to
reasonably account for NMFS's new technical guidance. This process is
described below (see ``Level A Harassment'').
[[Page 26283]]
Sound Field Modeling
BOEM's PEIS (BOEM, 2014a) provides information related to
estimation of the sound fields that would be generated by potential
geophysical survey activity on the mid- and south Atlantic OCS. We
provide a summary description of that modeling effort here; for more
information, please see Appendix D of BOEM's PEIS (Zykov and Carr, 2014
in BOEM, 2014a). The acoustic modeling generated a three-dimensional
acoustic propagation field as a function of source characteristics and
physical properties of the ocean for later integration with marine
mammal density information in an animal movement model to estimate
potential acoustic exposures.
The authors selected 15 modeling sites throughout BOEM's Mid-
Atlantic and South Atlantic OCS planning areas for use in modeling
predicted sound fields resulting from use of the airgun array. The
water depth at the sites varied from 30-5,400 m. Two types of bottom
composition were considered: Sand and clay, their selection depending
on the water depth at the source. Twelve possible sound speed profiles
for the water column were used to cover the variation of the sound
velocity distribution in the water with location and season. Twenty-one
distinct propagation scenarios resulted from considering different
sound speed profiles at some of the modeling sites. Two acoustic
propagation models were employed to estimate the acoustic field
radiated by the sound sources. A version of JASCO Applied Science's
Marine Operations Noise Model (MONM), based on the Range-dependent
Acoustic Model (RAM) parabolic-equations model, MONM-RAM, was used to
estimate the SELs for low-frequency sources (below 2 kHz) such as an
airgun array. For more information on sound propagation model types,
please see, e.g., Etter (2013). The model takes into account the
geoacoustic properties of the sea bottom, vertical sound speed profile
in the water column, range-dependent bathymetry, and the directivity of
the source. The directional source levels for the airgun array was
modeled using the Airgun Array Source Model (AASM) based on the
specifications of the source such as the arrangement and volume of the
guns, firing pressure, and depth below the sea surface. The modeled
directional source levels were used as the input for the acoustic
propagation model. For background information on major factors
affecting underwater sound propagation, please see Zykov and Carr
(2014).
The modeling used a 5,400 in\3\ airgun array as a representative
example. The array has dimensions of 16 x 15 m and consists of 18 air
guns placed in three identical strings of six air guns each (please see
Figure D-6 of Zykov and Carr (2014)). The volume of individual air guns
ranges from 105-660 in\3\. Firing pressure for all elements is 2,000
psi. The depth below the sea surface for the array was set at 6.5 m.
Please see Table 1 for a comparison to the airgun arrays proposed for
use by the applicant companies. Horizontal third-octave band
directionality plots resulting from source modeling are shown in Figure
D-8 of Zykov and Carr (2014).
As noted, the AASM was used to predict the directional source level
(SL) of the airgun array. The MONM was then used to estimate the
acoustic field at any range from the source. MONM-RAM was used to
predict the directional transmission loss (TL) footprint from various
source locations corresponding to the selected modeling sites. The
received level (RL) at any 3D location away from the source is
calculated by combining the SL and TL, both of which are direction
dependent, using the fundamental relation RL = SL-TL. Acoustic TL and
RL are a function of depth, range, bearing, and environmental
properties of the propagation medium. The RLs estimated by MONM, like
the SLs from which they are computed, are expressed in terms of the SEL
metric over the duration of a single source pulse. Sound exposure level
is expressed in units of dB re 1 [mu]Pa\2\ [middot] s. For the purposes
of this study, the SEL results were converted to the rms SPL metric
using a range dependent conversion coefficient.
The U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office's Generalized Digital
Environmental Model database was used to extract sound velocity
profiles for the mid- and south Atlantic in order to characterize the
entire water body into a discreet number of specific propagation
regions. The profiles were selected to reflect the variation of sea
water properties at the different locations selected throughout the
mid- and south Atlantic OCS as well as seasonal variation at the same
location (i.e., winter, spring, summer, fall). The profiles for each
season were grouped into about 17 regions with similar propagation
characteristics and representative profiles for each region were
selected. Finally, the bottom characteristics for each of these 17
regions were examined to determine if any region needed to be divided
to accommodate the influence of the various bottom types on that
region's propagation. The result was 21 separate modeling regions that
in sum captured the propagation for the entire area; therefore, taken
in conjunction with the 15 applicable sites there were a total of 21
modeling scenarios applicable to the airgun array. These scenarios are
detailed in Table D-21 in Zykov and Carr (2014). Each acoustic modeling
scenario is characterized by a unique combination of parameters. The
main variables in the environment configuration are the bathymetry and
the sound velocity profile in the water column. The geoacoustic
properties of the sea bottom are directly correlated with the water
depth of the modeling site. Four depth regions were classified based on
bathymetry: Shallow continental shelf (<60 m); continental shelf (60-
150 m); continental slope (150-1,000 m); and deep ocean (>1,000 m). The
modeling results show that the largest threshold radii are typically
associated with sites in intermediate water depths (250 and 900 m). Low
frequencies propagate relatively poorly in shallow water (i.e., water
depths on the same order as or less than the wavelength). At
intermediate water depths, this stripping of low-frequency sound no
longer occurs, and longer-range propagation can be enhanced by the
channeling of sound caused by reflection from the surface and seafloor
(depending on the nature of the sound speed profile and sediment type).
Table 7 shows scenario-specific modeling results for distances to
the 160 dB level; results presented are for the 95 percent range to
threshold. Given a regularly gridded spatial distribution of modeled
RLs, the 95 percent range is defined as the radius of a circle that
encompasses 95 percent of the grid points whose value is equal to or
greater than the threshold value. This definition is meaningful in
terms of potential impact to an animal because, regardless of the
geometrical shape of the noise footprint for a given threshold level,
it always provides a range beyond which no more than five percent of a
uniformly distributed population would be exposed to sound at or above
that level. The maximum range, which is simply the distance to the
farthest occurrence of the threshold level, is the more conservative
but may misrepresent the effective exposure zone. For example, there
are cases where the volume ensonified to a specific level may not be
continuous and small pockets of higher RLs may be found far outside the
main ensonified volume (for example, because of convergence). If only
the maximum range is presented, a false impression of the extent of the
acoustic
[[Page 26284]]
field can be given (Zykov and Carr, 2014).
Table 7--Modeling Scenarios and Site-Specific Modeled Threshold Radii From BOEM's PEIS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water depth Threshold
Scenario No. Site No.\1\ (m) Season Bottom type radii (m)\2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................... 1 5,390 Winter........................ Clay.......................... 4,969
2....................................... 2 2,560 Winter........................ Clay.......................... 5,184
3....................................... 3 880 Winter........................ Sand.......................... 8,104
4....................................... 4 249 Winter........................ Sand.......................... 8,725
5....................................... 5 288 Winter........................ Sand.......................... 8,896
6....................................... 1 5,390 Spring........................ Clay.......................... 4,989
7....................................... 6 3,200 Spring........................ Clay.......................... 5,026
8....................................... 3 880 Spring........................ Sand.......................... 8,056
9....................................... 7 251 Spring........................ Sand.......................... 8,593
10...................................... 8 249 Spring........................ Sand.......................... 8,615
11...................................... 1 5,390 Summer........................ Clay.......................... 4,973
12...................................... 6 3,200 Summer........................ Clay.......................... 5,013
13...................................... 3 880 Summer........................ Sand.......................... 8,095
14...................................... 9 275 Summer........................ Sand.......................... 9,122
15...................................... 10 4,300 Fall.......................... Clay.......................... 5,121
16...................................... 11 3,010 Fall.......................... Clay.......................... 5,098
17...................................... 12 4,890 Fall.......................... Clay.......................... 4,959
18...................................... 13 3,580 Fall.......................... Clay.......................... 5,069
19...................................... 3 880 Fall.......................... Sand.......................... 8,083
20...................................... 14 100 Fall.......................... Sand.......................... 8,531
21...................................... 15 51 Fall.......................... Sand.......................... 8,384
Mean.................................... .............. .............. .............................. .............................. 6,838
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adapted from Tables D-21 and D-22 of Zykov and Carr (2014).
\1\ Please see Figure D-35 of Zykov and Carr (2014) for site locations.
\2\ Threshold radii to 160 dB (rms) SPL, 95 percent range.
We provide this description of the modeling performed for BOEM's
PEIS as a general point of reference for the proposed surveys, and also
because three of the applicant companies--TGS, CGG, and Western--
directly use these results to inform their exposure modeling, rather
than performing separate sound field modeling. As described by BOEM
(2014a), the modeled array was selected to be representative of the
large airgun arrays likely to be used by geophysical exploration
companies in the mid- and south Atlantic OCS. Therefore, we use the
BOEM (2014a) results as a reasonable proxy for those two companies
(please see ``Detailed Description of Activities'' for further
description of the acoustic sources proposed for use by these two
companies). ION and Spectrum elected to perform separate sound field
modeling efforts, and these are described below. For generally
applicable conclusions, as summarized from Appendix A of ION's
application, see below.
ION--ION provided information related to estimation of the sound
fields that would be generated by their proposed geophysical survey
activity on the mid- and south Atlantic OCS. We provide a summary
description of that modeling effort here; for more information, please
see Appendix A of ION's application (Li, 2014; referred to hereafter as
Appendix A of ION's application). ION proposes to use a 36-element
airgun array with a 6,420 in\3\ total firing volume (please see
``Detailed Description of Activities'' for further description of ION's
acoustic source). The modeling assumed that ION would operate from July
to December. Sixteen representative sites were selected along survey
track lines planned by ION for use in modeling predicted sound fields
resulting from use of the airgun array (see Figure 2 in Appendix A of
ION's application for site locations). Two acoustic propagation models
were employed to estimate the acoustic field radiated by the sound
sources. As was described above for BOEM's PEIS, the acoustic signature
of the airgun array was predicted using AASM and MONM was used to
calculate the sound propagation and acoustic field near each defined
site. The modeling process follows generally that described previously
for BOEM's PEIS. Key differences are the characteristics of the
acoustic source (see Table 1), locations of the modeled sites, and the
use of a restricted set of sound velocity profiles (e.g., fall and
winter). Table 8 shows site-specific modeling results for distances to
the 160 dB level; results presented are for the 95 percent range to
threshold.
Table 8--Site-Specific Modeled Threshold Radii for ION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water depth Threshold
Site No.\1\ (m) Season radii (m) \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........................................... 45 Fall.............................. 4,740
.............. Winter............................ 5,270
2........................................... 820 Fall.............................. 7,470
.............. Winter............................ 7,490
3........................................... 1,000 Fall.............................. 7,530
.............. Winter............................ 7,480
[[Page 26285]]
4........................................... 40 Fall.............................. 4,200
.............. Winter............................ 5,220
5........................................... 650 Fall.............................. 7,270
.............. Winter............................ 7,370
6........................................... 1,500 Fall.............................. 5,210
.............. Winter............................ 5,250
7........................................... 2,600 Fall.............................. 5,420
.............. Winter............................ 5,390
8........................................... 30 Fall.............................. 4,480
.............. Winter............................ 4,770
9........................................... 700 Fall.............................. 8,210
.............. Winter............................ 8,250
10.......................................... 3,300 Fall.............................. 5,410
.............. Winter............................ 5,380
11.......................................... 4,200 Fall.............................. 5,390
.............. Winter............................ 5,360
12.......................................... 30 Fall.............................. 3,250
.............. Winter............................ 4,860
13.......................................... 140 Fall.............................. 6,470
.............. Winter............................ 6,750
14.......................................... 2,400 Fall.............................. 5,460
.............. Winter............................ 5,450
17 \3\...................................... 2,200 Fall.............................. 5,600
.............. Winter............................ 5,570
18 \3\...................................... 4,180 Fall.............................. 5,400
.............. Winter............................ 5,380
Mean........................................ .............. Fall.............................. 5,383
.............. Winter............................ 5,953
.............. Overall........................... 5,836
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adapted from Tables 1 and 17 of Appendix A in ION's application.
\1\ Please see Figure 2 of Appendix A in ION's application for site locations.
\2\ Threshold radii to 160 dB (rms) SPL, 95 percent range.
\3\ Results for sites 15 and 16 are not presented, as the sites are outside the proposed survey area.
Spectrum--Spectrum provided information related to estimation of
the sound fields that would be generated by their proposed geophysical
survey activity on the mid- and south Atlantic OCS. We provide a
summary description of that modeling effort here; for more information,
please see Appendix A of Spectrum's application (Frankel et al., 2015;
referred to hereafter as Appendix A of Spectrum's application).
Spectrum plans to use a 32-element airgun array with a 4,920 in\3\
total firing volume (please see ``Detailed Description of Activities''
for further description of Spectrum's acoustic source). Array
characteristics were input into the GUNDALF model to calculate the
source level and predict the array signature. The directivity pattern
of the airgun array was calculated using the beamforming module in the
CASS[hyphen]GRAB acoustic propagation model. These models provided
source input information for the range[hyphen]dependent acoustic model
(RAM), which was then used to predict acoustic propagation and estimate
the resulting sound field. The RAM model creates frequency-specific,
three-dimensional directivity patterns (sound field) based upon the
size and location of each airgun in the array. As described previously,
physical characteristics of the underwater environment (e.g., sound
velocity profile, bathymetry, substrate composition) are critical to
understanding acoustic propagation; 16 modeling locations were selected
that span the acoustic conditions of the proposed seismic survey area.
ION and Spectrum used the same modeling locations (Table 8). In
contrast to ION's approach, Spectrum elected to use sound velocity
profiles for winter and spring and assumed that half of the survey
would occur in winter and half in spring. Table 9 shows site-specific
modeling results for distances to the 160 dB level; results presented
are for the 95 percent range to threshold.
Table 9--Site-Specific Modeled Threshold Radii for Spectrum
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Threshold
Site No.\1\ Water radii
depth (m) (m)\2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................... 45 12,400
2............................................... 820 9,900
3............................................... 1,000 9,600
4............................................... 40 7,850
5............................................... 650 9,350
6............................................... 1,500 7,600
7............................................... 2,600 6,700
8............................................... 30 7,650
9............................................... 700 9,150
10.............................................. 3,300 6,700
11.............................................. 4,200 7,000
12.............................................. 30 24,300
13.............................................. 140 14,750
14.............................................. 2,400 7,650
17 \3\.......................................... 2,200 8,600
18 \3\.......................................... 4,180 7,200
Mean............................................ .......... 9,775
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adapted from Table 6 of Spectrum's application.
\1\ Please see Figure 5 of Appendix A in Spectrum's application for site
locations.
\2\ Threshold radii to 160 dB (rms) SPL, 95 percent range.
\3\ Results for sites 15 and 16 are not presented, as the sites are
outside the proposed survey area.
Generally applicable conclusions were discussed in Appendix A of
ION's application, and are summarized here.
[[Page 26286]]
At shallow water sites, the sound field at long distances is dominated
by intermediate frequencies (i.e., 100-500 Hz) and the sound field
varies significantly with direction because of the correspondingly high
directivity of the source at these frequencies. Lower frequency energy
is more rapidly attenuated and so is not able to propagate to very long
distances. In contrast, the long-range spectra at deeper-water sites
contain more low-frequency energy, resulting in longer propagation
distances, and the shape of the sound field is also more strongly
influenced by the directionality of the airgun array at low frequencies
(i.e., tens of hertz). Differences across seasons and sites are
generally not great due to similar sound velocity profiles (e.g.,
dominant downward refraction for depths greater than approximately 100
m) and counter-balancing effects of depth versus substrate composition.
Shallow-water sites have mostly sandy sediments, which are more
acoustically reflective, but low frequencies (as are produced by
airguns) propagate relatively poorly in shallow water. Deep-water sites
are located over clay sediments, which are associated with greater
bottom loss, but this is balanced by the better low-frequency
propagation in deep water. The largest threshold radii are seen in
intermediate depths, because these sites are located over acoustically
reflective sand sediments but in depths at which low-frequency sound is
no longer stripped out. Further, longer-range propagation at these
sites can be increased by sound channeling due to reflection from the
sea surface and seabed (depending on the sound velocity profiles and
sediment types).
Marine Mammal Density Information
The best available scientific information was considered in
conducting marine mammal exposure estimates (the basis for estimating
take). Historically, distance sampling methodology (Buckland et al.,
2001) has been applied to visual line-transect survey data to estimate
abundance within large geographic strata (e.g., Fulling et al., 2003;
Mullin and Fulling, 2004; Palka, 2006). Design-based surveys that apply
such sampling techniques produce stratified abundance estimates and do
not provide information at appropriate spatiotemporal scales for
assessing environmental risk of a planned survey. To address this issue
of scale, efforts were developed to relate animal observations and
environmental correlates such as sea surface temperature in order to
develop predictive models used to produce fine-scale maps of habitat
suitability (e.g., Waring et al., 2001; Hamazaki, 2002; Best et al.,
2012). However, these studies generally produce relative estimates that
cannot be directly used to quantify potential exposures of marine
mammals to sound, for example. A more recent approach known as density
surface modeling, as seen in DoN (2007) and Roberts et al. (2016),
couples traditional distance sampling with multivariate regression
modeling to produce density maps predicted from fine-scale
environmental covariates (e.g., Becker et al., 2014).
At the time the applications were initially developed, the best
available information concerning marine mammal densities in the
proposed survey area was the U.S. Navy's Navy Operating Area (OPAREA)
Density Estimates (NODEs) (DoN, 2007). These habitat-based cetacean
density models utilized vessel-based and aerial survey data collected
by NMFS from 1998-2005 during broad-scale abundance studies. Modeling
methodology is detailed in DoN (2007). A more advanced cetacean density
modeling effort, described in Roberts et al. (2016), was ongoing during
initial development of the applications, and the model outputs were
made available to the applicant companies. All information relating to
this effort was made publically available in March 2016.
The Roberts et al. (2016) modeling effort provided several key
improvements with respect to the NODEs effort. While the NODEs effort
utilized a robust collection of NMFS survey data, Roberts et al. (2016)
expanded on this by incorporating additional aerial and shipboard
survey data from NMFS and from other organizations collected over the
period 1992-2014, ultimately incorporating 60 percent more shipboard
and five hundred percent more aerial survey hours than did NODEs. In
addition, Roberts et al. (2016) controlled for the influence of sea
state, group size, availability bias, and perception bias on the
probability of making a sighting, whereas NODEs controlled for none of
these. There are multiple reasons why marine mammals may be undetected
by observers. Animals are missed because they are underwater
(availability bias) or because they are available to be seen, but are
missed by observers (perception and detection biases) (e.g., Marsh and
Sinclair, 1989). Negative bias on perception or detection of an
available animal may result from environmental conditions, limitations
inherent to the observation platform, or observer ability. Therefore,
failure to correct for these biases may lead to underestimates of
cetacean abundance. Use of additional data was used to improve
detection functions for taxa that were rarely sighted in specific
survey platform configurations. The degree of underestimation would
likely be particularly impactful for species that exhibit long dive
times, such as sperm and beaked whales, or are hard for observers to
detect, such as harbor porpoises. Roberts et al. (2016) modeled density
from eight physiographic and 16 dynamic oceanographic and biological
covariates, as compared with two dynamic environmental covariates
considered in NODEs. In summary, consideration of additional survey
data and an improved modeling strategy allowed for an increased number
of taxa modeled and better spatiotemporal resolutions of the resulting
predictions. In general, we consider the models produced by Roberts et
al. (2016) to be the best available source of data regarding cetacean
density in the Atlantic. More information, including the model results
and supplementary information for each model, is available at
seamap.env.duke.edu/models/Duke-EC-GOM-2015/.
Aerial and shipboard survey data produced by the Atlantic Marine
Assessment Program for Protected Species (AMAPPS) program provides an
additional source of information regarding marine mammal presence in
the proposed survey areas. These surveys represent a collaborative
effort between NMFS, BOEM, and the Navy. Although the cetacean density
models described above do include survey data from 2010-14, the AMAPPS
data was not made available to the model authors. Future model updates
will incorporate these data, but as of this writing the AMAPPS data
comprises a separate source of information (NMFS, 2010a, 2011, 2012,
2013a, 2014, 2015a).
Description of Exposure Estimates
Here, we provide applicant-specific descriptions of the processes
employed to estimate potential exposures of marine mammals to given
levels of received sound. The discussions provided here are specific to
estimated exposures to NMFS criterion for Level B harassment (i.e., 160
dB rms); we provide a separate discussion below regarding our process
for estimating potential incidents of Level A harassment. We first
describe the exposure modeling process performed for BOEM's PEIS as
point of reference. Appendix E of the PEIS (BOEM, 2014a) provides full
details.
This description builds on the description of sound field modeling
provided earlier in this section and in
[[Page 26287]]
Appendix D of BOEM's PEIS. As described previously, 21 distinct
acoustic propagation regions were defined. Reflecting seasonal
differences in sound velocity profiles, these regions were specific to
each season--there were five acoustic propagation regions in both
winter and spring, four in summer, and seven propagation regions in
fall (see Figures E-11 through E-14 in Appendix E of BOEM's PEIS). The
seasonal distribution of marine mammals was examined using the NODEs
database (DoN, 2007) to see if there was any additional correlation
with the propagation regions. The seasonal distribution for each
species was examined by overlaying the charts of the 21 acoustic
modeling regions and the average density of each species was then
numerically determined for each region. For each species modeled
through the NODEs effort, the model outputs are four seasonal surface
density plots (e.g., Figure E-15 in Appendix E of BOEM's PEIS).
However, the NODEs models do not provide outputs for the extended
continental shelf areas seaward of the EEZ; therefore, known density
information at the edge of the area modeled by NODEs was extrapolated
to the remainder of the study area.
The results of the acoustic modeling exercise (i.e., estimated 3D
sound field) and the region-specific density estimates were then input
into Marine Acoustics, Inc.'s Acoustic Integration Model (AIM). AIM is
a software package developed to predict the exposure of receivers
(e.g., an animal) to any stimulus propagating through space and time
through use of a four-dimensional, individual-based, Monte Carlo-based
statistical model. Within the model, simulated marine animals (i.e.,
animats) may be programmed to behave in specific ways on the basis of
measured field data. An animat movement engine controls the geographic
and vertical movements (e.g., speed and direction) of sound sources and
animats through four dimensions (time and space) according to user
inputs. Species that normally inhabit specific environments can be
constrained in the model to stay within that habitat (e.g., deep-water
species may be restricted from entering shallow waters where they would
not be found).
Species-specific animats were created with programmed behavioral
parameters describing dive depth, surfacing and dive durations,
swimming speed, course change, and behavioral aversions (e.g., water
too shallow). The programmed animats were then randomly distributed
over a given bounded simulation area; boundaries extend at least one
degree of latitude or longitude beyond the extent of the vessel track
to ensure an adequate number of animats in all directions, and to
ensure that the simulation areas extend beyond the area where
substantial behavioral reactions might be anticipated. Because the
exact positions of sound sources and animals are not known in advance
for proposed activities, multiple runs of realistic predictions are
used to provide statistical validity to the simulated scenarios. Each
species-specific simulation is seeded with a given density of animats;
in this case, approximately 4,000 animats. In most cases, this
represents a higher density of animats in the simulation (0.1 animats/
km\2\) than occurs in the real environment. A separate simulation was
created and run for each combination of location, movement pattern, and
marine mammal species.
A model run consists of a user-specified number of steps forward in
time, in which each animat is moved according to the rules describing
its behavior. For each time step of the model run, the received sound
levels at each animat (i.e., each marine mammal) are calculated. AIM
returns the movement patterns of the animats, and the received sound
levels are calculated separately using the given acoustic propagation
predictions at different locations. At the end of each time step, an
animat ``evaluates'' its environment, including its 3D location, the
time, and any received sound level, and may alter its course to react
to the environment per any programmed aversions.
Animat positions relative to the acoustic source (i.e., range,
bearing, and depth) were used to extract received level estimates from
the acoustic propagation modeling results. The source levels, and
therefore subsequently the received levels, include the embedded
corrections for signal pulse length and M-weighting. M-weighting is a
type of frequency weighting curve intended to reflect the differential
potential for sound to affect marine mammals based on their sensitivity
to the particular frequencies produced (Southall et al., 2007). Please
see Appendix D of BOEM's PEIS for further description of the
application of M-weighting filters. For each bearing, distance, and
depth from the source, the received level values were expressed as SPLs
(rms) with units of dB re 1[mu] Pa. These are then converted back to
intensity and summed over the duration of the exercise to generate an
integrated energy level, expressed in terms of dB re 1 [mu]Pa\2\-sec or
dB SEL. The number of animats per species that exceeded a given
criterion (e.g., 160 dB rms; 198 dB cSEL) may then be determined, and
these results scaled according to the relationship of model-to-real
world densities per species. That is, the exposure results are
corrected using the actual species- and region-specific density derived
from the density model outputs to give real-world estimates of exposure
to sound exceeding a given received level. In this case, the user-
specified densities are typically at least an order of magnitude
greater than the real-world densities to ensure a statistically valid
result; therefore, the modeling result is corrected or scaled by the
ratio of the actual density divided by the modeled density. Although
there is substantial uncertainty associated with both the acoustic
sound field estimation and animal movement modeling steps, confidence
intervals were not developed for the exposure estimate results, in part
because calculating confidence limits for numbers of Level B harassment
takes would imply a level of quantification and statistical certainty
that does not currently exist (BOEM, 2014a). Further detail regarding
all aspects of the modeling process is provided in Appendix E of BOEM's
PEIS.
As noted previously, the NODEs models (DoN, 2007) provided the best
available information at the time of initial development for these
applications. Outputs of the cetacean density models described by
Roberts et al. (2016) were subsequently made available to the applicant
companies. Two applicants (TGS and Western) elected to consider the new
information and produced revised applications accordingly. CGG also
used the new information in developing their application. Two
applicants (Spectrum and ION) declined to use the Roberts et al. (2016)
density models. However, because NMFS determined that the Roberts et
al. (2016) density models represent the best available information (in
relation to the NODEs models) we worked with Marine Acoustics, Inc.--
which performed the initial exposure modeling provided in the Spectrum
and ION applications--to produce revised exposure estimates utilizing
the outputs of the Roberts et al. (2016) density models.
In order to revise the exposure estimates for Spectrum and ION, we
first needed to extract appropriate density estimates from the Roberts
et al. (2016) model outputs. Because both Spectrum and ION used
modeling processes conceptually similar to that described above for
BOEM's PEIS, these density estimates would replace those previously
derived from the NODEs models in rescaling the exposure estimation
results from those derived from animal movement modeling using
[[Page 26288]]
a user-specified density. We summarize the steps involved in
calculating mean marine mammal densities over the 21 modeling areas
used in both BOEM's PEIS and the applications here:
Roberts et al. (2016) predicted densities on an annual or
monthly time period. When the time period was annual, we used the same
density for all seasons. When the time period was monthly, we
calculated the mean density for each season (using ArcGIS' cell
statistics tool).
We converted the Roberts et al. (2016) density units
(animals/100 km\2\) to animals/km\2\.
As was the case for the NODEs model outputs, the Roberts
et al. (2016) model outputs are restricted to the U.S. EEZ. Although
relevant information regarding cetacean densities in areas of the
western North Atlantic beyond the EEZ was recently provided by Mannocci
et al. (2017), this information was not available to the applicants in
developing their applications and was not available to NMFS in
preparing this document. Therefore, we similarly extended the edge
densities to cover the area outside of the data extent. This was
performed by converting the seasonal rasters to numeric Python arrays,
then using Python array functions to extend the edge cells.
With new density values covering the entire modeling
extent, we then calculated the average density for each of the 21
modeling areas (using ArcGIS' Zonal Statistics as Table tool).
Spectrum--Spectrum's sound field estimation process was previously
described, and their exposure modeling process is substantially similar
to that described above for BOEM's PEIS. The exposure estimation
results described in Spectrum's application are based on the NODEs
models. Because the NODEs model outputs do not cover the full extent of
the proposed survey area, density estimates from the eastern-most edge
where data are known were extrapolated seaward to the spatial extent of
the proposed survey area. The same acoustic propagation regions
described for BOEM's PEIS were used by Spectrum for exposure modeling;
however, Spectrum limited their analysis to winter and spring seasons
and therefore used only ten of the 21 regions. Half of proposed survey
activity was assumed to occur in winter and half in spring.
As was described for BOEM's PEIS, Spectrum used AIM to model animal
movements within the estimated 3D sound field. However, Spectrum
elected to seed the simulations with a lower animat density (0.05
animats/km\2\) than was used for BOEM's PEIS modeling effort. Spectrum
stated that the modeled animat density value was determined through a
sensitivity analysis that examined the stability of the predicted
exposure estimates as a function of animat density and that the modeled
density was determined to accurately capture the full distributional
range of probabilities of exposure for the proposed survey. Similar to
the modeling performed for BOEM's PEIS, the source levels and therefore
subsequently the received levels include the embedded corrections for
M-weighting (Southall et al., 2007).
AIM simulations consisted of 25 hours of survey track for each
modeling site and animal group. This duration was selected to use a
24[hyphen]hour sound energy accumulation period for exposure
estimation. The first hour of model output is then discarded, as animal
distributions will be unduly influenced by initial conditions. In
addition, there was a difference between the amount of modeled survey
trackline within each modeling region and the actual proposed amount of
survey trackline. The potential impacts were scaled by the ratio of the
total length of proposed trackline to the modeled length of trackline
in each modeling region. Spectrum elected to program certain species'
animats with one aversion; normally deep-water species were not allowed
to move into waters shallower than 100 m. Avoidance of right whales as
indicated by the time-area restrictions required by BOEM's ROD (BOEM,
2014b) was also accounted for.
Similar to modeling conducted for BOEM's PEIS, received sound level
and 3D position of each animat were recorded to calculate exposure
estimates at each time step. Thus unweighted SPL(rms) and SEL values,
as well as M[hyphen]weighted SEL values, were calculated and compared
with their respective criteria. The SEL values at each time step were
converted back to intensity and summed, to produce the 24[hyphen]hr
cSEL value for each individual animat. The numbers of animats with
SPL(rms) and cSEL values that exceeded their respective regulatory
criteria were considered exposed for that criteria.
Spectrum also included a mitigation simulation in their modeling
process, i.e., they attempted to quantify the effects that a shutdown
for marine mammals occurring within a 500 m exclusion zone and
subsequent 60 minute clearance period would have on exposure estimates.
As was described for BOEM's PEIS, dataset outputs of the AIM simulation
model contain an animat's received sound level (SEL or SPL), the
distance between the source and the animat, and the depth of the
animat. Spectrum used the distance value to determine if the animat was
in the 500-m exclusion zone and the depth of the animat was used to
determine if it was at or near the surface. If both of these conditions
were true, then the animat was considered `available' to be observed.
However, an animal that is available to be observed may still be missed
by an observer due to perception bias. Therefore, Spectrum attempted to
model the probability that an animal available for observation would in
fact be observed. A random number was generated and compared to the
detection probability for the species being modeled (P(detect);
detection probabilities are shown in Table 14 of Appendix A in
Spectrum's application). If the random number was less than the
P(detect) value then the animal was considered to have been detected;
if greater, the animal was considered undetected. If an animat was
detected, AIM would simulate the effect of the acoustic source being
shut down by setting the received sound levels of all animats in the
model run to zero for the next 60 minutes. Predicted exposures without
this mitigation simulation were also presented (see Tables 15-16 in
Appendix A of Spectrum's application for a comparison of the mitigation
simulation effect).
In summary, the original exposure results were obtained using AIM
to model source and animat movements, with received SEL for each animat
predicted at a 30-second time step. This predicted SEL history was used
to determine the maximum SPL (rms or peak) and cSEL for each animat,
and the number of exposures exceeding relevant criteria recorded. The
number of exposures are summed for all animats to get the number of
exposures for each species, with that summed value then scaled by the
ratio of real-world density to the model density value. The final
scaling value was the ratio of the length of the modeled survey line
and the length of proposed survey line in each modeling region. As
described above, the exposure estimates provided in Spectrum's
application were based on the NODEs model outputs. In order to make use
of the best available information (i.e., Roberts et al. (2016)), we
extracted species- and region-specific density values as described
above. These were provided to Marine Acoustics, Inc. in order to
rescale the original exposure results produced using the seeded animat
density; revised exposure estimates are shown in Table 10.
ION--ION's sound field estimation process was previously described,
and
[[Page 26289]]
their exposure modeling process is substantially similar to that
described above for BOEM's PEIS (and for Spectrum). We do not repeat
those descriptions in full but summarize some key elements and
differences relating to ION's approach. Further detail may be found in
Appendix B of ION's application.
The exposure estimation results described in ION's application are
based on the NODEs models. The same acoustic propagation regions
described for BOEM's PEIS were used by ION for exposure modeling;
however, ION limited their analysis to summer and fall seasons and
therefore used only 11 of the 21 regions. Whichever season returned the
higher number of estimated exposures for a given species was assumed to
be the season in which the survey occurred, i.e., ION's requested take
authorization corresponds to the higher of the two seasonal species-
specific exposure estimates.
As was described for BOEM's PEIS, ION used AIM to model animal
movements within the estimated 3D sound field. ION proposes to conduct
survey effort along lines roughly parallel to and roughly perpendicular
to the east coast. Because a number of these lines are similar to each
other in terms of direction and location, a reduced number of modeling
lines--five alongshore and five perpendicular to shore--were created to
represent all of the proposed survey lines. The lines were then further
broken into segments that correspond to the boundaries of the modeling
regions (see Figure 4 in Appendix B of ION's application). Simulation
durations varied depending on model line length. After models were run
for each line segment and subsegment, the results from all segments in
each of the survey areas were scaled to reflect the actual length of
proposed survey lines and then combined. ION elected to seed the
simulations with a variable animat density because of the variable
length of the tracks and the varied habitat of some species. ION did
not account for potential effectiveness of mitigation in their modeling
effort.
In summary, the original exposure results were obtained using AIM
to model source and animat movements, with received SEL for each animat
predicted at a 30-second time step. This predicted SEL history was used
to determine the maximum SPL (rms or peak) and cSEL for each animat,
and the number of exposures exceeding relevant criteria recorded. The
number of exposures are summed for all animats to get the number of
exposures for each species, with that summed value then scaled by the
ratio of real-world density to the model density value. The final
scaling value was the ratio of the length of the modeled survey line
and the length of proposed survey line in each modeling region. As
described above, the exposure estimates provided in ION's application
were based on the NODEs model outputs. In order to make use of the best
available information (i.e., Roberts et al. (2016)), we extracted
species- and region-specific density values as described above. These
were provided to Marine Acoustics, Inc. in order to rescale the
original exposure results produced using the seeded animat density;
revised exposure estimates are shown in Table 10.
TGS and Western--Because TGS and Western follow the same approach
to estimating potential marine mammal exposures to underwater sound, we
provide a single description. It is also important to note that both
companies propose the use of a mitigation source (i.e., 90 in\3\
airgun) for line turns and transits not exceeding three hours and
produced exposure estimates for such use of the source. As described
previously in ``Proposed Mitigation,'' we do not propose to allow use
of the mitigation source. Therefore, exposure estimates produced by
both companies that account for proposed use of the source will be
slightly overestimated. This applies only to the ten species whose
exposure estimates are based on the Roberts et al. (2016) density
models, as we were not presented with exposure estimates specific to
the full-power array versus the mitigation source. The companies
assumed that the sound field estimates provided by BOEM (2014a) would
be applicable and consider three depth bins: <880 m, 880-2,560 m,
>2,560 m. The 15 modeling sites have a notable depth discontinuity
within the overall range (51-5,390 m), with no sites at depths between
880-2,560 m. When considering the 21 modeling scenarios across the 15
sites, threshold radii shown in Table 7 break down evenly with 11 at
depths <=880 m and ten at depths >=2,560 m. The mean threshold radius
for the scenarios at shallow sites is 8,473 m; for the scenarios at
deep sites the average is 5,040 m. The overall mean for all scenarios
is 6,838 m. Because there are no sites for depths between 880-2,560 m,
we assume that the overall mean threshold distance is appropriate.
Because both applications were prepared by Smultea Environmental
Sciences, LLC (SES) under contract to the applicant companies, in this
section we refer hereafter to ``SES'' rather than to ``TGS and
Western.'' SES considered both the Roberts et al. (2016) density models
as well as the AMAPPS data (NMFS, 2010a, 2011, 2012, 2013a, 2014). In
so doing, SES determined that there are aspects of the Roberts et al.
(2016) methodology that limit the model outputs' applicability to
estimating marine mammal exposures to underwater sound. In summary, SES
described the following issues:
There are very few sightings of some species despite
substantial survey effort;
The modeling approach extrapolates based on habitat
associations and assumes some species' occurrence in areas where they
have never been or were rarely documented (despite substantial effort);
In some cases, uniform density models spread densities of
species with small sample sizes across large areas of the EEZ without
regard to habitat, and;
The most recent NOAA shipboard and aerial survey data
(i.e., AMAPPS) were not included in model development.
In response to these general concerns regarding suitability of
model outputs for exposure estimation, SES developed a scheme related
to the number of observations in the dataset available to Roberts et
al. (2016) for use in developing the density models. Extremely rare
species (i.e., less than four sightings in the proposed survey area)
were considered to have a very low probability of encounter, and it was
assumed that the species might be encountered once. Therefore, a single
group of the species was considered as expected to be exposed to sound
exceeding the 160 dB rms harassment criterion. We agree with this
approach and further describe relevant information related to these
species in subsequent sections below.
As described previously, marine mammal abundance has traditionally
been estimated by applying distance sampling methodology (Buckland et
al., 2001) to visual line-transect survey data. Buckland et al. (2001)
recommend a minimum sample size of 60-80 sightings to provide
reasonably robust estimates of density and abundance to fit the
mathematical detection function required for this estimation; smaller
sample sizes result in higher variance and thus less confidence and
less accurate estimates. For species meeting this guideline within the
proposed survey area, SES used Roberts et al. (2016)'s model. For
species with fewer sightings (but with greater than four sightings in
the proposed survey area), SES used what they refer to as ``Line
Transect Theory'' in conjunction with AMAPPS data to estimate species
[[Page 26290]]
density within the assumed 160 dB rms zone of ensonification.
Ten species or species groups met SES' requirement of having at
least 60 sightings within the proposed survey area in the dataset
available to Roberts et al. (2016): Atlantic spotted dolphin, pilot
whales, striped dolphin, beaked whales, bottlenose dolphin, Risso's
dolphin, short-beaked common dolphin, sperm whale, humpback whale, and
North Atlantic right whale. Roberts et al. (2016) were able to produce
models at annual resolution for the first four species and at monthly
resolution for the latter six. Because of proposed measures to avoid
most impacts to the right whale, SES used monthly data only for May to
October to estimate potential exposures. As an aside, we acknowledge
that this approach is not correct. Rather than ignoring the months
November-April, we believe the correct approach would be to use the
results for those months, but only for the grid cells outside of the
proposed closure areas. However, we do not believe that this is a
meaningful error, as our proposed mitigation measures related to right
whales (i.e., avoidance of sound input into areas where right whales
are expected to occur and an absolute shutdown requirement upon
observation of any right whale at any distance) are anticipated to
substantially avoid acute effects to right whales. SES summarizes the
steps involved in this process as follows:
Calculate area of ensonification to >=160 dB (rms) around
the operating acoustic source, including all track lines, run-outs, and
ramp-ups/run-ins, assuming depth-specific isopleth distances described
above. Overlapping areas were treated as if they did not overlap (i.e.,
they were added together as separate polygon areas to account for
multiple exposures in the same location), and were thus included in the
total area used to estimate exposures.
Calculate species-specific density estimates for each of
the 10 km x 10 km grid cells used in the density models. For species
with monthly resolution, an annual average was calculated, with the
exception of the right whale which used the May-October average only.
The density models' area of data coverage does not extend
outside of the EEZ. As noted previously, although relevant information
regarding cetacean densities in areas of the western North Atlantic
beyond the EEZ was recently provided by Mannocci et al. (2017), this
information was not available to SES in developing these applications.
Therefore, available sighting data were used to evaluate whether a
species had been observed offshore close to the EEZ; no specific
distance was used because it was impossible to determine exact
distances from the EEZ using available reports. For the humpback whale
and right whale, available information indicated that the species would
not be expected to occur outside the EEZ. For the remaining species,
SES extrapolated density from the nearest neighbor grid cell. Assuming
such uniform density swaths over long range outside the area of data
coverage may overestimate potential exposures.
For each 10 km x 10 km grid cell and for the areas of
extrapolation outside the EEZ, SES then multiplied the estimated
ensonified area by the appropriate density to produce estimates of
exposure exceeding the 160 dB rms criterion.
The projected ensonified area was mapped relative to right
whale closure areas described by BOEM (2014b); therefore, this element
of proposed mitigation was accounted for to a certain extent.
Seven species or species groups met SES' criterion for conducting
exposure modeling, but did not have the recommended 60 sightings in the
survey area: minke whale, fin whale, Kogia spp., harbor porpoise,
pantropical spotted dolphin, clymene dolphin, and rough-toothed
dolphin. For these species, SES did not feel use of the density models
was appropriate and developed a method using the available data instead
(i.e., AMAPPS data as well as data considered by Roberts et al. (2016),
excluding results of surveys conducted entirely outside of an area
roughly coincident with the proposed survey area); species-specific
rationale is provided in section 6.3 of either application. Please see
section 6.3 of either application for further details regarding the
AMAPPS survey effort considered by SES. Table 6-1 in either application
summarizes the AMAPPS data available for consideration by the authors.
Although Roberts et al. (2016) developed detection functions for these
species by using proxies as necessary, SES suggests that the fact that
sightings of these species are not common indicate the species are less
common than the density models show. SES states further that, while use
of the density models for these species may be appropriate for
localized activities, using them over broad geographical scales
ultimately grossly overestimates the likely exposures of these species.
SES summarizes the steps involved in this process as follows (see Table
6-4 in either application for numerical process details):
Calculate the transect area, specific to aerial and vessel
surveys, that would be considered to include sightings of all animals
present for each species based on effective strip widths (ESW; the
distance at which missed sightings made inside the distance is equal to
detected sightings outside of it) obtained from the literature. The
transect area is equal to twice the ESW multiplied by the length of
transect (see Table 6-3 in either application for ESW values and
citations).
Calculate the mean density (in groups/km\2\) for each
species for aerial and vessel surveys; multiply by mean group size to
get an individual-based density estimate.
Adjust the densities using a correction factor (g(0)) to
account for animals missed due to observation biases. General g(0)
values for aerial and vessel surveys for each species from the
literature were used (see Table 6-3 in either application for g(0)
values and citations). Densities for vessel-based and aerial surveys
were then averaged for each species; proposed survey lines cover areas
included in both aerial and vessel survey effort and this method
accounts for high and low density areas across the survey.
Calculate the number of animals of each species that would
potentially occur within the previously determined 160-dB depth-
specific radii and sum for an estimate of total incidents of exposure.
To be clear, we believe the density models described by Roberts et
al. (2016) provide the best available information and recommend their
use for species other than those expected to be extremely rare in a
given area. However, SES used the most recent observational data
available. We acknowledge their concerns regarding use of predictive
density models for species with relatively few observations in the
proposed survey area, e.g., that model-derived density estimates must
be applied cautiously on a species-by-species basis with the
recognition that in some cases the out-of-bound predictions could
produce unrealistic results (Becker et al., 2014). Further, use of
uniform (i.e., stratified) density models assumes a given density over
a large geographic range which may include areas where the species has
rarely or never been observed. For the seven species or species groups
that SES applied their alternative approach to, five are modeled in
whole or part through use of stratified models. We also acknowledge (as
do Roberts et al. (2016)) that predicted habitat may not be occupied at
expected densities or that models may not agree in all cases with known
occurrence patterns, and that there is uncertainty associated with
[[Page 26291]]
predictive habitat modeling (e.g., Becker et al., 2010; Forney et al.,
2012). Overall, SES suggest that it is more appropriate in some
circumstances to use less complex models requiring less knowledge of
habitat preferences that do not risk overprediction of occurrence in
areas that are suitable but for which there is no indication the
species is common (or sometimes even present). We determined that their
alternative approach (for seven species or species groups) is
acceptable and provide further discussion. Importantly, we recognize
that there is no model or approach that is always the most appropriate
and that there may be multiple approaches that may be considered
acceptable.
As described previously in this document, on July 29, 2015, we
published a Federal Register notice inviting public review and comment
on the applications we had received. In response to this opportunity to
comment, J.J. Roberts and P.N. Halpin of Duke University's Marine
Geospatial Ecology Lab submitted a public comment letter, which is
available online with all other comments received at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/oilgas.htm. In part, Roberts and Halpin offered a
critique of SES' methods and rationale while also commending their use
of the AMAPPS data. We discussed the points raised by Roberts and
Halpin with SES, which subsequently made certain corrections and
prepared revised versions of the TGS and Western applications. M.
Smultea and S. Courbis of SES submitted a letter (available on the same
Web site) detailing their responses to these points. However, the use
of an alternative methodology for the seven species is fundamentally
the same and forms the basis for our proposed take authorization for
those species (for TGS and Western).
Roberts and Halpin raised several key points (we also include any
resolution in the bulleted points below):
The Buckland et al. (2001) recommendation that sample size
should generally be at least 60-80 should be considered as general
guidance but not an absolute rule and, in fact, Buckland et al. (2001)
provide no theoretical proof for it. Miller and Thomas (2015) provide
an example where a detection function fitted to 30 sightings resulted
in a detection function with low bias. NMFS's line-transect abundance
estimates are in some cases based on many fewer sightings, e.g., stock
assessments based on Palka (2012). Roberts and Halpin also point out
that SES used certain detection functions from Mullin and Fulling
(2003), which were based on fewer than 60 observations. Please see the
letters provided by Duke University and SES, respectively, for opposing
points of view on this issue.
SES does not correct for observation bias, resulting in
underestimation of density. SES subsequently corrected this issue by
using estimates of g(0) to correct for bias, as described above.
SES used erroneous or inappropriate ESWs for several
species, resulting in an overestimate of effective survey area and
therefore an underestimate of density. SES subsequently incorporated
additional ESW information and addressed these issues to the extent
possible given the available data.
Following on the first point described above, ESWs used by
SES are based on less robust detection functions than those used by
Roberts et al. (2016).
SES did not take into account what is known about the
habitat of the species it modeled using this method. For example,
Roberts et al. (2016) appropriately assumed an on-shelf density of zero
for Kogia spp., whereas SES derived a Kogia spp. density estimate by
including on-shelf survey effort, where Kogia spp. would not be
expected. SES countered that, for Kogia spp. in particular, the more
recent AMAPPS data provides substantial new information regarding Kogia
spp. due to the increased sightings in recent years and suggest that
for exposure estimation exercises over broad scales such as these, it
is less important where a species is encountered in relation to how
many will be encountered.
SES declined to use density models for certain species on
the basis of a lack of observations within the proposed survey area,
although the models are based on numerous observations overall. Roberts
and Halpin state that, because the models incorporate substantial
survey effort within the proposed survey area, they are well-informed
with regard to the likelihood of species occurrence under relevant
environmental conditions. However, this does not alter the fact that
these species have only rarely been observed within the proposed survey
area and, therefore, SES' contention that use of a predictive density
model to estimate potential acoustic exposures is not the most
appropriate method for some species.
SES' combination of aerial and vessel-based densities is
inappropriate, due to substantial biases in terms of distribution of
survey effort, i.e., aerial surveys occurred primarily on-shelf while
vessel-based surveys mainly occurred off-shelf. Therefore, use of a
simple mean can result in unknown bias for species with either oceanic
or on-shelf distribution. Roberts and Halpin suggest combining density
estimates by dividing survey transects into segments, estimating
density separately for aerial and shipboard surveys, and producing a
combined estimate that accounts for the area effectively surveyed by
each. However, because the proposed surveys would occur both on and off
the shelf, it does not seem that any potential bias would unduly
influence the overall results obtained by SES.
SES does not adequately consider available information
(i.e., acoustic monitoring results; Risch et al., 2014) for the minke
whale. However, while available acoustic monitoring data suggests
seasonal presence of minke whales, it remains unclear in the absence of
visual observations where the whales are in relation to the acoustic
recorders and how many may be present.
CGG--CGG used applicable results from BOEM's sound field modeling
exercise in conjunction with the outputs of models described by Roberts
et al. (2016) to inform their estimates of likely acoustic exposures.
Considering only the BOEM modeling sites that are in or near CGG's
proposed survey area provided a mean radial distance to the 160 dB rms
criterion of 6,751 m (range 5,013-8,593 m). CGG used ArcGIS (further
detail regarding CGG's spatial analysis is provided as an appendix to
CGG's application) to conduct an exposure analysis as described in
their application and summarized as follows:
A circle with a 6,751 m radius (representing the extent of
the average expected 160 dB rms ensonification zone) was drawn around
each trackline, effectively resulting in a survey track with 13,502 m
total width. Taxon-specific model outputs, averaged over the six-month
period planned for the survey (i.e., July-December) where relevant,
were uploaded into ArcGIS with the assumed ensonification zone to
provide estimates of marine mammal exposures to noise above the 160 dB
rms threshold.
The Roberts et al. (2016) 100 km\2\ grid cells--the
spatial scale on which taxon-specific predicted abundance information
is provided--were converted into a compatible format and then spatially
referenced over the tracklines and associated areas of ensonification.
The tracklines and associated areas of ensonification were populated
with the cetacean density grids by calculating the difference between
the pre- and post-extracted area.
[[Page 26292]]
Roberts et al. (2016) did not provide predicted abundance
information for areas beyond the EEZ. As noted previously, although
relevant information regarding cetacean densities in areas of the
western North Atlantic beyond the EEZ was recently provided by Mannocci
et al. (2017), this information was not available to CGG in developing
their application. Therefore, CGG performed an interpolation analysis
to estimate density values for the approximately 11 percent of planned
survey area outside the EEZ that was not included in Roberts et al.
(2016).
Level A Harassment
As discussed earlier in this document, BOEM's PEIS (2014a) provides
auditory injury exposure results on the basis of the Southall et al.
(2007) guidance. In order to use the results provided by BOEM (2014a)
in a way that adequately takes NMFS's technical acoustic guidance into
consideration, we considered the total potential exposure of marine
mammals to sound exceeding the relevant criterion and estimated such
exposures that may occur as a result of each specific survey as a
relative proportion of total line-km. We compiled predicted 2D seismic
survey activity across all years considered in BOEM's PEIS (see Table
E-11 of Appendix E in BOEM's PEIS), which yields a potential total of
616,174 line-km. We divided each company's proposed total trackline by
this total before multiplying the total species-specific estimated
exposures across years by this proportion to yield a total survey-
specific estimate of potential Level A harassment on the basis of the
Southall received energy criterion (for low-frequency cetaceans) and
the 180-dB rms criterion (for mid- and high-frequency cetaceans) (see
Tables Attachment E-4 and Attachment E-5 of Appendix E in BOEM's PEIS).
Whether using the Southall guidance (Southall et al., 2007) or NMFS's
new technical guidance (NMFS, 2016) (i.e., in consideration of both
auditory weighting functions for cSEL and thresholds for both cSEL and
peak pressure), accumulation of energy would be considered to be the
predominant source of potential auditory injury for low-frequency
cetaceans, while instantaneous exposure to peak pressure received
levels would be considered to be the predominant source of injury for
both mid- and high-frequency cetaceans. Although NMFS's historical 180-
dB rms injury criterion is no longer reflective of the best available
science, the exposure results provided in BOEM's PEIS relative to the
criterion are the most appropriate for use in providing ``corrected''
estimates based on the relevant peak pressure thresholds. Use of these
results provides a proxy for the highly uncertain risk of auditory
injury due to any proposed survey, which we then adjusted to reasonably
account for NMFS's new technical acoustic guidance.
For low-frequency cetaceans, in order to ``correct'' these
estimates of potential Level A exposure to account for NMFS's new
technical acoustic guidance, we followed the process outlined
previously under ``Exclusion Zone and Shutdown Requirements.'' We
obtained spectrum data (in 1 Hz bands) for a reasonably equivalent
acoustic source in order to appropriately incorporate weighting
functions (i.e., those described in NMFS (2016) and Southall et al.
(2007)) over the source's full acoustic band. Using these data, we made
adjustments (dB) to the spectrum levels, by frequency, according to the
weighting functions for each relevant hearing group. We then converted
these adjusted/weighted spectrum levels to pressures (micropascals) in
order to integrate them over the entire broadband spectrum, resulting
in weighted source levels by hearing group. Using the safe distance
methodology described by Sivle et al. (2014) with the hearing group-
specific weighted source levels, and assuming spherical spreading
propagation, source velocity of 4.5 kn, pulse duration of 100
milliseconds (ms), and applicant-specific shot intervals, we then
calculated potential radial distances to auditory injury zones on the
basis of the two separate sets of weighting functions and thresholds.
Comparison of the predicted hearing group-specific areas ensonified
above thresholds defined in Southall et al. (2007) and NMFS (2016)
provided correction factors that we then applied to the exposure
results calculated on the basis of the Southall et al. (2007) criteria.
These ``corrected'' results are provided in Table 11.
For mid- and high-frequency cetaceans, we also calculated potential
radial distances to auditory injury zones on the basis of the relevant
peak pressure thresholds alone, assuming spherical spreading
propagation (auditory weighting functions are not used in considering
potential injury due to peak pressure received levels). Comparison of
the predicted hearing group-specific areas ensonified above thresholds
defined by the historical NMFS criterion (i.e., 180-dB rms) and NMFS
(2016) provided correction factors that we then applied to the BOEM
PEIS exposure results calculated on the basis of the 180-dB rms
criterion. These ``corrected'' results, which are more conservative
than results for these two hearing groups calculated on the basis of
the cSEL approach, are provided in Table 11.
We recognize that the Level A exposure estimates provided here are
a rough approximation of actual exposures, for several reasons. First,
specific trackline locations proposed by the applicant companies may
differ somewhat from those considered in BOEM's PEIS. However, as noted
above, BOEM's PEIS assumes a total of 616,174 line-km of 2D survey
effort conducted over seven years. Therefore, it is likely that all
portions of the proposed survey area are considered in the PEIS
analysis. Second, the PEIS exposure estimates are based on outputs of
the NODEs models (DoN, 2007) versus the density models described by
Roberts et al. (2016), which we believe represent the best available
information for purposes of exposure estimation. There are additional
reasons why any estimate of exposures to levels of sound exceeding the
Level A harassment criteria is likely an approximation: We do not have
sufficient information to approximate the probability of marine mammal
aversion and subsequent likelihood of Level A exposure and we do not
generally incorporate the effects of mitigation on the likelihood of
Level A exposure (though this is of less importance when considering
the potential for Level A exposure due to cumulative exposure of sound
energy). Our intention is to use the information available to us, in
reflection of available science regarding the potential for auditory
injury, to acknowledge the potential for such outcomes in a way that we
think is a reasonable approximation.
We note here that four of the five applicant companies (excepting
Spectrum) declined to request authorization of take by Level A
harassment. Although ION's proposed survey is smaller in terms of
survey line-km, their source is larger in terms of predicted acoustic
output (see Table 1). TGS, CGG, and Western claim, in summary, that
Level A exposures will not occur largely due to the effectiveness of
proposed mitigation. We do not find this assertion credible and propose
to authorize take by Level A harassment, as displayed in Table 11.
Rare Species
Certain species potentially present in the proposed survey areas
are expected to be encountered only extremely rarely, if at all.
Although Roberts et al. (2016) provide density models for these species
(with the exception of the pygmy killer
[[Page 26293]]
whale), due to the small numbers of sightings that underlie these
models' predictions we believe it appropriate to account for the small
likelihood that these species would be encountered by assuming that
these species might be encountered once by a given survey, and that
Level A harassment would not occur for these species. With the
exception of the northern bottlenose whale, none of these species
should be considered cryptic (i.e., difficult to observe when present)
versus rare (i.e., not likely to be present). Average group size was
determined by considering known sightings in the western North Atlantic
(CETAP, 1982; Hansen et al, 1994; NMFS, 2010a, 2011, 2012, 2013a, 2014,
2015a; Waring et al., 2007, 2015). It is important to note that our
proposal to authorize take equating to harassment of one group of each
of these species is not equivalent to expected exposure. We do not
expect that these rarely occurring (in the proposed survey area)
species will be exposed at all, but provide a precautionary
authorization of take. We provide a brief description for each of these
species.
Sei Whale--Very little is known of sei whales in the western North
Atlantic outside of northern feeding grounds, and much of what is known
of sei whale distribution and movements is based on whaling records
(Prieto et al., 2012). Spring is the period of greatest abundance in
U.S. waters, but sightings are concentrated on feeding grounds in the
Gulf of Maine and in the vicinity of Georges Bank, outside the proposed
survey areas (CETAP, 1982; Hain et al., 1985). There are no definitive
sightings reported south of 40[deg] N., i.e., no sightings reported
from the proposed survey areas, although NOAA surveys in 1992 and 1995
reported four ambiguous sightings of ``Bryde's or sei whales'' between
Florida and Cape Hatteras in winter (Roberts et al., 2015j).
Additionally, passive acoustic monitoring has detected sei whales in
the winter near Onslow Bay, North Carolina, and near the shelf break
off of Jacksonville, Florida (e.g., Read et al., 2010, 2012; Frasier et
al., 2016; Debich et al., 2013, 2014; Norris et al., 2014), and one sei
whale stranding is reported from North Carolina (Byrd et al., 2014). It
is worth noting that the model authors include the four ambiguous
sightings in both the sei whale and Bryde's whale models, thereby
potentially overestimating the density of one species or the other but
acknowledging the potential presence of both species in the area
(Roberts et al., 2015j). Schilling et al. (1992) report a mean group
size of 1.8 sei whales, similar to the average group size of 2.2 whales
across all NMFS observations in the Atlantic. We assume an average
group size of two whales.
Bryde's Whale--NMFS defines and manages a stock of Bryde's whales
believed to be resident in the northern Gulf of Mexico, but does not
define a separate stock in the western North Atlantic Ocean. Bryde's
whales are occasionally reported off the southeastern U.S. and southern
West Indies (Leatherwood and Reeves, 1983). Genetic analysis suggests
that Bryde's whales from the northern Gulf of Mexico represent a unique
evolutionary lineage distinct from other recognized Bryde's whale
subspecies, including those found in the southern Caribbean and
southwestern Atlantic off Brazil (Rosel and Wilcox, 2014). Two
strandings from the southeastern U.S. Atlantic coast share the same
genetic characteristics with those from the northern Gulf of Mexico but
it is unclear whether these are extralimital strays or they indicate
the population extends from the northeastern Gulf of Mexico to the
Atlantic coast of the southern U.S. (Byrd et al., 2014; Rosel and
Wilcox, 2014). There are no definitive sightings of Bryde's whales from
the U.S. Atlantic reported from surveys considered by Roberts et al.
(2016), although, as noted above for the sei whale, NOAA surveys in
1992 and 1995 reported four ambiguous sightings of ``Bryde's or sei
whales'' between Florida and Cape Hatteras in winter. These four
ambiguous sightings provide the basis for a stratified density model
(Roberts et al., 2016). There are no NMFS observations of Bryde's
whales outside the Gulf of Mexico, but Silber et al. (1994) reported an
average group size of 1.2 whales from the Gulf of California. Given the
similarities to sei whales, we assume an average group size of two
whales.
Blue Whale--The blue whale is best considered as an occasional
visitor in US Atlantic waters, which may represent the current southern
limit of its feeding range (CETAP, 1982; Wenzel et al., 1988). NMFS's
minimum population abundance estimate is based on photo-identification
of recognizable individuals in the Gulf of St. Lawrence (Waring et al.,
2010), and the few sightings in U.S. waters occurred in the vicinity of
the Gulf of Maine. All sightings have occurred north of 40[deg] N.
(Roberts et al., 2015e). However, blue whales have been detected
acoustically in deep waters north of the West Indies and east of the
U.S. EEZ (Clark, 1995). Roberts et al. (2016) produced a stratified
density model on the basis of a few blue whale sightings in the
vicinity of the Gulf of Maine (Roberts et al., 2015e). Reports of blue
whales in the eastern tropical Pacific and off of Australia are
typically of lone whales or groups of two (Reilly and Thayer, 1990;
Gill, 2002); NMFS sightings in the Atlantic are only of lone whales.
Therefore, we assume an average group size of one whale.
Northern Bottlenose Whale--Northern bottlenose whales are
considered extremely rare in U.S. Atlantic waters, with only five NMFS
sightings. The southern extent of distribution is generally considered
to be approximately Nova Scotia (though Mitchell and Kozicki (1975)
reported stranding records as far south as Rhode Island), and there
have been no sightings within the proposed survey areas. Whitehead and
Wimmer (2005) estimated the size of the population on the Scotian Shelf
at 163 whales (95 percent CI 119-214). Whitehead and Hooker (2012)
report that northern bottlenose whales are found north of approximately
37.5[deg] N. and prefer deep waters along the continental slope.
Roberts et al. (2016) produced a stratified density model on the basis
of four sightings in the vicinity of Georges Bank (Roberts et al.,
2015b). The five sightings in U.S. waters yield a mean group size of
2.2 whales, while MacLeod and D'Amico report a mean group size of 3.6
(n = 895). Here, we assume an average group size of four whales.
Killer Whale--Killer whales are also considered rare in U.S.
Atlantic waters (Katona et al., 1988; Forney and Wade, 2006),
constituting 0.1 percent of marine mammal sightings in the 1978-81
Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program surveys (CETAP, 1982). Roberts
et al. (2016) produced a stratified density model on the basis of four
killer whale sightings (Roberts et al., 2015g), though Lawson and
Stevens (2014) provide a minimum abundance estimate of 67 photo-
identified individual killer whales. Available information suggests
that survey encounters with killer whales would be unlikely but could
occur anywhere within the proposed survey area and at any time of year
(e.g., Lawson and Stevens, 2014). Silber et al. (1994) reported
observations of two and 15 killer whales in the Gulf of California
(mean group size 8.5), while May-Collado et al. (2005) described mean
group size of 3.6 whales off the Pacific coast of Costa Rica. Based on
12 CETAP sightings and one group observed during NOAA surveys (CETAP,
1982; NMFS, 2014), the average group size in the Atlantic is 6.8
whales. Therefore, we assume an average group size of seven whales.
[[Page 26294]]
False Killer Whale--Although records of false killer whales from
the U.S. Atlantic are uncommon, a combination of sighting, stranding,
and bycatch records indicates that this species does occur in the
western North Atlantic (Waring et al., 2015). Baird (2009) suggests
that false killer whales may be naturally uncommon throughout their
range. Roberts et al. (2016) produced a stratified density model on the
basis of two false killer whale sightings (Roberts et al., 2015m), and
NMFS produced the first abundance estimate for false killer whales on
the basis of one sighting during 2011 shipboard surveys (Waring et al.,
2015). Similar to the killer whale, we believe survey encounters would
be unlikely but could occur anywhere within the proposed survey area
and at any time of year. Mullin et al. (2004) reported a mean false
killer whale group size of 27.5 from the Gulf of Mexico, and May-
Collado et al. (2005) described mean group size of 36.2 whales off the
Pacific coast of Costa Rica. The few sightings from CETAP (1982) and
from NOAA shipboard surveys give an average group size of 10.3 whales.
As a precaution, we will assume an average group size of 28 whales, as
reported from the Gulf of Mexico.
Pygmy Killer Whale--The pygmy killer whale is distributed worldwide
in tropical to sub-tropical waters, and is assumed to be part of the
cetacean fauna of the tropical western North Atlantic (Jefferson et al.
1994; Waring et al., 2007). Pygmy killer whales are rarely observed by
NOAA surveys outside the Gulf of Mexico--one group was observed off of
Cape Hatteras in 1992--and the rarity of such sightings may be due to a
naturally low number of groups compared to other cetacean species
(Waring et al., 2007). NMFS has never produced an abundance estimate
for this species and Roberts et al. (2016) were not able to produce a
density model for the species. The 1992 sighting was of six whales;
therefore, we assume an average group size of six.
Melon-headed Whale--Similar to the pygmy killer whale, the melon-
headed whale is distributed worldwide in tropical to sub-tropical
waters, and is assumed to be part of the cetacean fauna of the tropical
western North Atlantic (Jefferson et al. 1994; Waring et al., 2007).
Melon-headed whales are rarely observed by NOAA surveys outside the
Gulf of Mexico--groups were observed off of Cape Hatteras in 1999 and
2002--and the rarity of such sightings may be due to a naturally low
number of groups compared to other cetacean species (Waring et al.,
2007). NMFS has never produced an abundance estimate for this species
and Roberts et al. (2016) produced a stratified density model on the
basis of four sightings (Roberts et al., 2015d). The two sightings
reported by Waring et al. (2007) yield an average group size of 50
whales.
Spinner Dolphin--Distribution of spinner dolphins in the Atlantic
is poorly known, but they are thought to occur in deep water along most
of the U.S. coast south to the West Indies and Venezuela (Waring et
al., 2014). There have been a handful of sightings in deeper waters off
the northeast U.S. and one sighting during a 2011 NOAA shipboard survey
off North Carolina, as well as stranding records from North Carolina
south to Florida and Puerto Rico (Waring et al., 2014). Roberts et al.
(2016) provide a stratified density model on the basis of two sightings
(Roberts et al., 2015i). Regarding group size, Mullin et al. (2004)
report a mean of 91.3 in the Gulf of Mexico; May-Collado (2005)
describe a mean of 100.6 off the Pacific coast of Costa Rica; and CETAP
(1982) sightings in the Atlantic yield a mean group size of 42.5
dolphins. As a precaution, we will assume an average group size of 91
dolphins, as reported from the Gulf of Mexico.
Fraser's Dolphin--As was stated for both the pygmy killer whale and
melon-headed whale, the Fraser's dolphin is distributed worldwide in
tropical waters, and is assumed to be part of the cetacean fauna of the
tropical western North Atlantic (Perrin et al., 1994; Waring et al.,
2007). The paucity of sightings of this species may be due to naturally
low abundance compared to other cetacean species (Waring et al., 2007).
Despite possibly being more common in the Gulf of Mexico than in other
parts of its range (Dolar, 2009), there were only five reported
sightings during NOAA surveys from 1992-2009. In the Atlantic, NOAA
surveys have yielded only two sightings (Roberts et al., 2015f). May-
Collado et al. (2005) reported a single observation of 158 Fraser's
dolphins off the Pacific coast of Costa Rica, and Waring et al. (2007)
describe a single observation of 250 Fraser's dolphins in the Atlantic,
off Cape Hatteras. Therefore, we assume an average group size of 204
dolphins.
Atlantic White-sided Dolphin--White-sided dolphins are found in
temperate and sub-polar continental shelf waters of the North Atlantic,
primarily in the Gulf of Maine and north into Canadian waters (Waring
et al., 2016). Palka et al. (1997) suggest the existence of stocks in
the Gulf of Maine, Gulf of St. Lawrence, and Labrador Sea. Stranding
records from Virginia and North Carolina suggest a southerly winter
range extent of approximately 35[deg] N. (Waring et al., 2016);
therefore, it is possible that the proposed surveys could encounter
white-sided dolphins. Roberts et al. (2016) elected to split their
study area at the north wall of the Gulf Stream, separating the cold
northern waters, representing probable habitat, from warm southern
waters, where white-sided dolphins are likely not present (Roberts et
al., 2015k). Over 600 observations of Atlantic white-sided dolphins
during CETAP (1982) and during NMFS surveys provide a mean group size
estimate of 47.7 dolphins, while Weinrich et al. (2001) reported a mean
group size of 52 dolphins. Here, we assume an average group size of 48
dolphins.
Table 10 displays the estimated incidents of potential exposures
above given received levels of sound that are used to estimate Level B
harassment, as derived by various methods described above. We do not
include the 11 rarely occurring species described above, because our
assumption that a single group of each species would be encountered
does not constitute an exposure estimate (however they are considered
in Table 11 for our proposed take authorizations). Total applicant-
specific exposure estimates as a proportion of the most appropriate
abundance estimate are presented. As described previously, for most
species these estimated exposure levels apply to a generic western
North Atlantic stock defined by NMFS for management purposes. For the
humpback and sei whale, any takes are assumed to occur to individuals
of the species occurring in the specific geographic region (which may
or may not be individuals from the Gulf of Maine and Nova Scotia
stocks, respectively). For bottlenose dolphins, NMFS defines an
offshore stock and multiple coastal stocks of dolphins, and we are not
able to quantitatively determine the extent to which the estimated
exposures may accrue to the oceanic versus various coastal stocks.
However, because of the spatial distribution of proposed survey effort
and our proposed mitigation, we assume that almost all incidents of
take for bottlenose dolphins would accrue to the offshore stock.
[[Page 26295]]
Table 10--Estimated Incidents of Potential Exposure for Level B Harassment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spectrum TGS ION Western CGG
Common name Abundance -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
estimate Level B % Level B % Level B % Level B % Level B %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Atlantic right whale..... 440 64 15 12 3 11 3 6 1 1 <1
Humpback whale................. 1,637 46 3 72 4 7 <1 49 3 7 <1
Minke whale.................... 20,741 428 2 219 1 12 <1 103 <1 134 1
Fin whale...................... 3,522 341 10 1,148 33 5 <1 538 15 50 1
Sperm whale.................... 5,353 1,145 21 3,974 74 39 1 2,001 37 1,406 26
Kogia spp...................... 3,785 211 6 1,232 33 31 1 577 15 249 7
Beaked whales.................. 14,491 3,497 24 13,423 93 516 4 5,095 35 3,722 26
Rough-toothed dolphin.......... 532 206 39 270 52 13 2 127 24 183 34
Common bottlenose dolphin...... 97,476 38,091 39 45,041 46 2,646 3 23,849 24 9,276 10
Clymene dolphin................ 12,515 6,613 53 1,102 9 273 2 517 4 6,609 53
Atlantic spotted dolphin....... 55,436 17,421 31 45,594 82 639 1 19,063 34 6,880 12
Pantropical spotted dolphin.... 4,436 1,671 38 1,542 35 84 2 723 16 1,623 37
Striped dolphin................ 75,657 8,339 11 26,136 35 233 <1 9,191 12 6,722 9
Short-beaked common dolphin.... 173,486 11,312 7 57,793 33 428 <1 20,936 12 6,220 4
Risso's dolphin................ 7,732 772 10 3,563 46 95 1 1,627 21 831 11
Globicephala spp............... 18,977 2,841 15 9,834 52 217 1 4,766 25 2,043 11
Harbor porpoise................ 45,089 637 1 334 1 21 <1 157 <1 32 <1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Abundance estimate'' reflects what we believe is the most appropriate abundance estimate against which to compare each applicant's estimated exposures
exceeding the 160 dB rms criterion. ``%'' represents predicted exposures exceeding the Level B harassment criterion as a percentage of abundance. We
do not include predicted Level A exposures because these incidents are also included as Level B exposures and inclusion of these numbers would result
in double-counting.
Table 11 provides the numbers of take by Level A and Level B
harassment proposed for authorization. The proposed take authorizations
combine the exposure estimates displayed in Table 10, estimated
potential incidents of Level A harassment derived as described above,
and the average group size information discussed previously in this
section for sei whale, Bryde's whale, blue whale, northern bottlenose
whale, Fraser's dolphin, melon-headed whale, false killer whale, pygmy
killer whale, killer whale, spinner dolphin, and white-sided dolphin.
For applicant- and species-specific proposed take authorizations marked
by an asterisk, the predicted exposures (Table 10) have been reduced to
30 percent of the abundance estimate. The MMPA limits our ability to
authorize take incidental to a specified activity to ``small numbers''
of marine mammals and, although this concept is not defined in the
statute, NMFS interprets the concept in relative terms through
comparison of the estimated number of individuals expected to be taken
to an estimation of the relevant species or stock size. A relative
approach to small numbers has been upheld in past litigation (see,
e.g., CBD v. Salazar, 695 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2012)). Here, we propose a
take authorization limit of 30 percent of a stock abundance estimate.
Although 30 percent is not a hard and fast cut-off, in cases such as
this where exposure estimates constitute sizable percentages of the
stock abundance and there are no qualitative factors to inform why the
actual percentages are likely to be lower in fact, we believe it is
appropriate to limit our proposed take authorizations to reasonably
ensure the levels do not exceed ``small numbers.'' Proposed mechanisms
to limit take to this amount are discussed further under ``Small
Numbers Analyses'' and ``Proposed Monitoring and Reporting.''
Table 11--Numbers of Potential Incidental Take Proposed for Authorization
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spectrum TGS ION Western CGG
Common name -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A Level B Level A Level B Level A Level B Level A Level B Level A Level B
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Atlantic right whale................ 0 64 0 12 0 11 0 6 0 \1\ 2
Humpback whale............................ 16 46 22 72 12 7 2 49 22 7
Minke whale............................... 0 428 1 219 0 12 0 103 1 134
Bryde's whale............................. 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2
Sei whale................................. 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2
Fin whale................................. 0 341 0 * 1,057 0 5 0 538 0 50
Blue whale................................ 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
Sperm whale............................... 5 1,145 4 * 1,606 1 39 2 * 1,606 1 1,406
Kogia spp................................. 14 211 10 * 1,136 3 31 5 577 4 249
Beaked whales............................. 13 3,497 10 * 4,347 0 516 5 * 4,347 4 3,722
Northern bottlenose whale................. 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4
Rough-toothed dolphin..................... 0 * 160 0 * 160 0 \2\ 14 0 127 0 * 160
Common bottlenose dolphin................. 210 * 29,243 162 * 29,243 44 2,646 84 23,849 62 9,276
Clymene dolphin........................... 7 * 3,755 5 1,102 1 273 3 517 2 * 3,755
Atlantic spotted dolphin.................. 102 * 16,631 78 * 16,631 21 639 41 * 16,631 30 6,880
Pantropical spotted dolphin............... 15 * 1,331 12 * 1,331 3 84 6 723 4 * 1,331
Spinner dolphin........................... 0 91 0 91 0 91 0 91 0 91
Striped dolphin........................... 67 8,339 52 * 22,697 14 233 27 9,191 20 6,722
Short-beaked common dolphin............... 113 11,312 87 * 52,046 24 428 45 20,936 33 6,220
Fraser's dolphin.......................... 0 204 0 204 0 204 0 204 0 204
Atlantic white-sided dolphin.............. 0 48 0 48 0 48 0 48 0 48
Risso's dolphin........................... 56 772 43 * 2,320 12 95 22 1,627 17 831
Melon-headed whale........................ 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 50 0 50
Pygmy killer whale........................ 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6
False killer whale........................ 0 28 0 28 0 28 0 28 0 28
Killer whale.............................. 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7
Pilot whales.............................. 94 2,841 72 * 5,693 20 217 38 4,766 28 2,043
[[Page 26296]]
Harbor porpoise........................... 6 637 4 334 1 21 2 157 2 32
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Proposed take authorization limited to 30 percent of best population abundance estimate.
\1\ Increased from predicted exposure of one whale (Table 10) to account for assumed minimum group size (e.g., Parks and Tyack, 2005).
\2\ Exposure estimate (Table 10) increased by one to account for average group size observed during AMAPPS survey effort.
Analyses and Preliminary Determinations
Negligible Impact Analyses
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.'' A negligible impact finding is based on the
lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or
survival (i.e., population-level effects). An estimate of the number of
takes alone is not enough information on which to base an impact
determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of
marine mammals that might be ``taken'' through harassment, we consider
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. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of estimated
takes by evaluating this information relative to population status.
Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing regulations
(54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other past and
ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into these analyses
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).
We first provide a generic description of our approach to the
negligible impact analyses for this action, which incorporates elements
of the impact assessment methodology described by Wood et al. (2012),
before providing applicant-specific analysis. For each potential
activity-related stressor, we consider the potential impacts on
affected marine mammals and the likely significance of those impacts to
the affected stock or population as a whole. Potential risk due to
vessel collision and related mitigation measures as well as potential
risk due to entanglement and contaminant spills were addressed under
``Proposed Mitigation'' and ``Potential Effects of the Specified
Activity on Marine Mammals'' and are not discussed further, as there
are minimal risks expected from these potential stressors.
Our analyses incorporate a simple matrix assessment approach to
generate relative impact ratings that couple potential magnitude of
effect on a stock and likely consequences of those effects for
individuals, given biologically relevant information (e.g.,
compensatory ability). Impact ratings are then combined with
consideration of contextual information, such as the status of the
stock or species, in conjunction with our proposed mitigation strategy,
to ultimately inform our preliminary determinations. Figure 5 provides
an overview of this framework. Elements of this approach are subjective
and relative within the context of these particular actions and,
overall, these analyses necessarily require the application of
professional judgment.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 26297]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06JN17.004
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
Magnitude--We consider magnitude of effect as a semi-quantitative
evaluation of measurable factors presented as relative ratings that
address the extent of expected impacts to a species or stock and their
habitat. Magnitude ratings are developed as a combination of measurable
factors: The amount of take, the spatial extent of the effects in the
context of the species range, and the duration of effects.
Amount of Take
We consider authorized Level B take less than five percent of
population abundance to be de minimis, while authorized Level B taking
between 5[hyphen]15 percent is low. A moderate amount of authorized
taking by Level B harassment would be from 15-25 percent, and high
above 25 percent. Although we do not define quantitative metrics
relating to amount of potential take by Level A harassment, for all
applicant companies the expected potential for Level A harassment is
expected to be low (Table 11).
Spatial Extent
Spatial extent relates to overlap of the expected range of the
affected stock with the expected footprint of the stressor. While we do
not define quantitative metrics relative to assessment of spatial
extent, a relatively low impact would be a localized effect on the
stock's range, a relatively moderate impact would be a regional-scale
effect (meaning that the overlap between stressor and range was
partial), and a relatively high impact would be one in which the degree
of overlap between stressor and range is near total. For a mobile
activity occurring over a relatively large, regional-scale area, this
categorization is made largely on the basis of the stock range in
relation to the action area. For example, the harbor porpoise is
expected to occur almost entirely outside of the proposed survey areas
(Waring et al., 2016; Roberts et al., 2016) and therefore despite the
large extent of proposed survey activity, the spatial extent of
potential stressor effect would be low. A medium degree of effect would
be expected for a species such as the Risso's dolphin, which has a
distribution in shelf and slope waters along the majority of the U.S.
Atlantic coast, and which also would be expected to have greater
abundance in mid-Atlantic waters north of the proposed survey areas in
the summer (Waring et al., 2016; Roberts et al., 2016). This means that
the extent of potential stressor for this species would at all times be
expected to have some overlap with a portion of the stock, while some
portion (increasing in summer and fall months) would at all times be
outside the stressor footprint. A higher degree of impact with regard
to spatial extent would be expected for a species such as the Clymene
dolphin, which is expected to have a generally more southerly
distribution (Waring et al., 2016; Roberts et al., 2016) and thus more
nearly complete overlap with the expected stressor footprint in BOEM's
Mid- and South Atlantic planning areas.
In Tables 14-18 below, spatial extent is presented as a range for
certain species with known migratory patterns. We expect spatial extent
(overlap of stock range with proposed survey area) to be low for right
whales from May through October but moderate from November through
April, due to right
[[Page 26298]]
whale movements into southeastern shelf waters in the winter for
calving. The overlap is considered moderate during winter because not
all right whales make this winter migration, and those that do are
largely found in shallow waters where little survey effort is planned.
Spatial extent for humpback whales is expected to be low for most of
the year, but likely moderate during winter, while spatial extent for
minke whales is likely low in summer, moderate in spring and fall, and
high in winter. While we consider spatial extent to be low year-round
for fin whales, their range overlap with the proposed survey area does
vary across the seasons and is closer to moderate in winter and spring.
We expect spatial extent for common dolphins to be lower in fall but
generally moderate. Similarly, we expect spatial extent for Risso's
dolphins to be lower in summer but generally moderate. Although
proposed survey plans differ across applicant companies, all cover
large spatial scales that extend throughout much of BOEM's Mid- and
South Atlantic OCS planning areas, and we do not expect meaningful
differences across surveys with regard to spatial extent.
Temporal Extent
We consider a temporary effect lasting up to one month (prior to
the animal or habitat reverting to a ``normal'' condition) to be short-
term, whereas long[hyphen]term effects are more permanent, lasting
beyond one season (with animals or habitat potentially reverting to a
``normal'' condition). Moderate[hyphen]term is therefore defined as
between 1[hyphen]3 months. Duration describes how long the effects of
the stressor last. Temporal frequency may range from continuous to
isolated (may occur one or two times), or may be intermittent. These
metrics and their potential combinations help to derive the ratings
summarized in Table 12. Temporal extent is not indicated in Tables 14-
18 below, as it did not affect the magnitude rating for each applicant.
Table 12--Magnitude Rating
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount of take Spatial extent Duration and frequency Magnitude rating
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High............................... Any................... Any................... High.
Any except de minimis.............. High.................. Any.
Moderate........................... Moderate.............. Any except short-term/ ...........................
isolated
Moderate........................... Moderate.............. Short-term/isolated... Medium.
Moderate........................... Low................... Any.
Low................................ Moderate.............. Any.
Low................................ Low................... Any except short-term/ ...........................
intermittent or
isolated
Low................................ Low................... Short-term/ Low.
intermittent or
isolated.
De minimis......................... Any................... Any................... De minimis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adapted from Table 3.4 of Wood et al. (2012).
Likely Consequences--These considerations of amount, extent, and
duration give an understanding of expected magnitude of effect for the
stock or species and their habitat, which is then considered in context
of the likely consequences of those effects for individuals. We
consider likely relative consequences through a qualitative evaluation
of species-specific information that helps predict the consequences of
the known information addressed through the magnitude rating, i.e.,
expected effects. This evaluation considers factors including acoustic
sensitivity, communication range, known aspects of behavior relevant to
a consideration of consequences of effects, and assumed compensatory
abilities to engage in important behaviors (e.g., breeding, foraging)
in alternate areas. The magnitude rating and likely consequences are
combined to produce an impact rating (Table 13).
For example, if a delphinid species is predicted to have a high
amount of disturbance and over a high degree of spatial extent, that
stock would receive a high magnitude rating for that particular
proposed survey. However, we may then assess that the species may have
a high degree of compensatory ability; therefore, our conclusion would
be that the consequences of any effects are likely low. The overall
impact rating in this scenario would be moderate. Table 13 summarizes
impact rating scenarios.
Table 13--Impact Rating
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consequences (for
Magnitude rating individuals) Impact rating
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High................... High/medium............ High.
High................... Low.................... Moderate.
Medium................. High/medium ......................
Low.................... High ......................
Medium................. Low.................... Low.
Low.................... Medium/low ......................
De minimis............. Any.................... De minimis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adapted from Table 3.5 of Wood et al. (2012).
Likely consequences, as presented in Tables 14-18 below, are
considered medium for each species of mysticete whales with greater
than a de minimis amount of exposure, due to the greater potential that
survey noise may subject individuals of these species to masking of
acoustic space for social purposes (i.e., they are low frequency
hearing specialists). Likely consequences are considered medium for
sperm whales due to potential for survey noise to disrupt foraging
activity. The likely consequences are considered high for beaked whales
due to the combination of known acoustic sensitivity and expected
residency patterns, as we expect that compensatory ability for beaked
whales will be low due to presumed residency in certain shelf break and
deepwater canyon areas covered by the proposed survey area. Similarly,
Kogia spp. are presumed to be a more acoustically sensitive species,
but unlike beaked whales we expect that Kogia spp. would have a
reasonable compensatory ability to perform important behavior in
alternate areas, as they are expected to occur broadly over the
continental slope (e.g., Bloodworth and Odell, 2008)--therefore, we
assume that consequences would be low for Kogia spp. generally.
Consequences are considered low for most delphinids, as it is unlikely
that disturbance due to survey noise would entail significant
disruption of normal behavioral patterns, long-term displacement, or
significant potential for masking of acoustic space. However, for pilot
whales we believe likely consequences to be medium due to expected
residency in areas of importance and, therefore, lack of compensatory
ability. Because the nature of the stressor is the same across
applicant companies, we do not expect meaningful differences with
regard to likely consequences.
Context--In addition to impact ratings, we then also consider
additional relevant contextual factors in a
[[Page 26299]]
qualitative fashion. This consideration of context is applied to a
given impact rating in order to produce a final assessment of impact to
the stock or species, i.e., our preliminary negligible impact
determinations. Relevant contextual factors include population status,
other stressors, and proposed mitigation.
Here, we reiterate discussion relating to our development of
targeted mitigation measures and note certain contextual factors, which
are applicable to negligible impact analyses for all five applicant
companies. Applicant-specific analyses are provided later.
We developed mitigation requirements (i.e., time-area
restrictions) designed specifically to provide benefit to certain
species or stocks for which we predict a relatively moderate to high
amount of exposure to survey noise and/or which have contextual factors
that we believe necessitate special consideration. The proposed time-
area restrictions, described in detail in ``Proposed Mitigation'' and
depicted in Figures 3-4), are designed specifically to provide benefit
to the North Atlantic right whale, bottlenose dolphin, sperm whale,
beaked whales, pilot whales, and Atlantic spotted dolphin. In addition,
we expect these areas to provide some subsidiary benefit to additional
species that may be present. In particular, Area #5 (Figure 4),
although delineated in order to specifically provide an area of
anticipated benefit to beaked whales, sperm whales, and pilot whales,
is expected to host a diverse assemblage of cetacean species. The
output of the Roberts et al. (2016) models, as used in core abundance
area analyses (described in detail in ``Proposed Mitigation''),
indicates that species most likely to derive subsidiary benefit from
this time-area restriction include the bottlenose dolphin (offshore
stock), Risso's dolphin, and common dolphin. For species with density
predicted through stratified models, core abundance analysis is not
possible and assumptions regarding potential benefit of time-area
restrictions are based on known ecology of the species and sightings
patterns and are less robust. Nevertheless, subsidiary benefit for
Areas #2-5 (Figure 4) should be expected for species known to be
present in these areas (e.g., assumed affinity for shelf/slope/abyss
areas off Cape Hatteras): Kogia spp., pantropical spotted dolphin,
Clymene dolphin, and rough-toothed dolphin.
These proposed measures benefit both the primary species for which
they were designed and the species that may benefit secondarily by
reducing the likely number of individuals exposed to survey noise and,
for resident species in areas where seasonal closures are proposed,
reducing the numbers of times that individuals are exposed to survey
noise (also discussed in ``Small Numbers Analyses,'' below). However,
and perhaps of greater importance, we expect that these restrictions
will reduce disturbance of these species in the places most important
to them for critical behaviors such as foraging and socialization. Area
#2 (Figure 4), which is proposed as a year-round closure, is assumed to
be an area important for beaked whale foraging, while Areas #3-4 (also
proposed as year-round closures) are assumed to provide important
foraging opportunities for sperm whales as well as beaked whales. Area
#5, proposed as a seasonal closure, is comprised of shelf-edge habitat
where beaked whales and pilot whales are believed to be year-round
residents as well as slope and abyss habitat predicted to contain high
abundance of sperm whales during the period of closure. Further detail
regarding rationale for these closures is provided under ``Proposed
Mitigation.''
The North Atlantic right whale, sei whale, fin whale, blue
whale, and sperm whale are listed as endangered under the Endangered
Species Act, and all coastal stocks of bottlenose dolphin are
designated as depleted under the MMPA (and have recently experienced an
unusual mortality event, described earlier in this document). However,
sei whales and blue whales are unlikely to be meaningfully impacted by
the proposed activities (see ``Rare Species'' below). All four
mysticete species are also classified as endangered (i.e., ``considered
to be facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild'') on the
International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened
Species, whereas the sperm whale is classified as vulnerable (i.e.,
``considered to be facing a high risk of extinction in the wild'')
(IUCN, 2016). Our proposed mitigation is designed to avoid impacts to
the right whale and to depleted stocks of bottlenose dolphin. Survey
activities must avoid all areas where the right whale and coastal
stocks of bottlenose dolphin may be reasonably expected to occur, and
we propose to require shutdown of the acoustic source upon observation
of any right whale at any distance. If the observed right whale is
within the behavioral harassment zone, it would still be considered to
have experienced harassment, but by immediately shutting down the
acoustic source the duration of harassment is minimized and the
significance of the harassment event reduced as much as possible.
Although listed as endangered, the primary threat faced by the
sperm whale (i.e., commercial whaling) has been eliminated and,
further, sperm whales in the western North Atlantic were little
affected by modern whaling (Taylor et al., 2008). Current potential
threats to the species globally include vessel strikes, entanglement in
fishing gear, anthropogenic noise, exposure to contaminants, climate
change, and marine debris. However, for the North Atlantic stock, the
most recent estimate of annual human-caused mortality and serious
injury (M/SI) is just 22 percent of the potential biological removal
(PBR) level for the stock. As described previously, PBR is defined 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.'' For
depleted stocks, levels of human-caused mortality and serious injury
exceeding the PBR level are likely to delay restoration of the stock to
OSP level by more than ten percent in comparison with recovery time in
the absence of human-caused M/SI.
The most recent status review for the species stated that existing
regulatory mechanisms appear to minimize threats to sperm whales and
that, despite uncertainty regarding threats such as climate change,
contaminants, and anthropogenic noise, the significance of threat
facing the species should be considered low to moderate (NMFS, 2015b).
Nevertheless, existing empirical data (e.g., Miller et al., 2009)
highlight the potential for seismic survey activity to negatively
impact foraging behavior of sperm whales. In consideration of this
likelihood, the species status, and the relatively high amount of
predicted exposures to survey noise, we have given special
consideration to mitigation focused on sperm whales and have defined
time-area restrictions (see ``Proposed Mitigation'' and Figure 4)
specifically designed to reduce such impacts on sperm whales in areas
expected to be of greatest importance (i.e., slope habitat and
deepwater canyons).
Although the primary direct threat to fin whales was addressed
through the moratorium on commercial whaling, vessel strike and
entanglement in commercial fishing gear remain as substantive direct
threats for the species in the western North Atlantic. As noted below,
the most recent estimate of annual average human-caused mortality for
the fin whale in U.S. waters is above the PBR value (Table 4). In
addition, the mysticete whales are particularly sensitive to sound in
the frequency
[[Page 26300]]
range output from use of airgun arrays (e.g., NMFS, 2016). However,
there is conflicting evidence regarding the degree to which this sound
source may significantly disrupt the behavior of mysticete whales.
Generally speaking, mysticete whales have been observed to react to
seismic vessels but have also been observed continuing normal behavior
in the presence of seismic vessels, and behavioral context at the time
of acoustic exposure may be influential in the degree to which whales
display significant behavioral reactions. In addition, while Edwards et
al. (2015) found that fin whales were likely present in all seasons in
U.S. waters north of 35[deg] N., most important habitat areas are not
expected to occur in the proposed survey areas. Primary feeding areas
are outside the project area in the Gulf of Maine and off Long Island
(LaBrecque et al., 2015) and, while Hain et al. (1992) suggested that
calving occurs during winter in the mid-Atlantic, Waring et al. (2016)
state that it is unknown where calving, mating, and wintering occur for
most of the population. Further, fin whales are not considered to
engage in regular mass movements along well-defined migratory corridors
(NMFS, 2010b). The model described by Roberts et al. (2016), which
predicted density at a monthly time step, suggests an expectation that,
while fin whales may be present year-round in shelf and slope waters
north of Cape Hatteras, the large majority of predicted abundance in
U.S. waters would be found outside the proposed survey areas to the
north. Very few fin whales are likely present in the proposed survey
areas in summer months. Therefore, we have determined that development
of time-area restriction specific to fin whales is not warranted.
However, fin whales present along the shelf break north of Cape
Hatteras during the closure period associated with Area #5 (Figure 4)
would be expected to benefit from the time-area restriction designed
primarily to benefit pilot whales, beaked whales, and sperm whales.
Critical habitat is designated only for the North Atlantic
right whale, and there are no biologically important areas (BIA)
described within the region (other than for the right whale, and the
described BIA is similar to designated critical habitat). Our proposed
mitigation is designed to minimize impacts to important habitat for the
North Atlantic right whale.
Average annual human-caused M/SI exceeds the PBR level for
the North Atlantic right whale, sei whale, fin whale, and for both
long-finned and short-finned pilot whales (see Table 4). Average annual
M/SI is considered unknown for the blue whale and the false killer
whale (PBR is undetermined for a number of other species (Table 4), but
average annual human-caused M/SI is zero for all of these). Although
threats are considered poorly known for North Atlantic blue whales, PBR
is less than one and ship strike is a known cause of mortality for all
mysticete whales. The most recent record of ship strike mortality for a
blue whale in the U.S. EEZ is from 1998 (Waring et al., 2010). False
killer whales also have a low PBR value (2.1), and may be susceptible
to mortality in commercial fisheries. One false killer whale was
reported as entangled in the pelagic longline fishery in 2011, but was
released alive and not seriously injured. Separately, a stranded false
killer whale in 2009 was classified as due to a fishery interaction.
Incidental take of the sei whale, blue whale, false killer whale, and
long-finned pilot whale is considered unlikely and we propose to
authorize take by behavioral harassment only for a single group of each
of the first three species as a precaution. Although long-finned pilot
whales are unlikely to occur in the action area in significant numbers,
the density models that inform our exposure estimates consider pilot
whales as a guild. It is important to note that our discussion of M/SI
in relation to PBR values provides necessary contextual information
related to the status of stocks; we do not equate harassment (as
defined by the MMPA) with M/SI.
We addressed our consideration of specific mitigation efforts for
the right whale and fin whale above. In response to this population
context concern for pilot whales, in conjunction with relatively medium
to high amount of predicted exposures to survey noise for pilot whales,
we have given special consideration to mitigation focused on pilot
whales and have defined time-area restrictions (see ``Proposed
Mitigation'' and Figure 4) specifically designed to reduce such impacts
on pilot whales in areas expected to be of greatest importance (i.e.,
shelf edge north of Cape Hatteras).
Beaked whales are considered to be particularly
acoustically sensitive (e.g., Tyack et al., 2011; DeRuiter et al.,
2013; Stimpert et al., 2014; Miller et al., 2015). Considering this
sensitivity in conjunction with the relatively high amount of predicted
exposures to survey noise we have given special consideration to
mitigation focused on beaked whales and have defined time-area
restrictions (see ``Proposed Mitigation'' and Figure 4) specifically
designed to reduce such impacts on beaked whales in areas expected to
be of greatest importance (i.e., shelf edge south of Cape Hatteras and
deepwater canyon areas).
Rare Species--As described previously, there are multiple species
that should be considered rare in the proposed survey areas and for
which we propose to authorize only nominal and precautionary take of a
single group. Specific to each of the five applicant companies, we do
not expect meaningful impacts to these species (i.e., sei whale,
Bryde's whale, blue whale, killer whale, false killer whale, pygmy
killer whale, melon-headed whale, northern bottlenose whale, spinner
dolphin, Fraser's dolphin, Atlantic white-sided dolphin) and
preliminarily find that the total marine mammal take from each of the
specified activities will have a negligible impact on these marine
mammal species. We do not discuss these 11 species further in these
analyses.
Spectrum--Spectrum proposes a 165-day survey program, or 45 percent
of the year (approximately two seasons). However, the proposed survey
would cover a large spatial extent (i.e., a majority of the mid- and
south Atlantic; see Figure 1 of Spectrum's application). Therefore,
although the survey would be long-term (i.e., greater than one season)
in total duration, we would not expect the duration of effect to be
greater than moderate and intermittent in any given area. Table 14
displays relevant information leading to impact ratings for each
species resulting from Spectrum's proposed survey. In general, we note
that although the temporal and spatial scale of the proposed survey
activity is large, the fact that this mobile acoustic source would be
moving across large areas (as compared with geophysical surveys with
different objectives that may require focused effort over long periods
of time in smaller areas) means that many individuals may receive
limited exposure to survey noise. The nature of such potentially
transitory exposure (which we nevertheless assume here is of moderate
duration and intermittent, versus isolated) means that the potential
significance of behavioral disruption and potential for longer-term
avoidance of important areas is limited.
[[Page 26301]]
Table 14--Magnitude and Impact Ratings, Spectrum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Amount Spatial extent Magnitude rating Consequences Impact rating
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Atlantic right whale........ Low.................. Low-Moderate......... Medium............... Medium............... Moderate.
Humpback whale.................... De minimis........... Low-Moderate......... De minimis........... n/a.................. De minimis.
Minke whale....................... De minimis........... Low-High............. De minimis........... n/a.................. De minimis.
Fin whale......................... Low.................. Low.................. Medium............... Medium............... Moderate.
Sperm whale....................... Moderate............. Moderate............. High................. Medium............... High.
Kogia spp......................... Low.................. High................. High................. Low.................. Moderate.
Beaked whales..................... Moderate............. Moderate............. High................. High................. High.
Rough-toothed dolphin............. High................. High................. High................. Low.................. Moderate.
Common bottlenose dolphin......... High................. High................. High................. Low.................. Moderate.
Clymene dolphin................... High................. High................. High................. Low.................. Moderate.
Atlantic spotted dolphin.......... High................. Moderate............. High................. Low.................. Moderate.
Pantropical spotted dolphin....... High................. High................. High................. Low.................. Moderate.
Striped dolphin................... Low.................. Low.................. Medium............... Low.................. Low.
Short-beaked common dolphin....... Low.................. Low-moderate......... Medium............... Low.................. Low.
Risso's dolphin................... Low.................. Low-moderate......... Medium............... Low.................. Low.
Pilot whales...................... Low.................. Moderate............. Medium............... Medium............... Moderate.
Harbor porpoise................... De minimis........... Low.................. De minimis........... n/a.................. De minimis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The North Atlantic right whale is endangered, has a very low
population size, and faces significant additional stressors. Therefore,
regardless of impact rating, we believe that the proposed mitigation
described previously is important in order for us to make the necessary
finding and, in consideration of the proposed mitigation, we
preliminarily find that the total marine mammal take from Spectrum's
proposed survey activities will have a negligible impact on the North
Atlantic right whale. The fin whale receives a moderate impact rating
overall, but we expect that for two seasons (summer and fall) almost no
fin whales will be present in the proposed survey area. For the
remainder of the year, it is likely that less than one quarter of the
population will be present within the proposed survey area (Roberts et
al., 2016), meaning that despite medium rankings for magnitude and
likely consequences, these impacts would be experienced by only a small
subset of the overall population. In consideration of the moderate
impact rating, the likely proportion of the population that may be
affected by the specified activities, and the lack of evidence that the
proposed survey area is host to important behavior that may be
disrupted, we preliminarily find that the total marine mammal take from
Spectrum's proposed survey activities will have a negligible impact on
the fin whale.
Magnitude ratings for the sperm whale and beaked whales are high
and, further, consequence factors reinforce high impact ratings for
both. Magnitude rating for pilot whales is medium but, similar to
beaked whales, we expect that compensatory ability will be low due to
presumed residency in areas targeted by the proposed survey--leading to
a moderate impact rating. However, regardless of impact rating, the
consideration of likely consequences and contextual factors leads us to
conclude that targeted mitigation is important to support a finding
that the effects of the proposed survey will have a negligible impact
on these species. As described previously, sperm whales are an
endangered species with particular susceptibility to disruption of
foraging behavior, beaked whales are particularly acoustically
sensitive (with presumed low compensatory ability), and pilot whales
are sensitive to additional stressors due to a high degree of mortality
in commercial fisheries (and also with low compensatory ability).
Finally, due to their acoustic sensitivity, we have proposed shutdown
of the acoustic source upon observation of a beaked whale at any
distance from the source vessel. In consideration of the proposed
mitigation, we preliminarily find that the total marine mammal take
from Spectrum's proposed survey activities will have a negligible
impact on the sperm whale, beaked whales (i.e., Ziphius cavirostris and
Mesoplodon spp.), and pilot whales (i.e., Globicephala spp.).
Kogia spp. receive a moderate impact rating. However, although NMFS
does not currently identify a trend for these populations, recent
survey effort and stranding data show a simultaneous increase in at-sea
abundance and strandings, suggesting growing Kogia spp. abundance
(NMFS, 2011; 2013a; Waring et al., 2007; 2013). Finally, we expect that
Kogia spp. will receive subsidiary benefit from the proposed mitigation
targeted for sperm whales, beaked whales, and pilot whales and,
although minimally effective due to the difficulty of at-sea
observation of Kogia spp., we have proposed shutdown of the acoustic
source upon observation of Kogia spp. at any distance from the source
vessel. In consideration of these factors--likely population increase
and proposed mitigation--we preliminarily find that the total marine
mammal take from Spectrum's proposed survey activities will have a
negligible impact on Kogia spp.
Despite medium to high magnitude ratings, remaining delphinid
species receive low to moderate impact ratings due to a lack of
propensity for behavioral disruption due to geophysical survey activity
and our expectation that these species would generally have relatively
high compensatory ability. In addition, these species do not have
significant issues relating to population status or context. Many
oceanic delphinid species are generally more associated with dynamic
oceanographic characteristics rather than static physical features, and
those species (such as common dolphin) with substantial distribution to
the north of the proposed survey area would likely be little affected
at the population level by the proposed activity. For example, both
species of spotted dolphin and the offshore stock of bottlenose dolphin
range widely over slope and abyssal waters (e.g., Waring et al., 2016;
Roberts et al., 2016), while the rough-toothed dolphin does not appear
bound by water depth in its range (Ritter, 2002; Wells et al., 2008).
Our proposed mitigation largely eliminates potential effects to
depleted coastal stocks of bottlenose dolphin, and provides substantial
benefit to the on-shelf portion of the Atlantic spotted dolphin
population. We also expect that meaningful subsidiary benefit will
accrue to certain species from the proposed mitigation targeted for
sperm whales, beaked whales, and pilot whales, most notably
[[Page 26302]]
to species presumed to have greater association with shelf break waters
north of Cape Hatteras (e.g., offshore bottlenose dolphins, common
dolphins, and Risso's dolphins). In consideration of these factors--
overall impact ratings and proposed mitigation--we preliminarily find
that the total marine mammal take from Spectrum's proposed survey
activities will have a negligible impact on remaining delphinid species
(i.e., all stocks of bottlenose dolphin, two species of spotted
dolphin, rough-toothed dolphin, striped dolphin, common dolphin,
Clymene dolphin, and Risso's dolphin).
For those species with de minimis impact ratings we believe that,
absent additional relevant concerns related to population status or
context, the rating implies that a negligible impact should be expected
as a result of the specified activity. No such concerns exist for these
species, and we preliminarily find that the total marine mammal take
from Spectrum's proposed survey activities will have a negligible
impact on the humpback whale, minke whale, and harbor porpoise.
In summary, 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, we preliminarily find that the
total marine mammal take from Spectrum's proposed survey activities
will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or
stocks.
TGS--TGS proposes a 308-day survey program, or 84 percent of the
year (slightly more than three seasons). However, the proposed survey
would cover a large spatial extent (i.e., a majority of the mid- and
south Atlantic; see Figures 1-1 to 1-4 of TGS's application).
Therefore, although the survey would be long-term (i.e., greater than
one season) in total duration, we would not expect the duration of
effect to be greater than moderate and intermittent in any given area.
We note that TGS proposes to deploy two independent source vessels,
which would in effect increase the spatial extent of survey noise at
any one time but, because the vessels would not be operating within the
same area or reshooting lines already covered, this would not be
expected to increase the duration or frequency of exposure experienced
by individual animals. Table 15 displays relevant information leading
to impact ratings for each species resulting from TGS's proposed
survey. In general, we note that although the temporal and spatial
scale of the proposed survey activity is large, the fact that the
mobile acoustic sources would be moving across large areas (as compared
with geophysical surveys with different objectives that may require
focused effort over long periods of time in smaller areas) means that
many individuals may receive limited exposure to survey noise. The
nature of such potentially transitory exposure (which we nevertheless
assume here is of moderate duration and intermittent, versus isolated)
means that the potential significance of behavioral disruption and
potential for longer-term avoidance of important areas is limited.
Table 15--Magnitude and Impact Ratings, TGS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Amount Spatial extent Magnitude rating Consequences Impact rating
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Atlantic right whale........ De minimis........... Low-Moderate......... De minimis........... n/a.................. De minimis.
Humpback whale.................... De minimis........... Low-Moderate......... De minimis........... n/a.................. De minimis.
Minke whale....................... De minimis........... Low-High............. De minimis........... n/a.................. De minimis.
Fin whale......................... High................. Low.................. High................. Medium............... High.
Sperm whale....................... High................. Moderate............. High................. Medium............... High.
Kogia spp......................... High................. High................. High................. Low.................. Moderate.
Beaked whales..................... High................. Moderate............. High................. High................. High.
Rough-toothed dolphin............. High................. High................. High................. Low.................. Moderate.
Common bottlenose dolphin......... High................. High................. High................. Low.................. Moderate.
Clymene dolphin................... Low.................. High................. High................. Low.................. Moderate.
Atlantic spotted dolphin.......... High................. Moderate............. High................. Low.................. Moderate.
Pantropical spotted dolphin....... High................. High................. High................. Low.................. Moderate.
Striped dolphin................... High................. Low.................. High................. Low.................. Moderate.
Short-beaked common dolphin....... High................. Low-moderate......... High................. Low.................. Moderate.
Risso's dolphin................... High................. Low-moderate......... High................. Low.................. Moderate.
Pilot whales...................... High................. Moderate............. High................. Medium............... High.
Harbor porpoise................... De minimis........... Low.................. De minimis........... n/a.................. De minimis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The North Atlantic right whale is endangered, has a very low
population size, and faces significant additional stressors. Therefore,
regardless of impact rating, we believe that the proposed mitigation
described previously is important in order for us to make the necessary
finding and, in consideration of the proposed mitigation, we
preliminarily find that the total marine mammal take from TGS's
proposed survey activities will have a negligible impact on the North
Atlantic right whale. The fin whale receives a high impact rating
overall, due to the high amount of exposure predicted for TGS's
proposed survey activity. As described previously, we expect that for
two seasons (summer and fall) almost no fin whales will be present in
the proposed survey area and that, for the remainder of the year, it is
likely that less than one quarter of the population will be present
within the proposed survey area (Roberts et al., 2016), meaning that
these impacts would be experienced by only a small subset of the
overall population. However, given the high amount of predicted
exposure, we believe that additional mitigation requirements are
warranted and propose that TGS be subject to a shutdown requirement for
fin whales. If the observed fin whale is within the behavioral
harassment zone, it would still be considered to have experienced
harassment, but by immediately shutting down the acoustic source the
duration of harassment is minimized and the significance of the
harassment event reduced as much as possible. In consideration of the
likely proportion of the population that may be affected by the
specified activities, the lack of evidence that the proposed survey
area is host to important behavior that may be disrupted, and the
proposed mitigation, we preliminarily find that the total marine mammal
take from TGS's proposed survey activities
[[Page 26303]]
will have a negligible impact on the fin whale.
Magnitude ratings for the sperm whale, beaked whales, and pilot
whales are high and, further, consequence factors reinforce high impact
ratings for all three. In addition, regardless of impact rating, the
consideration of likely consequences and contextual factors leads us to
conclude that targeted mitigation is important to support a finding
that the effects of the proposed survey will have a negligible impact
on these species. As described previously, sperm whales are an
endangered species with particular susceptibility to disruption of
foraging behavior, beaked whales are particularly acoustically
sensitive (with presumed low compensatory ability), and pilot whales
are sensitive to additional stressors due to a high degree of mortality
in commercial fisheries (and also with low compensatory ability).
Finally, due to their acoustic sensitivity, we have proposed shutdown
of the acoustic source upon observation of a beaked whale at any
distance from the source vessel. In consideration of the proposed
mitigation, we preliminarily find that the total marine mammal take
from TGS's proposed survey activities will have a negligible impact on
the sperm whale, beaked whales (i.e., Ziphius cavirostris and
Mesoplodon spp.), and pilot whales (i.e., Globicephala spp.).
Kogia spp. receive a moderate impact rating. However, although NMFS
does not currently identify a trend for these populations, recent
survey effort and stranding data show a simultaneous increase in at-sea
abundance and strandings, suggesting growing Kogia spp. abundance
(NMFS, 2011; 2013a; Waring et al., 2007; 2013). Finally, we expect that
Kogia spp. will receive subsidiary benefit from the proposed mitigation
targeted for sperm whales, beaked whales, and pilot whales and,
although minimally effective due to the difficulty of at-sea
observation of Kogia spp., we have proposed shutdown of the acoustic
source upon observation of Kogia spp. at any distance from the source
vessel. In consideration of these factors--likely population increase
and proposed mitigation--we preliminarily find that the total marine
mammal take from TGS's proposed survey activities will have a
negligible impact on Kogia spp.
Despite high magnitude ratings, remaining delphinid species receive
moderate impact ratings due to a lack of propensity for behavioral
disruption due to geophysical survey activity and our expectation that
these species would generally have relatively high compensatory
ability. In addition, these species do not have significant issues
relating to population status or context. Many oceanic delphinid
species are generally more associated with dynamic oceanographic
characteristics rather than static physical features, and those species
(such as common dolphin) with substantial distribution to the north of
the proposed survey area would likely be little affected at the
population level by the proposed activity. For example, both species of
spotted dolphin and the offshore stock of bottlenose dolphin range
widely over slope and abyssal waters (e.g., Waring et al., 2016;
Roberts et al., 2016), while the rough-toothed dolphin does not appear
bound by water depth in its range (Ritter, 2002; Wells et al., 2008).
Our proposed mitigation largely eliminates potential effects to
depleted coastal stocks of bottlenose dolphin, and provides substantial
benefit to the on-shelf portion of the Atlantic spotted dolphin
population. We also expect that meaningful subsidiary benefit will
accrue to certain species from the proposed mitigation targeted for
sperm whales, beaked whales, and pilot whales, most notably to species
presumed to have greater association with shelf break waters north of
Cape Hatteras (e.g., offshore bottlenose dolphins, common dolphins, and
Risso's dolphins). In consideration of these factors--overall impact
ratings and proposed mitigation--we preliminarily find that the total
marine mammal take from TGS's proposed survey activities will have a
negligible impact on remaining delphinid species (i.e., all stocks of
bottlenose dolphin, two species of spotted dolphin, rough-toothed
dolphin, striped dolphin, common dolphin, Clymene dolphin, and Risso's
dolphin).
For those species with de minimis impact ratings we believe that,
absent additional relevant concerns related to population status or
context, the rating implies that a negligible impact should be expected
as a result of the specified activity. No such concerns exist for these
species, and we preliminarily find that the total marine mammal take
from TGS's proposed survey activities will have a negligible impact on
the humpback whale, minke whale, and harbor porpoise.
In summary, 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, we preliminarily find that the
total marine mammal take from TGS's proposed survey activities will
have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or
stocks.
ION--ION proposes a 70-day survey program, or 19 percent of the
year (slightly less than one season). However, the proposed survey
would cover a large spatial extent (i.e., a majority of the mid- and
south Atlantic; see Figure 1 of ION's application). Therefore, although
the survey would be moderate-term (i.e., from 1-3 months) in total
duration, we would not expect the duration of effect to be greater than
short and isolated to intermittent in any given area. Table 16 displays
relevant information leading to impact ratings for each species
resulting from ION's proposed survey. In general, we note that although
the spatial scale of the proposed survey activity is large, the fact
that this mobile acoustic source would be moving across large areas (as
compared with geophysical surveys with different objectives that may
require focused effort over long periods of time in smaller areas)
means that many individuals may receive limited exposure to survey
noise. The nature of such potentially transitory exposure means that
the potential significance of behavioral disruption and potential for
longer-term avoidance of important areas is limited.
Table 16--Magnitude and Impact Ratings, ION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Amount Spatial extent Magnitude rating Consequences Impact rating
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Atlantic right whale........ De minimis........... Low-Moderate......... De minimis........... n/a.................. De minimis.
Humpback whale.................... De minimis........... Low-Moderate......... De minimis........... n/a.................. De minimis.
Minke whale....................... De minimis........... Low-High............. De minimis........... n/a.................. De minimis.
Fin whale......................... De minimis........... Low.................. De minimis........... n/a.................. De minimis.
Sperm whale....................... De minimis........... Moderate............. De minimis........... n/a.................. De minimis.
Kogia spp......................... De minimis........... High................. De minimis........... n/a.................. De minimis.
Beaked whales..................... De minimis........... Moderate............. De minimis........... n/a.................. De minimis.
[[Page 26304]]
Rough-toothed dolphin............. De minimis........... High................. De minimis........... n/a.................. De minimis.
Common bottlenose dolphin......... De minimis........... High................. De minimis........... n/a.................. De minimis.
Clymene dolphin................... De minimis........... High................. De minimis........... n/a.................. De minimis.
Atlantic spotted dolphin.......... De minimis........... Moderate............. De minimis........... n/a.................. De minimis.
Pantropical spotted dolphin....... De minimis........... High................. De minimis........... n/a.................. De minimis.
Striped dolphin................... De minimis........... Low.................. De minimis........... n/a.................. De minimis.
Short-beaked common dolphin....... De minimis........... Low-moderate......... De minimis........... n/a.................. De minimis.
Risso's dolphin................... De minimis........... Low-moderate......... De minimis........... n/a.................. De minimis.
Pilot whales...................... De minimis........... Moderate............. De minimis........... n/a.................. De minimis.
Harbor porpoise................... De minimis........... Low.................. De minimis........... n/a.................. De minimis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The North Atlantic right whale is endangered, has a very low
population size, and faces significant additional stressors. Therefore,
regardless of impact rating, we believe that the proposed mitigation
described previously is important in order for us to make the necessary
finding and, in consideration of the proposed mitigation, we
preliminarily find that the total marine mammal take from ION's
proposed survey activities will have a negligible impact on the North
Atlantic right whale.
Also regardless of impact rating, consideration of assumed
behavioral susceptibility and lack of compensatory ability (i.e., the
consequence factors that are disregarded in our matrix assessment for
ION) as well as additional contextual factors leads us to conclude that
the proposed targeted time-area mitigation described previously is
important to support a finding that the effects of the proposed survey
will have a negligible impact for the sperm whale, beaked whales (i.e.,
Ziphius cavirostris and Mesoplodon spp.), and pilot whales (i.e.,
Globicephala spp.). As described previously, sperm whales are an
endangered species with particular susceptibility to disruption of
foraging behavior, beaked whales are particularly acoustically
sensitive, and pilot whales are sensitive to additional stressors due
to a high degree of mortality in commercial fisheries. Further, we
expect that compensatory ability for beaked whales will be low due to
presumed residency in certain shelf break and deepwater canyon areas
covered by the proposed survey area and that compensatory ability for
pilot whales will also be low due to presumed residency in areas
targeted by the proposed survey. Kogia spp. are also considered to have
heightened acoustic sensitivity and therefore we have proposed shutdown
of the acoustic source upon observation of a beaked whale or a Kogia
spp. at any distance from the source vessel. In consideration of the
proposed mitigation, we preliminarily find that the total marine mammal
take from ION's proposed survey activities will have a negligible
impact on the sperm whale, beaked whales, pilot whales, and Kogia spp.
For those species with de minimis impact ratings we believe that,
absent additional relevant concerns related to population status or
context, the rating implies that a negligible impact should be expected
as a result of the specified activity. No such concerns exist for these
species, and we preliminarily find that the total marine mammal take
from ION's proposed survey activities will have a negligible impact on
all stocks of bottlenose dolphin, two species of spotted dolphin,
rough-toothed dolphin, striped dolphin, common dolphin, Clymene
dolphin, Risso's dolphin humpback whale, minke whale, fin whale, and
harbor porpoise.
In summary, 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, we preliminarily find that the
total marine mammal take from ION's proposed survey activities will
have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or
stocks.
Western--Western proposes a 208-day survey program, or 57 percent
of the year (slightly more than two seasons). However, the proposed
survey would cover a large spatial extent (i.e., a majority of the mid-
and south Atlantic; see Figures 1-1 to 1-4 of Western's application).
Therefore, although the survey would be long-term (i.e., greater than
one season) in total duration, we would not expect the duration of
effect to be greater than moderate and intermittent in any given area.
Table 17 displays relevant information leading to impact ratings for
each species resulting from Western's proposed survey. In general, we
note that although the temporal and spatial scale of the proposed
survey activity is large, the fact that this mobile acoustic source
would be moving across large areas (as compared with geophysical
surveys with different objectives that may require focused effort over
long periods of time in smaller areas) means that many individuals may
receive limited exposed to survey noise. The nature of such potentially
transitory exposure (which we nevertheless assume here is of moderate
duration and intermittent, versus isolated) means that the potential
significance of behavioral disruption and potential for longer-term
avoidance of important areas is limited.
Table 17--Magnitude and Impact Ratings, Western
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Amount Spatial extent Magnitude rating Consequences Impact rating
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Atlantic right whale........ De minimis........... Low-Moderate......... De minimis........... n/a.................. De minimis.
Humpback whale.................... De minimis........... Low-Moderate......... De minimis........... n/a.................. De minimis.
Minke whale....................... De minimis........... Low-High............. De minimis........... n/a.................. De minimis.
Fin whale......................... Low.................. Low.................. Medium............... Medium............... Moderate.
Sperm whale....................... High................. Moderate............. High................. Medium............... High.
Kogia spp......................... Low.................. High................. High................. Low.................. Moderate.
Beaked whales..................... High................. Moderate............. High................. High................. High.
Rough-toothed dolphin............. Moderate............. High................. High................. Low.................. Moderate.
[[Page 26305]]
Common bottlenose dolphin......... Moderate............. High................. High................. Low.................. Moderate.
Clymene dolphin................... De minimis........... High................. De minimis........... n/a.................. De minimis.
Atlantic spotted dolphin.......... High................. Moderate............. High................. Low.................. Moderate.
Pantropical spotted dolphin....... Moderate............. High................. High................. Low.................. Moderate.
Striped dolphin................... Low.................. Low.................. Medium............... Low.................. Low.
Short-beaked common dolphin....... Low.................. Low-moderate......... Medium............... Low.................. Low.
Risso's dolphin................... Moderate............. Low-moderate......... High................. Low.................. Moderate.
Pilot whales...................... Moderate............. Moderate............. High................. Medium............... High.
Harbor porpoise................... De minimis........... Low.................. De minimis........... n/a.................. De minimis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The North Atlantic right whale is endangered, has a very low
population size, and faces significant additional stressors. Therefore,
regardless of impact rating, we believe that the proposed mitigation
described previously is important in order for us to make the necessary
finding and, in consideration of the proposed mitigation, we
preliminarily find that the total marine mammal take from Western's
proposed survey activities will have a negligible impact on the North
Atlantic right whale. The fin whale receives a moderate impact rating
overall, but we expect that for two seasons (summer and fall) almost no
fin whales will be present in the proposed survey area. For the
remainder of the year, it is likely that less than one quarter of the
population will be present within the proposed survey area (Roberts et
al., 2016), meaning that despite medium rankings for magnitude and
likely consequences, these impacts would be experienced by only a small
subset of the overall population. In consideration of the moderate
impact rating, the likely proportion of the population that may be
affected by the specified activities, and the lack of evidence that the
proposed survey area is host to important behavior that may be
disrupted, we preliminarily find that the total marine mammal take from
Western's proposed survey activities will have a negligible impact on
the fin whale.
Magnitude ratings for the sperm whale, beaked whales, and pilot
whales are high and, further, consequence factors reinforce high impact
ratings for all three. In addition, regardless of impact rating, the
consideration of likely consequences and contextual factors leads us to
conclude that targeted mitigation is important to support a finding
that the effects of the proposed survey will have a negligible impact
on these species. As described previously, sperm whales are an
endangered species with particular susceptibility to disruption of
foraging behavior, beaked whales are particularly acoustically
sensitive (with presumed low compensatory ability), and pilot whales
are sensitive to additional stressors due to a high degree of mortality
in commercial fisheries (and also with low compensatory ability).
Finally, due to their acoustic sensitivity, we have proposed shutdown
of the acoustic source upon observation of a beaked whale at any
distance from the source vessel. In consideration of the proposed
mitigation, we preliminarily find that the total marine mammal take
from Western's proposed survey activities will have a negligible impact
on the sperm whale, beaked whales (i.e., Ziphius cavirostris and
Mesoplodon spp.), and pilot whales (i.e., Globicephala spp.).
Kogia spp. receive a moderate impact rating. However, although NMFS
does not currently identify a trend for these populations, recent
survey effort and stranding data show a simultaneous increase in at-sea
abundance and strandings, suggesting growing Kogia spp. abundance
(NMFS, 2011; 2013a; Waring et al., 2007; 2013). Finally, we expect that
Kogia spp. will receive subsidiary benefit from the proposed mitigation
targeted for sperm whales, beaked whales, and pilot whales and,
although minimally effective due to the difficulty of at-sea
observation of Kogia spp., we have proposed shutdown of the acoustic
source upon observation of Kogia spp. at any distance from the source
vessel. In consideration of these factors--likely population increase
and proposed mitigation--we preliminarily find that the total marine
mammal take from Western's proposed survey activities will have a
negligible impact on Kogia spp.
Despite medium to high magnitude ratings (with the exception of the
Clymene dolphin), remaining delphinid species receive low to moderate
impact ratings due to a lack of propensity for behavioral disruption
due to geophysical survey activity and our expectation that these
species would generally have relatively high compensatory ability. In
addition, these species do not have significant issues relating to
population status or context. Many oceanic delphinid species are
generally more associated with dynamic oceanographic characteristics
rather than static physical features, and those species (such as common
dolphin) with substantial distribution to the north of the proposed
survey area would likely be little affected at the population level by
the proposed activity. For example, both species of spotted dolphin and
the offshore stock of bottlenose dolphin range widely over slope and
abyssal waters (e.g., Waring et al., 2016; Roberts et al., 2016), while
the rough-toothed dolphin does not appear bound by water depth in its
range (Ritter, 2002; Wells et al., 2008). Our proposed mitigation
largely eliminates potential effects to depleted coastal stocks of
bottlenose dolphin, and provides substantial benefit to the on-shelf
portion of the Atlantic spotted dolphin population. We also expect that
meaningful subsidiary benefit will accrue to certain species from the
proposed mitigation targeted for sperm whales, beaked whales, and pilot
whales, most notably to species presumed to have greater association
with shelf break waters north of Cape Hatteras (e.g., offshore
bottlenose dolphins, common dolphins, and Risso's dolphins). In
consideration of these factors--overall impact ratings and proposed
mitigation--we preliminarily find that the total marine mammal take
from Western's proposed survey activities will have a negligible impact
on remaining delphinid species (i.e., all stocks of bottlenose dolphin,
two species of spotted dolphin, rough-toothed dolphin, striped dolphin,
common dolphin, and Risso's dolphin).
For those species with de minimis impact ratings we believe that,
absent additional relevant concerns related to population status or
context, the rating implies that a negligible impact should be expected
as a result of the specified activity. No such concerns exist for these
species, and we preliminarily find that the total marine mammal take
from Western's proposed survey activities
[[Page 26306]]
will have a negligible impact on the humpback whale, minke whale,
Clymene dolphin, and harbor porpoise.
In summary, 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, we preliminarily find that the
total marine mammal take from Western's proposed survey activities will
have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or
stocks.
CGG--CGG proposes an approximately 155-day survey program, or 42
percent of the year (approximately two seasons). However, the proposed
survey would cover a large spatial extent (i.e., a majority of the mid-
and south Atlantic; see Figure 3 of CGG's application). Therefore,
although the survey would be long-term (i.e., greater than one season)
in total duration, we would not expect the duration of effect to be
greater than moderate and intermittent in any given area. Table 18
displays relevant information leading to impact ratings for each
species resulting from CGG's proposed survey. In general, we note that
although the temporal and spatial scale of the proposed survey activity
is large, the fact that this mobile acoustic source would be moving
across large areas (as compared with geophysical surveys with different
objectives that may require focused effort over long periods of time in
smaller areas) means that many individuals may receive limited exposure
to survey noise. The nature of such potentially transitory exposure
means that the potential significance of behavioral disruption and
potential for longer-term avoidance of important areas is limited.
Table 18--Magnitude and Impact Ratings, CGG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Amount Spatial extent Magnitude rating Consequences Impact rating
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Atlantic right whale........ De minimis........... Low-Moderate......... De minimis........... n/a.................. De minimis.
Humpback whale.................... De minimis........... Low-Moderate......... De minimis........... n/a.................. De minimis.
Minke whale....................... De minimis........... Low-High............. De minimis........... n/a.................. De minimis.
Fin whale......................... De minimis........... Low.................. De minimis........... n/a.................. De minimis.
Sperm whale....................... High................. Moderate............. High................. Medium............... High.
Kogia spp......................... Low.................. High................. High................. Low.................. Moderate.
Beaked whales..................... High................. Moderate............. High................. High................. High.
Rough-toothed dolphin............. High................. High................. High................. Low.................. Moderate.
Common bottlenose dolphin......... Low.................. High................. High................. Low.................. Moderate.
Clymene dolphin................... High................. High................. High................. Low.................. Moderate.
Atlantic spotted dolphin.......... Low.................. Moderate............. Medium............... Low.................. Low.
Pantropical spotted dolphin....... High................. High................. High................. Low.................. Moderate.
Striped dolphin................... Low.................. Low.................. Medium............... Low.................. Low.
Short-beaked common dolphin....... De minimis........... Low-moderate......... De minimis........... n/a.................. De minimis.
Risso's dolphin................... Low.................. Low-moderate......... Medium............... Low.................. Low.
Pilot whales...................... Low.................. Moderate............. Medium............... Medium............... Moderate.
Harbor porpoise................... De minimis........... Low.................. De minimis........... n/a.................. De minimis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The North Atlantic right whale is endangered, has a very low
population size, and faces significant additional stressors. Therefore,
regardless of impact rating, we believe that the proposed mitigation
described previously is important in order for us to make the necessary
finding and, in consideration of the proposed mitigation, we
preliminarily find that the total marine mammal take from CGG's
proposed survey activities will have a negligible impact on the North
Atlantic right whale.
Magnitude ratings for the sperm whale and beaked whales are high
and, further, consequence factors reinforce high impact ratings for
both. Magnitude rating for pilot whales is medium but, similar to
beaked whales, we expect that compensatory ability will be low due to
presumed residency in areas targeted by the proposed survey--leading to
a moderate impact rating. However, regardless of impact rating, the
consideration of likely consequences and contextual factors leads us to
conclude that targeted mitigation is important to support a finding
that the effects of the proposed survey will have a negligible impact
on these species. As described previously, sperm whales are an
endangered species with particular susceptibility to disruption of
foraging behavior, beaked whales are particularly acoustically
sensitive (with presumed low compensatory ability), and pilot whales
are sensitive to additional stressors due to a high degree of mortality
in commercial fisheries (and also with low compensatory ability).
Finally, due to their acoustic sensitivity, we have proposed shutdown
of the acoustic source upon observation of a beaked whale at any
distance from the source vessel. In consideration of the proposed
mitigation, we preliminarily find that the total marine mammal take
from CGG's proposed survey activities will have a negligible impact on
the sperm whale, beaked whales (i.e., Ziphius cavirostris and
Mesoplodon spp.), and pilot whales (i.e., Globicephala spp.).
Kogia spp. receive a moderate impact rating. However, although NMFS
does not currently identify a trend for these populations, recent
survey effort and stranding data show a simultaneous increase in at-sea
abundance and strandings, suggesting growing Kogia spp. abundance
(NMFS, 2011; 2013a; Waring et al., 2007; 2013). Finally, we expect that
Kogia spp. will receive subsidiary benefit from the proposed mitigation
targeted for sperm whales, beaked whales, and pilot whales and,
although minimally effective due to the difficulty of at-sea
observation of Kogia spp., we have proposed shutdown of the acoustic
source upon observation of Kogia spp. at any distance from the source
vessel. In consideration of these factors--likely population increase
and proposed mitigation--we preliminarily find that the total marine
mammal take from CGG's proposed survey activities will have a
negligible impact on Kogia spp.
Despite medium to high magnitude ratings (with the exception of the
short-beaked common dolphin), remaining delphinid species receive low
to moderate impact ratings due to a lack of propensity for behavioral
disruption due to geophysical survey activity and our expectation that
these species would generally have relatively high compensatory
ability. In addition, these species do not have significant issues
[[Page 26307]]
relating to population status or context. Many oceanic delphinid
species are generally more associated with dynamic oceanographic
characteristics rather than static physical features, and those species
(such as common dolphin) with substantial distribution to the north of
the proposed survey area would likely be little affected at the
population level by the proposed activity. For example, both species of
spotted dolphin and the offshore stock of bottlenose dolphin range
widely over slope and abyssal waters (e.g., Waring et al., 2016;
Roberts et al., 2016), while the rough-toothed dolphin does not appear
bound by water depth in its range (Ritter, 2002; Wells et al., 2008).
Our proposed mitigation largely eliminates potential effects to
depleted coastal stocks of bottlenose dolphin. We also expect that
meaningful subsidiary benefit will accrue to certain species from the
proposed mitigation targeted for sperm whales, beaked whales, and pilot
whales, most notably to species presumed to have greater association
with shelf break waters north of Cape Hatteras (e.g., offshore
bottlenose dolphins, common dolphins, and Risso's dolphins). In
consideration of these factors--overall impact ratings and proposed
mitigation--we preliminarily find that the total marine mammal take
from CGG's proposed survey activities will have a negligible impact on
remaining delphinid species (i.e., all stocks of bottlenose dolphin,
two species of spotted dolphin, rough-toothed dolphin, striped dolphin,
Clymene dolphin, and Risso's dolphin).
For those species with de minimis impact ratings we believe that,
absent additional relevant concerns related to population status or
context, the rating implies that a negligible impact should be expected
as a result of the specified activity. No such concerns exist for these
species, and we preliminarily find that the total marine mammal take
from CGG's proposed survey activities will have a negligible impact on
the humpback whale, minke whale, fin whale, short-beaked common
dolphin, and harbor porpoise.
In summary, 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, we preliminarily find that the
total marine mammal take from CGG's proposed survey activities will
have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or
stocks.
Small Numbers Analyses
Please see Tables 10 and 11 and the related text for information
relating to the basis for our small numbers analyses. Table 10 provides
the numbers of predicted exposures above specified received levels,
while Table 11 provides numbers of take by Level A and Level B
harassment proposed for authorization. The latter is what we consider
for purposes of small numbers analysis for each proposed IHA. For the
sei whale, Bryde's whale, blue whale, northern bottlenose whale,
Fraser's dolphin, melon-headed whale, false killer whale, pygmy killer
whale, killer whale, spinner dolphin, and white-sided dolphin, we
propose to authorize take resulting from a single exposure of one group
of each species or stock, as appropriate (using average group size),
for each applicant. We believe that a single incident of take of one
group of any of these species represents take of small numbers for that
species. Therefore, for each applicant, based on the analyses contained
herein of their specified activity, we preliminarily find that small
numbers of marine mammals will be taken for each of these 11 affected
species or stocks for each specified activity. We do not discuss these
11 species further in the applicant-specific analyses that follow.
As discussed previously, the MMPA does not define small numbers.
NMFS compares the estimated numbers of individuals expected to be taken
to the most appropriate estimation of the relevant species or stock
size in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to
small numbers of marine mammals. In that regard, NMFS proposes to limit
its authorization of take to 30 percent of the most appropriate stock
abundance estimate, assuming no other relevant factors that provide
more context for the estimate, e.g., information that the take numbers
represent instances of multiple exposures of the same animals. For
these proposed IHAs, the proposed take authorizations (Table 11) have
been limited to a threshold of 30 percent. In order to limit actual
take to this proportion of estimated stock abundance, we propose to
require monthly reporting from those applicants with predicted
exposures of any species exceeding this threshold (i.e., Spectrum, TGS,
CGG, and Western). These interim reports would include amount and
location of line-kms surveyed, all marine mammal observations with
closest approach distance, and corrected numbers of marine mammals
``taken.'' Upon reaching the pre-determined take threshold, any issued
IHA would be withdrawn. This proposed mechanism to limit actual take is
discussed further under ``Proposed Monitoring and Reporting.''
In addition, we have proposed time-area restrictions targeted at
certain species (see ``Proposed Mitigation''). In particular, one such
proposed restriction is targeted towards on-shelf Atlantic spotted
dolphins specifically to reduce the likely number of individuals taken.
This measure is proposed for implementation for Spectrum, TGS, and
Western, due to the uniformly high number of predicted exposures of
Atlantic spotted dolphins across all three applicants. In addition, we
have proposed time-area restrictions targeted towards sperm whales,
beaked whales, and pilot whales. While these restrictions are primarily
intended to provide protections important to our preliminary negligible
impact findings for each applicant, they would also be expected to
reduce the total number of individuals taken (of the three target
species/guilds as well as other species likely to be present in those
areas). While we are unable to quantify the likely reduction in
individuals taken as a result of the proposed mitigation, we believe
that the combination of the proposed mitigation and the controls on
taking through proposed monitoring and reporting requirements will be
effective in limiting the taking of individuals of any species to small
numbers. Applicant-specific analyses follow.
Spectrum--The total amount of taking proposed for authorization for
a majority of affected stocks ranges from 1 to 24 percent of the most
appropriate population abundance estimate. The total amount of taking
proposed for authorization for remaining stocks (i.e., rough-toothed
dolphin, bottlenose dolphin, Clymene dolphin, Atlantic spotted dolphin,
and pantropical spotted dolphin) is limited to 30 percent of the most
appropriate population abundance estimate, through mitigation and
monitoring mechanisms described previously.
Based on the analysis contained herein of Spectrum's specified
activity, and taking into consideration the implementation of the
proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, we preliminarily find that
small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to each of the
affected species or stocks.
TGS--The total amount of taking proposed for authorization for the
harbor porpoise, North Atlantic right whale, humpback whale, minke
whale, and Clymene dolphin ranges from one to nine percent of the most
appropriate population abundance estimate. The total amount of taking
proposed for
[[Page 26308]]
authorization for all remaining stocks is limited to 30 percent of the
most appropriate population abundance estimate, through mitigation and
monitoring mechanisms described previously.
Based on the analysis contained herein of TGS's specified activity,
and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed
monitoring and mitigation measures, we preliminarily find that small
numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to each of the
affected species or stocks.
ION--The total amount of taking proposed for authorization for all
affected stocks ranges from less than one to four percent of the most
appropriate population abundance estimate. Therefore, based on the
analysis contained herein of ION's specified activity, we preliminarily
find that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to
each of the affected species or stocks.
Western--The total amount of taking proposed for authorization for
a majority of affected stocks ranges from less than 1 to 25 percent of
the most appropriate population abundance estimate. The total amount of
taking proposed for authorization for remaining stocks (i.e., sperm
whale, beaked whales, and Atlantic spotted dolphin) is limited to 30
percent of the most appropriate population abundance estimate, through
mitigation and monitoring mechanisms described previously.
Based on the analysis contained herein of Western's specified
activity, and taking into consideration the implementation of the
proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, we preliminarily find that
small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to each of the
affected species or stocks.
CGG--The total amount of taking proposed for authorization for a
majority of affected stocks ranges from less than 1 to 26 percent of
the most appropriate population abundance estimate. The total amount of
taking proposed for authorization for remaining stocks (i.e., rough-
toothed dolphin, Clymene dolphin, and pantropical spotted dolphin) is
limited to 30 percent of the most appropriate population abundance
estimate, through mitigation and monitoring mechanisms described
previously.
Based on the analysis contained herein of CGG's specified activity,
and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed
monitoring and mitigation measures, we preliminarily find that small
numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to each of the
affected species or stocks.
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
incidental take 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 proposed action area. Effective reporting is critical
both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained
from the required monitoring.
Any monitoring requirement we prescribe should improve our
understanding of one or more of the following:
Occurrence of marine mammal species in action area (e.g.,
presence, abundance, distribution, density).
Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) Action or environment
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2)
affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas).
Individual responses to acute stressors, or impacts of
chronic exposures (behavioral or physiological).
How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1)
Long-term fitness and survival of an individual; or (2) population,
species, or stock.
Effects on marine mammal habitat and resultant impacts to
marine mammals.
Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Proposed monitoring requirements are the same for all applicants
(except as noted), and a single discussion is provided here.
PSO Eligibility and Qualifications
All PSO resumes must be submitted to NMFS and PSOs must be approved
by NMFS after a review of their qualifications. PSOs should provide a
current resume and information related to PSO training, if available.
The latter should include (1) a course information packet that includes
the name and qualifications (e.g., experience, training, or education)
of the instructor(s), the course outline or syllabus, and course
reference material; and (2) a document stating successful completion of
the course. PSOs must be trained biologists, with the following minimum
qualifications:
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;
Experience and ability to conduct field observations and
collect data according to assigned protocols (may include academic
experience; required for visual PSOs only) and experience with data
entry on computers;
Visual acuity in both eyes (correction is permissible)
sufficient for discernment of moving targets at the water's surface
with ability to estimate target size and distance; use of binoculars
may be necessary to correctly identify the target (required for visual
PSOs only);
Experience or training in the field identification of
marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors (required for
visual PSOs only);
Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the
survey operation to provide for personal safety during observations;
Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of
observations including but not limited to the number and species of
marine mammals observed; marine mammal behavior; and descriptions of
activity conducted and implementation of mitigation;
Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with
survey personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals
observed in the area as necessary; and
Successful completion of relevant training (described
below), including completion of all required coursework and passing (80
percent or greater) a written and/or oral examination developed for the
training program.
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, and prospective PSOs granted
waivers must satisfy training requirements described below. Alternate
experience that may be considered includes, but is not limited to, the
following:
Secondary education and/or experience comparable to PSO
duties.
Previous work experience conducting academic, commercial,
or
[[Page 26309]]
government-sponsored marine mammal surveys.
Previous work experience as a PSO; the PSO should
demonstrate good standing and consistently good performance of PSO
duties.
Training--NMFS does not currently approve specific training
programs; however, acceptable training may include training previously
approved by BSEE, or training that adheres generally to the
recommendations provided by Baker et al. (2013). Those recommendations
include the following topics for training programs:
Life at sea, duties, and authorities;
Ethics, conflicts of interest, standards of conduct, and
data confidentiality;
Offshore survival and safety training;
Overview of oil and gas activities (including geophysical
data acquisition operations, theory, and principles) and types of
relevant sound source technology and equipment;
Overview of the MMPA and ESA as they relate to protection
of marine mammals;
Mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements as they
pertain to geophysical surveys;
Marine mammal identification, biology and behavior;
Background on underwater sound;
Visual surveying protocols, distance calculations and
determination, cues, and search methods for locating and tracking
different marine mammal species (visual PSOs only);
Optimized deployment and configuration of PAM equipment to
ensure effective detections of cetaceans for mitigation purposes (PAM
operators only);
Detection and identification of vocalizing species or
cetacean groups (PAM operators only);
Measuring distance and bearing of vocalizing cetaceans
while accounting for vessel movement (PAM operators only);
Data recording and protocols, including standard forms and
reports, determining range, distance, direction, and bearing of marine
mammals and vessels; recording GPS location coordinates, weather
conditions, Beaufort wind force and sea state, etc.;
Proficiency with relevant software tools;
Field communication/support with appropriate personnel,
and using communication devices (e.g., two-way radios, satellite
phones, Internet, email, facsimile);
Reporting of violations, noncompliance, and coercion; and
Conflict resolution.
PAM operators should regularly refresh their detection skills
through practice with simulation-modelling software, and should keep up
to date with training on the latest software/hardware advances.
Visual Monitoring
The lead PSO is responsible for establishing and maintaining clear
lines of communication with vessel crew. The vessel operator shall work
with the lead PSO to accomplish this and shall ensure any necessary
briefings are provided for vessel crew to understand mitigation
requirements and protocols. While on duty, PSOs would continually scan
the water surface in all directions around the acoustic source and
vessel for presence of marine mammals, using a combination of the naked
eye and high-quality binoculars, from optimum vantage points for
unimpaired visual observations with minimum distractions. PSOs would
collect observational data for all marine mammals observed, regardless
of distance from the vessel, including species, group size, presence of
calves, distance from vessel and direction of travel, and any observed
behavior (including an assessment of behavioral responses to survey
activity). Upon observation of marine mammal(s), a PSO would record the
observation and monitor the animal's position (including latitude/
longitude of the vessel and relative bearing and estimated distance to
the animal) until the animal dives or moves out of visual range of the
observer, and a PSO would continue to observe the area to watch for the
animal to resurface or for additional animals that may surface in the
area. PSOs would also record environmental conditions at the beginning
and end of the observation period and at the time of any observations,
as well as whenever conditions change significantly in the judgment of
the PSO on duty.
The vessel 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 should
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 operator must also provide a night-vision
device suited for the marine environment for use during nighttime ramp-
up pre-clearance, at the discretion of the PSOs. NVDs may include night
vision binoculars or monocular or forward-looking infrared device
(e.g., Exelis PVS-7 night vision goggles; Night Optics D-300 night
vision monocular; FLIR M324XP thermal imaging camera or equivalents).
At minimum, the device should feature automatic brightness and gain
control, bright light protection, infrared illumination, and optics
suited for low-light situations. Other required equipment, which should
be made available to PSOs by the third-party observer provider,
includes 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 the tasks described above,
including accurate determination of distance and bearing to observed
marine mammals.
Individuals implementing the monitoring protocol will assess its
effectiveness using an adaptive approach. Monitoring biologists will
use their best professional judgment throughout implementation and seek
improvements to these methods when deemed appropriate. Any
modifications to protocol will be coordinated between NMFS and the
applicant.
Acoustic Monitoring
Monitoring of a towed PAM system is required at all times, from 30
minutes prior to ramp-up and throughout all use of the acoustic source.
Towed PAM systems generally consist of hardware (e.g., hydrophone
array, cables) and software (e.g., data processing and monitoring
system). While not required, we recommend use of industry standard
software (e.g., PAMguard, which is open source). Hydrophone signals are
processed for output to the PAM operator with software designed to
detect marine mammal vocalizations. Current PAM technology has some
limitations (e.g., limited directional capabilities and detection
range, masking of signals due to noise from the vessel, source, and/or
flow, localization) and there are no formal guidelines currently in
place regarding specifications for hardware, software, or operator
training requirements. However, a working group (led by A.M. Thode) is
developing formal standards under the auspices of the Acoustical
Society of America's (ASA) Accredited Standards Committee on Animal
Bioacoustics (ANSI S3/SC1/WG3; ``Towed Array Passive Acoustic
Operations for Bioacoustics Applications''). While no formal standards
have yet been completed, a ``roadmap'' was developed during a 2016
workshop held for the express purpose of continuing development of such
standards. A workshop report (Thode et al., 2017) provides a highly
detailed preview of what the scope and
[[Page 26310]]
structure of the standard would be, including operator training,
planning, hardware, real-time operations, localization, and performance
validation. NMFS will review this document, and recommends that
applicants do the same in developing or refining their PAM plans, as
appropriate.
Our requirement to use PAM refers to the use of calibrated
hydrophone arrays with full system redundancy to detect, identify and
estimate distance and bearing to vocalizing cetaceans, to the extent
possible. With regard to calibration, the PAM system should have at
least one calibrated hydrophone, sufficient for determining whether
background noise levels on the towed PAM system are sufficiently low to
meet performance expectations. Additionally, if multiple hydrophone
types occur in a system (i.e., monitor different bandwidths), then one
hydrophone from each such type should be calibrated, and whenever sets
of hydrophones (of the same type) are sufficiently spatially separated
such that they would be expected to experience ambient noise
environments that differ by 6 dB or more across any integrated species
cluster bandwidth, then at least one hydrophone from each set should be
calibrated. The arrays should incorporate appropriate hydrophone
elements (1 Hz to 180 kHz range) and sound data acquisition card
technology for sampling relevant frequencies (i.e., to 360 kHz). This
hardware should be coupled with appropriate software to aid monitoring
and listening by a PAM operator skilled in bioacoustics analysis and
computer system specifications capable of running appropriate software.
In the absence of a formally defined set of prescriptions addressing
any of these three facets of PAM technology, all applicants must
provide a description of the hardware and software proposed for use
prior to proceeding with any BOEM-permitted survey. Applicant-specific
PAM plans are available for review online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/oilgas.htm. Spectrum and ION submitted separate
plans, while TGS and Western included their plans in Section 11 of
their respective applications. CGG discusses PAM in Section 13 of their
application. As noted above, we recommend that each applicant produce a
revised plan prior to a final decision on these requests. As
recommended by Thode et al. (2017), the revised plans should, at
minimum, adequately address and describe (1) the hardware and software
planned for use, including a hardware performance diagram demonstrating
that the sensitivity and dynamic range of the hardware is appropriate
for the operation; (2) deployment methodology, including target depth/
tow distance; (3) definitions of expected operational conditions, used
to summarize background noise statistics; (4) proposed detection-
classification-localization methodology, including anticipated species
clusters (using a cluster definition table), target minimum detection
range for each cluster, and the proposed localization method for each
cluster; (5) operation plans, including the background noise sampling
schedule; and (6) cluster-specific details regarding which real-time
displays and automated detectors the operator would monitor.
In coordination with vessel crew, the lead PAM operator should be
responsible for deployment, retrieval, and testing and optimization of
the hydrophone array. While on duty, the PAM operator should diligently
listen to received signals and/or monitoring display screens in order
to detect vocalizing cetaceans, except as required to attend to PAM
equipment. The PAM operator should use appropriate sample analysis and
filtering techniques and, as described below, must report all cetacean
detections. While not required prior to development of formal standards
for PAM use, we recommend that vessel self-noise assessments are
undertaken during mobilization in order to optimize PAM array
configuration according to the specific noise characteristics of the
vessel and equipment involved, and to refine expectations for distance/
bearing estimations for cetacean species during the survey. Copies of
any vessel self-noise assessment reports should be included with the
summary trip report.
Data Collection
PSOs must use standardized data forms, whether hard copy or
electronic. PSOs will 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. We
require that, at a minimum, the following information be reported:
Vessel names (source vessel and other vessels associated with
survey) and call signs
PSO names and affiliations
Dates of departures and returns to port with port name
Dates and times (Greenwich Mean Time) of survey effort and
times corresponding with PSO effort
Vessel location (latitude/longitude) when survey effort begins
and ends; vessel location at beginning and end of visual PSO duty
shifts
Vessel heading and speed at beginning and end of visual PSO
duty shifts and upon any line change
Environmental conditions while on visual survey (at beginning
and end of PSO shift and whenever conditions 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
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)
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.)
If a marine mammal is sighted, the following information
should be recorded:
[cir] Watch status (sighting made by PSO on/off effort,
opportunistic, crew, alternate vessel/platform)
[cir] PSO who sighted the animal
[cir] Time of sighting
[cir] Vessel location at time of sighting
[cir] Water depth
[cir] Direction of vessel's travel (compass direction)
[cir] Direction of animal's travel relative to the vessel
[cir] Pace of the animal
[cir] Estimated distance to the animal and its heading relative to
vessel at initial sighting
[cir] 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
[cir] Estimated number of animals (high/low/best)
[cir] Estimated number of animals by cohort (adults, yearlings,
juveniles,
[[Page 26311]]
calves, group composition, etc.)
[cir] 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)
[cir] 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)
[cir] Animal's closest point of approach (CPA) and/or closest
distance from the center point of the acoustic source;
[cir] Platform activity at time of sighting (e.g., deploying,
recovering, testing, shooting, data acquisition, other)
[cir] 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
If a marine mammal is detected while using the PAM system, the
following information should be recorded:
[cir] An acoustic encounter identification number, and whether the
detection was linked with a visual sighting
[cir] Time when first and last heard
[cir] Types and nature of sounds heard (e.g., clicks, whistles,
creaks, burst pulses, continuous, sporadic, strength of signal, etc.)
[cir] 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.
Reporting
PSO effort, survey details, and sightings data should be recorded
continuously during surveys and reports prepared each day during which
survey effort is conducted. As described previously, applicants with
predicted exposures of any species exceeding the 30-percent threshold
(i.e., Spectrum, TGS, CGG, and Western) must submit regular interim
reports. These interim reports would include amount and location of
line-kms surveyed, all marine mammal observations with closest approach
distance, and corrected numbers of marine mammals ``taken.'' We propose
submission of such interim reports to NMFS on a monthly basis.
There are multiple reasons why marine mammals may be present and
yet be undetected by observers. Animals are missed because they are
underwater (availability bias) or because they are available to be
seen, but are missed by observers (perception and detection biases)
(e.g., Marsh and Sinclair, 1989). Negative bias on perception or
detection of an available animal may result from environmental
conditions, limitations inherent to the observation platform, or
observer ability. In this case, we do not have prior knowledge of any
potential negative bias on detection probability due to observation
platform or observer ability. Therefore, observational data corrections
must be made with respect to assumed species-specific detection
probability as evaluated through consideration of environmental factors
(e.g., f (0)). We propose that corrections be made using detection
probabilities found in Carr et al. (2011), which are based on f (0)
values from line-transect survey studies described in Koski et al.
(1998), Barlow (1999), and Thomas et al. (2002). Carr et al. (2011)
derived detection probabilities (shown in Table 19) as follows:
1/f (0) is the effective strip width.
The effective strip width was divided by the truncation
distance used to calculate f (0).
This value is detection probability or the average
probability that an animal would be seen within the truncation distance
from the vessel.
For cryptic species where only sea states 0 to 2 were used
to calculate f (0), detection probability was arbitrarily divided by 3
to account for the higher probability that animals would be missed
during the survey whenever sea states were greater than 2.
Different detection probability values were calculated for
groups with 1-16, 17-60 and greater than 60 individuals based on the
different f (0) values for those group sizes.
The mean group size for the species or guild determined
the appropriate detection probability that was used for that species or
guild.
Table 19--Detection Probabilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detection Assumed group
Common name probability size
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mysticete whales (except minke whale)... 0.259 1-16
Minke whale............................. 0.244 1-16
Sperm whale............................. 0.259 1-16
Kogia spp............................... 0.055 1-16
Beaked whales........................... 0.244 1-16
Small delphinids, medium group size (all 0.524 17-60
but common, spinner, and Fraser's
dolphin)...............................
Small delphinids, large group size...... 0.926 >60
Large delphinids, small group size (all 0.309 1-16
but Risso's dolphin and killer whale)..
Large delphinids, medium group size..... 0.524 17-60
Harbor porpoise......................... 0.055 1-16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adapted from Table B-6, Carr et al. (2011).
A draft comprehensive report would be submitted to NMFS within 90
days of the completion of survey effort, and must include all
information described above under ``Data Collection.'' The report will
describe the operations conducted and sightings of marine mammals near
the operations. The report will provide full documentation of methods,
results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring. The report
will 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 as an ESRI
shapefile with all necessary files and appropriate metadata. In
addition to the report, all raw observational data shall be made
available to NMFS. This report must also include a validation document
concerning the use of PAM, which should include necessary noise
validation diagrams and demonstrate whether background noise levels on
the PAM deployment limited achievement of the planned detection goals.
[[Page 26312]]
The report will also include estimates of the number of takes based
on the observations and in consideration of the detectability of the
marine mammal species observed (e.g., in consideration of f (0)).
Applicants must provide an estimate of the number (by species) of
marine mammals that may have been exposed (based on observational data
and accounting for animals present but unavailable for sighting (i.e.,
f(0) values)) to the survey activity at received levels greater than or
equal to the harassment threshold (i.e., 160 dB rms). The draft report
must be accompanied by a certification from the lead PSO as to the
accuracy of the report. A final report must be submitted within 30 days
following resolution of any comments on the draft report.
In the event that the specified activity clearly causes the take of
a marine mammal in a manner not permitted by the authorization (if
issued), such as a serious injury or mortality, the applicant shall
immediately cease the specified activities and immediately report the
take to NMFS. The report must include the following information:
Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the
incident;
Name and type of vessel involved;
Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
Description of the incident;
Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding
the incident;
Water depth;
Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction,
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24
hours preceding the incident;
Species identification or description of the animal(s)
involved;
Fate of the animal(s); and
Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if
equipment is available).
The applicant shall not resume its activities until NMFS is able to
review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS would work with
the applicant to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood
of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. The applicant
may not resume their activities until notified by NMFS.
In the event that the applicant discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or
death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than
a moderate state of decomposition as we describe in the next
paragraph), the applicant will immediately report the incident to NMFS.
The report must include the same information identified in the
paragraph above this section. Activities may continue while NMFS
reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS would work with the
applicant to determine whether modifications to the activities are
appropriate.
In the event that the applicant discovers an injured or dead marine
mammal, and the lead PSO 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), the applicant would report the
incident to NMFS within 24 hours of the discovery. The applicant would
provide photographs or video footage (if available) or other
documentation of the animal to NMFS.
Impact on Availability of Affected Species for Taking for Subsistence
Uses
There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated
by these actions. Therefore, relevant to the Spectrum, TGS, ION, CGG,
and Western proposed IHAs, we have 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)
There are six marine mammal species listed as endangered under the
ESA that may occur in the proposed survey areas. Under section 7 of the
ESA, BOEM requested initiation of formal consultation (on behalf of
itself and BSEE) in 2012 with NMFS's Office of Protected Resources,
Endangered Species Act Interagency Cooperation Division (Interagency
Cooperation Division) on the proposed authorization of geological and
geophysical survey activities under its oil and gas, renewable energy
and marine minerals programs. These activities were described in BOEM's
Draft PEIS for Atlantic OCS Proposed Geological and Geophysical
Activities in the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic Planning Areas. NMFS
concluded formal consultation by issuing a final Biological Opinion to
BOEM and BSEE on July 19, 2013, determining that the proposed
activities were not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
threatened or endangered species nor destroy or adversely modify
designated critical habitat under NMFS's jurisdiction. On October 16,
2015, BOEM and BSEE reinitiated consultation with NMFS.
NMFS's Office of Protected Resources, Permits and Conservation
Division will also consult internally with Interagency Cooperation
Division on the proposed issuance of authorizations under section
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA. NMFS will conclude the consultation prior to
reaching a determination regarding the proposed issuance of the
authorizations.
National Environmental Policy Act
In 2014, the BOEM produced a PEIS to evaluate potential significant
environmental effects of G&G activities on the Mid- and South Atlantic
OCS, pursuant to requirements of NEPA. These activities include
geophysical surveys in support of hydrocarbon exploration, as are
proposed in the MMPA applications before NMFS. The PEIS is available
at: www.boem.gov/Atlantic-G-G-PEIS/. NMFS participated in development
of the PEIS as a cooperating agency and believes it appropriate to
adopt the analysis in order to assess the impacts to the human
environment of issuance of the subject IHAs. Information in the IHA
applications, BOEM's PEIS, and this notice collectively provide the
environmental information related to proposed issuance of these IHAs
for public review and comment. We will review all comments submitted in
response to this notice as we complete the NEPA process, including a
final decision of whether to adopt BOEM's PEIS and sign a Record of
Decision related to issuance of IHAs, prior to a final decision on the
incidental take authorization requests.
Proposed Authorizations
As a result of these preliminary determinations, we propose to
issue five separate IHAs to the aforementioned applicant companies for
conducting the described geophysical survey activities in the Atlantic
Ocean within BOEM's Mid- and South Atlantic OCS planning areas,
provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements are incorporated. Specific language from the proposed IHAs
is provided next.
This section contains drafts of the IHAs. The wording contained in
this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHAs (if issued).
Spectrum
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 Spectrum's IHA application and using an array with
characteristics specified in the application, in the Atlantic Ocean
within BOEM's Mid- and South Atlantic OCS planning areas.
[[Page 26313]]
3. General Conditions
(a) A copy of this IHA must be in the possession of Spectrum, the
vessel operator and other relevant personnel, the lead protected
species observer (PSO), and any other relevant designees of Spectrum
operating under the authority of this IHA.
(b) The species authorized for taking are listed in Table 11. The
taking, by Level A and Level B harassment only, is limited to the
species and numbers listed in Table 11.
(c) The taking by serious injury or death of any of the species
listed in Table 11 or any taking of any other species of marine mammal
is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension, or
revocation of this IHA. Any taking exceeding the authorized amounts
listed in Table 11 is prohibited and may result in the modification,
suspension, or revocation of this IHA.
(d) Spectrum 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. Spectrum shall instruct relevant vessel personnel with
regard to the authority of the protected species monitoring team, and
shall ensure that relevant vessel personnel and protected species
monitoring team participate in a joint onboard briefing led by the
vessel operator and lead PSO to ensure that responsibilities,
communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol,
operational procedures, and IHA requirements are clearly understood.
This briefing must be repeated when relevant new personnel join the
survey operations.
(e) During use of the acoustic source, if the source vessel
encounters any marine mammal species that are not listed in Table 11,
then the acoustic source must be shut down to avoid unauthorized take.
4. Mitigation Requirements
The holder of this Authorization is required to implement the
following mitigation measures:
(a) Spectrum must use independent, dedicated, trained PSOs, meaning
that the PSOs must be employed by a third-party observer provider, may
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 (including brief alerts regarding maritime hazards), and
must have successfully completed an approved PSO training course. NMFS
must review and approve PSO resumes accompanied by a relevant training
course information packet that includes the name and qualifications
(i.e., experience, training completed, or educational background) of
the instructor(s), the course outline or syllabus, and course reference
material as well as a document stating successful completion of the
course.
(b) At least two PSOs must have a minimum of 90 days at-sea
experience working as PSOs during a deep penetration 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), a minimum of 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) and 30 minutes prior to and during nighttime ramp-ups
of the airgun array.
(ii) Visual monitoring must begin not less than 30 minutes prior to
ramp-up and must continue until one hour after use of the acoustic
source ceases or until 30 minutes past sunset.
(iii) Visual PSOs shall coordinate to ensure 360[deg] 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 acoustic
PSOs, 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 two consecutive
hours 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) Any observations of marine mammals by crew members aboard any
vessel associated with the survey, including chase vessels, shall be
relayed to the source vessel and to the PSO team.
(vii) During good conditions (e.g., daylight hours; Beaufort sea
state (BSS) 3 or less), visual PSOs shall conduct observations when the
acoustic source is not operating for comparison of sighting rates and
behavior with and without use of the acoustic source and between
acquisition periods, to the maximum extent practicable.
(d) Acoustic Observation
(i) The source vessel 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.
(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) Acoustic PSOs may be on watch for a maximum of four
consecutive hours followed by a break of at least two hours between
watches and may conduct a maximum of 12 hours observation per 24-hour
period.
(iv) Survey activity may continue for brief periods of time when
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 BSS 4;
(B) No marine mammals (excluding small delphinoids) 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) Buffer Zone and Exclusion Zone--The PSOs shall establish and
monitor a 500-m exclusion zone and a 1,000-m buffer zone. These zones
shall be based upon radial distance from any element
[[Page 26314]]
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 within the buffer zone (but outside the
exclusion zone) shall be communicated to the operator to prepare for
the potential shutdown of the acoustic source. PSOs must monitor the
buffer zone for a minimum of 30 minutes prior to ramp-up (i.e., pre-
clearance).
(f) 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.
Ramp-up may not be initiated if any marine mammal is within the
designated buffer zone. If a marine mammal is observed within the
buffer zone during the pre-clearance 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 30 minutes for all other species).
PSOs would monitor the buffer zone during ramp-up, and ramp-up must
cease and the source shut down upon observation of marine mammals
within or approaching the buffer zone. Ramp-up may occur at times of
poor visibility if appropriate acoustic monitoring has occurred with no
detections in the 30 minutes prior to beginning ramp-up. Acoustic
source activation may only occur at times of poor visibility where
operational planning cannot reasonably avoid such circumstances. The
operator must notify a designated PSO of the planned start of ramp-up
as agreed-upon with the lead PSO; the notification time should not be
less than 60 minutes prior to the planned ramp-up. 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. 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. Total duration should be
approximately 20 minutes. The operator must provide information to the
PSO documenting that appropriate procedures were followed. Ramp-ups
shall be scheduled so as to minimize the time spent with source
activated prior to reaching the designated run-in.
(g) Shutdown Requirements
(i) Any PSO on duty has the authority to delay the start of survey
operations or to call for shutdown of the acoustic source (visual PSOs
on duty should be in agreement on the need for delay or shutdown before
requiring such action). When shutdown is called for by a PSO, the
acoustic source must be immediately deactivated and any dispute
resolved only following deactivation. The operator must establish and
maintain clear lines of communication directly between PSOs on duty and
crew controlling the acoustic source to ensure that shutdown commands
are conveyed swiftly while allowing PSOs to maintain watch. 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. 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. 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 acoustic source must be shut down as a
precaution.
(ii) Upon completion of ramp-up, if a marine mammal appears within,
enters, or appears on a course to enter the exclusion zone, the
acoustic source must be shut down (i.e., power to the acoustic source
must be immediately turned off). If a marine mammal is detected
acoustically, the acoustic source must be shut down, unless the
acoustic PSO is confident that the animal detected is outside the
exclusion zone or that the detected species is not subject to the
shutdown requirement.
(A) This shutdown requirement is waived for dolphins of the
following genera: Steno, Tursiops, Stenella, Delphinus, Lagenodelphis,
and Lagenorhynchus. 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
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, shutdown must be implemented.
(iii) Shutdown of the acoustic source is required upon observation
of a right whale at any distance.
(iv) Shutdown of the acoustic source is required upon observation
of a 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.
(v) Shutdown of the acoustic source is required upon observation of
a diving sperm whale at any distance centered on the forward track of
the source vessel.
(vi) Shutdown of the acoustic source is required upon observation
(visual or acoustic) of a beaked whale or Kogia spp. at any distance.
(vii) Shutdown of the acoustic source is required upon observation
of an aggregation (i.e., six or more animals) of marine mammals of any
species that does not appear to be traveling.
(viii) Upon implementation of shutdown, the source may be
reactivated after the animal(s) has been observed exiting the exclusion
zone or following a 30-minute clearance period with no further
observation of the animal(s). Where there is no relevant zone (e.g.,
shutdown due to observation of a right whale), a 30-minute clearance
period must be observed following the last observation of the
animal(s).
(ix) If the acoustic source is shut down for reasons other than
mitigation (e.g., mechanical difficulty) for brief periods (i.e., 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 exclusion zone
and no acoustic detections have occurred. For any longer shutdown, pre-
clearance watch and ramp-up are required. For any shutdown at night or
in periods of poor visibility (e.g., BSS 4 or greater), ramp-up is
required but if the shutdown period was brief and constant observation
maintained, pre-clearance watch is not required.
(h) Miscellaneous Protocols
(i) The acoustic source 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).
[[Page 26315]]
Testing limited to individual source elements or strings does not
require ramp-up but does require pre-clearance.
(i) Closure Areas
(i) No use of the acoustic source may occur within 30 km of the
coast.
(ii) From November 1 through April 30, no use of the acoustic
source may occur within an area bounded by the greater of three
distinct components at any location: (1) A 47-km wide coastal strip
throughout the entire Mid- and South Atlantic OCS planning areas; (2)
Unit 2 of designated critical habitat for the North Atlantic right
whale, buffered by 10 km; and (3) the designated southeastern seasonal
management area (SMA) for the North Atlantic right whale, buffered by
10 km. North Atlantic right whale dynamic management areas (DMA;
buffered by 10 km) are also closed to use of the acoustic source when
in effect. It is the responsibility of the survey operators to monitor
appropriate media and to be aware of designated DMAs.
(iii) No use of the acoustic source may occur within the areas
designated by coordinates in Table 3 during applicable time periods.
Area #1 is in effect from June 1 through August 31. Areas #2-4 are in
effect year-round. Area #5 is in effect from July 1 through September
30.
(j) Vessel Strike Avoidance
(i) Vessel operators and crews must maintain a vigilant watch for
all marine mammals and slow down or stop their vessel or alter course,
as appropriate and regardless of vessel size, to avoid striking any
marine mammal. 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 and broadly
to identify a marine mammal as a right whale, other whale, or other
marine mammal (i.e., non-whale cetacean or pinniped). In this context,
``other whales'' includes sperm whales and all baleen whales other than
right whales.
(ii) All vessels, regardless of size, must observe the 10 kn speed
restriction in DMAs, the Mid-Atlantic SMA (from November 1 through
April 30), and critical habitat and the Southeast SMA (from November 15
through April 15).
(iii) Vessel speeds must also be reduced to 10 kn or less when
mother/calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages of cetaceans are observed
near a vessel.
(iv) All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 500
m from right whales. If a whale is observed but cannot be confirmed as
a species other than a right whale, the vessel operator must assume
that it is a right whale and take appropriate action. The following
avoidance measures must be taken if a right whale is within 500 m of
any vessel:
(A) While underway, the vessel operator must steer a course away
from the whale at 10 kn or less until the minimum separation distance
has been established.
(B) If a whale is spotted in the path of a vessel or within 100 m
of a vessel underway, the operator shall reduce speed and shift engines
to neutral. The operator shall re-engage engines only after the whale
has moved out of the path of the vessel and is more than 100 m away. If
the whale is still within 500 m of the vessel, the vessel must select a
course away from the whale's course at a speed of 10 kn or less. This
procedure must also be followed if a whale is spotted while a vessel is
stationary. Whenever possible, a vessel should remain parallel to the
whale's course while maintaining the 500-m distance as it travels,
avoiding abrupt changes in direction until the whale is no longer in
the area.
(v) All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 100
m from other whales. The following avoidance measures must be taken if
a whale other than a right whale is within 100 m of any vessel:
(A) The vessel underway 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 a 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.
(vi) All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 50
m from all other marine mammals, with an exception made for those
animals that approach the vessel. If an animal is encountered during
transit, a vessel shall attempt to remain parallel to the animal's
course, avoiding excessive speed or abrupt changes in course.
(k) All vessels associated with survey activity (e.g., source
vessels, chase vessels, supply vessels) must have a functioning
Automatic Identification System (AIS) onboard and operating at all
times, regardless of whether AIS would otherwise be required. Vessel
names and call signs must be provided to NMFS, and applicants must
notify NMFS when survey vessels are operating.
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 operator must also provide a night-vision
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 successfully complete relevant training, including
completion of all required coursework and passing (80 percent or
greater) a written and/or oral examination developed for the training
program.
(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
[[Page 26316]]
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. We require that, at a
minimum, the following information be reported:
(i) Vessel names (source vessel and other vessels associated with
survey) and call signs
(ii) PSO names and affiliations
(iii) Dates of departures and returns to port with port name
(iv) Dates and times (Greenwich Mean Time) of survey effort and
times corresponding with PSO effort
(v) Vessel location (latitude/longitude) when survey effort begins
and ends; vessel location at beginning and end of visual PSO duty
shifts
(vi) Vessel heading and speed at beginning and end of visual PSO
duty shifts and upon any line change
(vii) 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
(viii) 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)
(ix) 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.)
(x) 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
(xi) 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) Spectrum shall submit monthly interim reports detailing the
amount and location of line-kms surveyed, all marine mammal
observations with closest approach distance, and corrected numbers of
marine mammals ``taken,'' using correction factors given in Table 19.
(b) Spectrum 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 as an ESRI shapefile with all
necessary files and appropriate metadata. In addition to the report,
all raw observational data shall be made available to NMFS. The report
must summarize the information submitted in interim monthly reports as
well as additional data collected as required under condition 5(d) of
this IHA. The draft report must be accompanied by a certification from
the lead PSO as to the accuracy of the report, and the lead PSO may
submit directly 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
on the draft report.
(c) 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 prohibited by this IHA (if
issued), such as serious injury or mortality, Spectrum shall
immediately cease the specified activities and immediately report the
incident to NMFS. The report must include the following information:
(A) Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
(B) Name and type of vessel involved;
(C) Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
(D) Description of the incident;
(E) Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the
incident;
(F) Water depth;
(G) Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction,
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
(H) Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours
preceding the incident;
(I) Species identification or description of the animal(s)
involved;
(J) Fate of the animal(s); and
(K) Photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
Activities shall not resume until NMFS is able to review the
circumstances of the prohibited take.
[[Page 26317]]
NMFS will work with Spectrum to determine what measures are necessary
to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA
compliance. Spectrum may not resume their activities until notified by
NMFS.
(ii) In the event that Spectrum 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), Spectrum shall immediately
report the incident to NMFS. The report must include the same
information identified in condition 6(c)(1) of this IHA. Activities may
continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS
will work with Spectrum to determine whether additional mitigation
measures or modifications to the activities are appropriate.
(iii) In the event that Spectrum 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), Spectrum shall report the incident
to NMFS within 24 hours of the discovery. Spectrum shall provide
photographs or video footage or other documentation of the stranded
animal 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. TGS
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 TGS's IHA application and using an array with
characteristics specified in the application, in the Atlantic Ocean
within BOEM's Mid- and South Atlantic OCS planning areas.
3. General Conditions
(a) A copy of this IHA must be in the possession of TGS, the vessel
operator and other relevant personnel, the lead protected species
observer (PSO), and any other relevant designees of TGS operating under
the authority of this IHA.
(b) The species authorized for taking are listed in Table 11. The
taking, by Level A and Level B harassment only, is limited to the
species and numbers listed in Table 11.
(c) The taking by serious injury or death of any of the species
listed in Table 11 or any taking of any other species of marine mammal
is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension, or
revocation of this IHA. Any taking exceeding the authorized amounts
listed in Table 11 is prohibited and may result in the modification,
suspension, or revocation of this IHA.
(d) TGS 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. TGS shall instruct
relevant vessel personnel with regard to the authority of the protected
species monitoring team, and shall ensure that relevant vessel
personnel and protected species monitoring team participate in a joint
onboard briefing led by the vessel operator and lead PSO to ensure that
responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring
protocol, operational procedures, and IHA requirements are clearly
understood. This briefing must be repeated when relevant new personnel
join the survey operations.
(e) During use of the acoustic source, if the source vessel
encounters any marine mammal species that are not listed in Table 11,
then the acoustic source must be shut down to avoid unauthorized take.
4. Mitigation Requirements
The holder of this Authorization is required to implement the
following mitigation measures:
(a) TGS must use independent, dedicated, trained PSOs, meaning that
the PSOs must be employed by a third-party observer provider, may 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 (including brief alerts regarding maritime hazards), and
must have successfully completed an approved PSO training course. NMFS
must review and approve PSO resumes accompanied by a relevant training
course information packet that includes the name and qualifications
(i.e., experience, training completed, or educational background) of
the instructor(s), the course outline or syllabus, and course reference
material as well as a document stating successful completion of the
course.
(b) At least two PSOs must have a minimum of 90 days at-sea
experience working as PSOs during a deep penetration seismic survey,
with no more than 18 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), a minimum of 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) and 30 minutes prior to and during nighttime ramp-ups
of the airgun array.
(ii) Visual monitoring must begin not less than 30 minutes prior to
ramp-up and must continue until one hour after use of the acoustic
source ceases or until 30 minutes past sunset.
(iii) Visual PSOs shall coordinate to ensure 360[deg] 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 acoustic
PSOs, 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 two consecutive
hours 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) Any observations of marine mammals by crew members aboard any
vessel associated with the survey, including chase vessels, shall be
relayed to the source vessel and to the PSO team.
(vii) During good conditions (e.g., daylight hours; Beaufort sea
state (BSS) 3 or less), visual PSOs shall conduct
[[Page 26318]]
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
(i) The source vessel 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.
(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) Acoustic PSOs may be on watch for a maximum of four
consecutive hours followed by a break of at least two hours between
watches and may conduct a maximum of 12 hours observation per 24-hour
period.
(iv) Survey activity may continue for brief periods of time when
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 BSS 4;
(B) No marine mammals (excluding small delphinoids) 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) Buffer Zone and Exclusion Zone--The PSOs shall establish and
monitor a 500-m exclusion zone and a 1,000-m buffer zone. These 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 within the buffer zone (but outside the exclusion zone) shall
be communicated to the operator to prepare for the potential shutdown
of the acoustic source. PSOs must monitor the buffer zone for a minimum
of 30 minutes prior to ramp-up (i.e., pre-clearance).
(f) 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.
Ramp-up may not be initiated if any marine mammal is within the
designated buffer zone. If a marine mammal is observed within the
buffer zone during the pre-clearance 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 30 minutes for all other species).
PSOs would monitor the buffer zone during ramp-up, and ramp-up must
cease and the source shut down upon observation of marine mammals
within or approaching the buffer zone. Ramp-up may occur at times of
poor visibility if appropriate acoustic monitoring has occurred with no
detections in the 30 minutes prior to beginning ramp-up. Acoustic
source activation may only occur at times of poor visibility where
operational planning cannot reasonably avoid such circumstances. The
operator must notify a designated PSO of the planned start of ramp-up
as agreed-upon with the lead PSO; the notification time should not be
less than 60 minutes prior to the planned ramp-up. 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. 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. Total duration should be
approximately 20 minutes. The operator must provide information to the
PSO documenting that appropriate procedures were followed. Ramp-ups
shall be scheduled so as to minimize the time spent with source
activated prior to reaching the designated run-in.
(g) Shutdown Requirements
(i) Any PSO on duty has the authority to delay the start of survey
operations or to call for shutdown of the acoustic source (visual PSOs
on duty should be in agreement on the need for delay or shutdown before
requiring such action). When shutdown is called for by a PSO, the
acoustic source must be immediately deactivated and any dispute
resolved only following deactivation. The operator must establish and
maintain clear lines of communication directly between PSOs on duty and
crew controlling the acoustic source to ensure that shutdown commands
are conveyed swiftly while allowing PSOs to maintain watch. 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. 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. 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 acoustic source must be shut down as a
precaution.
(ii) Upon completion of ramp-up, if a marine mammal appears within,
enters, or appears on a course to enter the exclusion zone, the
acoustic source must be shut down (i.e., power to the acoustic source
must be immediately turned off). If a marine mammal is detected
acoustically, the acoustic source must be shut down, unless the
acoustic PSO is confident that the animal detected is outside the
exclusion zone or that the detected species is not subject to the
shutdown requirement.
(A) This shutdown requirement is waived for dolphins of the
following genera: Steno, Tursiops, Stenella, Delphinus, Lagenodelphis,
and Lagenorhynchus. 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
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, shutdown must be implemented.
(iii) Shutdown of the acoustic source is required upon observation
of a right whale or fin whale at any distance.
(iv) Shutdown of the acoustic source is required upon observation
of a 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.
(v) Shutdown of the acoustic source is required upon observation of
a diving sperm whale at any distance centered on the forward track of
the source vessel.
(vi) Shutdown of the acoustic source is required upon observation
(visual or acoustic) of a beaked whale or Kogia spp. at any distance.
[[Page 26319]]
(vii) Shutdown of the acoustic source is required upon observation
of an aggregation (i.e., six or more animals) of marine mammals of any
species that does not appear to be traveling.
(viii) Upon implementation of shutdown, the source may be
reactivated after the animal(s) has been observed exiting the exclusion
zone or following a 30-minute clearance period with no further
observation of the animal(s). Where there is no relevant zone (e.g.,
shutdown due to observation of a right whale), a 30-minute clearance
period must be observed following the last observation of the
animal(s).
(ix) If the acoustic source is shut down for reasons other than
mitigation (e.g., mechanical difficulty) for brief periods (i.e., 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 exclusion zone
and no acoustic detections have occurred. For any longer shutdown, pre-
clearance watch and ramp-up are required. For any shutdown at night or
in periods of poor visibility (e.g., BSS 4 or greater), ramp-up is
required but if the shutdown period was brief and constant observation
maintained, pre-clearance watch is not required.
(h) Miscellaneous Protocols
(i) The acoustic source 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.
(i) Closure Areas
(i) No use of the acoustic source may occur within 30 km of the
coast.
(ii) From November 1 through April 30, no use of the acoustic
source may occur within an area bounded by the greater of three
distinct components at any location: (1) A 47-km wide coastal strip
throughout the entire Mid- and South Atlantic OCS planning areas; (2)
Unit 2 of designated critical habitat for the North Atlantic right
whale, buffered by 10 km; and (3) the designated southeastern seasonal
management area (SMA) for the North Atlantic right whale, buffered by
10 km. North Atlantic right whale dynamic management areas (DMA;
buffered by 10 km) are also closed to use of the acoustic source when
in effect. It is the responsibility of the survey operators to monitor
appropriate media and to be aware of designated DMAs.
(iii) No use of the acoustic source may occur within the areas
designated by coordinates in Table 3 during applicable time periods.
Area #1 is in effect from June 1 through August 31. Areas #2-4 are in
effect year-round. Area #5 is in effect from July 1 through September
30.
(j) Vessel Strike Avoidance
(i) Vessel operators and crews must maintain a vigilant watch for
all marine mammals and slow down or stop their vessel or alter course,
as appropriate and regardless of vessel size, to avoid striking any
marine mammal. 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 and broadly
to identify a marine mammal as a right whale, other whale, or other
marine mammal (i.e., non-whale cetacean or pinniped). In this context,
``other whales'' includes sperm whales and all baleen whales other than
right whales.
(ii) All vessels, regardless of size, must observe the 10 kn speed
restriction in DMAs, the Mid-Atlantic SMA (from November 1 through
April 30), and critical habitat and the Southeast SMA (from November 15
through April 15).
(iii) Vessel speeds must also be reduced to 10 kn or less when
mother/calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages of cetaceans are observed
near a vessel.
(iv) All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 500
m from right whales. If a whale is observed but cannot be confirmed as
a species other than a right whale, the vessel operator must assume
that it is a right whale and take appropriate action. The following
avoidance measures must be taken if a right whale is within 500 m of
any vessel:
(A) While underway, the vessel operator must steer a course away
from the whale at 10 kn or less until the minimum separation distance
has been established.
(B) If a whale is spotted in the path of a vessel or within 100 m
of a vessel underway, the operator shall reduce speed and shift engines
to neutral. The operator shall re-engage engines only after the whale
has moved out of the path of the vessel and is more than 100 m away. If
the whale is still within 500 m of the vessel, the vessel must select a
course away from the whale's course at a speed of 10 kn or less. This
procedure must also be followed if a whale is spotted while a vessel is
stationary. Whenever possible, a vessel should remain parallel to the
whale's course while maintaining the 500-m distance as it travels,
avoiding abrupt changes in direction until the whale is no longer in
the area.
(v) All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 100
m from other whales. The following avoidance measures must be taken if
a whale other than a right whale is within 100 m of any vessel:
(A) The vessel underway 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 a 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.
(vi) All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 50
m from all other marine mammals, with an exception made for those
animals that approach the vessel. If an animal is encountered during
transit, a vessel shall attempt to remain parallel to the animal's
course, avoiding excessive speed or abrupt changes in course.
(k) All vessels associated with survey activity (e.g., source
vessels, chase vessels, supply vessels) must have a functioning
Automatic Identification System (AIS) onboard and operating at all
times, regardless of whether AIS would otherwise be required. Vessel
names and call signs must be provided to NMFS, and applicants must
notify NMFS when survey vessels are operating.
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
[[Page 26320]]
the deck at the most appropriate vantage point that provides for
optimal sea surface observation, PSO safety, and safe operation of the
vessel. The operator must also provide a night-vision 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 successfully complete relevant training, including
completion of all required coursework and passing (80 percent or
greater) a written and/or oral examination developed for the training
program.
(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. We
require that, at a minimum, the following information be reported:
(i) Vessel names (source vessel and other vessels associated with
survey) and call signs
(ii) PSO names and affiliations
(iii) Dates of departures and returns to port with port name
(iv) Dates and times (Greenwich Mean Time) of survey effort and
times corresponding with PSO effort
(v) Vessel location (latitude/longitude) when survey effort begins
and ends; vessel location at beginning and end of visual PSO duty
shifts
(vi) Vessel heading and speed at beginning and end of visual PSO
duty shifts and upon any line change
(vii) 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
(viii) 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)
(ix) 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.)
(x) 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
(xi) 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) TGS shall submit monthly interim reports detailing the amount
and location of line-kms surveyed, all marine mammal observations with
closest approach distance, and corrected numbers of marine mammals
``taken,'' using correction factors given in Table 19.
(b) TGS 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
[[Page 26321]]
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
as an ESRI shapefile with all necessary files and appropriate metadata.
In addition to the report, all raw observational data shall be made
available to NMFS. The report must summarize the information submitted
in interim monthly reports as well as additional data collected as
required under condition 5(d) of this IHA. The draft report must be
accompanied by a certification from the lead PSO as to the accuracy of
the report, and the lead PSO may submit directly 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 on the draft report.
(c) 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 prohibited by this IHA (if
issued), such as serious injury or mortality, TGS shall immediately
cease the specified activities and immediately report the incident to
NMFS. The report must include the following information:
(A) Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
(B) Name and type of vessel involved;
(C) Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
(D) Description of the incident;
(E) Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the
incident;
(F) Water depth;
(G) Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction,
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
(H) Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours
preceding the incident;
(I) Species identification or description of the animal(s)
involved;
(J) Fate of the animal(s); and
(K) 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 TGS to
determine what measures are necessary to minimize the likelihood of
further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. TGS may not resume
their activities until notified by NMFS.
(ii) In the event that TGS 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), TGS shall immediately report
the incident to NMFS. The report must include the same information
identified in condition 6(c)(1) of this IHA. Activities may continue
while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work
with TGS to determine whether additional mitigation measures or
modifications to the activities are appropriate.
(iii) In the event that TGS 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), TGS shall report the incident to
NMFS within 24 hours of the discovery. TGS shall provide photographs or
video footage or other documentation of the stranded animal 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.
ION
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 ION's IHA application and using an array with
characteristics specified in the application, in the Atlantic Ocean
within BOEM's Mid- and South Atlantic OCS planning areas.
3. General Conditions
(a) A copy of this IHA must be in the possession of ION, the vessel
operator and other relevant personnel, the lead protected species
observer (PSO), and any other relevant designees of ION operating under
the authority of this IHA.
(b) The species authorized for taking are listed in Table 11. The
taking, by Level A and Level B harassment only, is limited to the
species and numbers listed in Table 11.
(c) The taking by serious injury or death of any of the species
listed in Table 11 or any taking of any other species of marine mammal
is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension, or
revocation of this IHA. Any taking exceeding the authorized amounts
listed in Table 11 is prohibited and may result in the modification,
suspension, or revocation of this IHA.
(d) ION 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. ION shall instruct
relevant vessel personnel with regard to the authority of the protected
species monitoring team, and shall ensure that relevant vessel
personnel and protected species monitoring team participate in a joint
onboard briefing led by the vessel operator and lead PSO to ensure that
responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring
protocol, operational procedures, and IHA requirements are clearly
understood. This briefing must be repeated when relevant new personnel
join the survey operations.
(e) During use of the acoustic source, if the source vessel
encounters any marine mammal species that are not listed in Table 11,
then the acoustic source must be shut down to avoid unauthorized take.
4. Mitigation Requirements
The holder of this Authorization is required to implement the
following mitigation measures:
(a) ION must use independent, dedicated, trained PSOs, meaning that
the PSOs must be employed by a third-party observer provider, may 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 (including brief alerts regarding maritime hazards), and
must have successfully completed an approved PSO training course. NMFS
must review and approve PSO resumes accompanied by a relevant training
course information packet that includes the name and qualifications
(i.e., experience, training completed, or educational background) of
the instructor(s), the course outline or syllabus, and course reference
material as well as a document stating successful completion of the
course.
(b) At least two PSOs must have a minimum of 90 days at-sea
experience working as PSOs during a deep penetration seismic survey,
with no more than 18 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
[[Page 26322]]
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), a minimum of 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) and 30 minutes prior to and during nighttime ramp-ups
of the airgun array.
(ii) Visual monitoring must begin not less than 30 minutes prior to
ramp-up and must continue until one hour after use of the acoustic
source ceases or until 30 minutes past sunset.
(iii) Visual PSOs shall coordinate to ensure 360[deg] 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 acoustic
PSOs, 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 two consecutive
hours 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) Any observations of marine mammals by crew members aboard any
vessel associated with the survey, including chase vessels, shall be
relayed to the source vessel and to the PSO team.
(vii) During good conditions (e.g., daylight hours; Beaufort sea
state (BSS) 3 or less), visual PSOs shall conduct observations when the
acoustic source is not operating for comparison of sighting rates and
behavior with and without use of the acoustic source and between
acquisition periods, to the maximum extent practicable.
(d) Acoustic Observation
(i) The source vessel 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.
(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) Acoustic PSOs may be on watch for a maximum of four
consecutive hours followed by a break of at least two hours between
watches and may conduct a maximum of 12 hours observation per 24-hour
period.
(iv) Survey activity may continue for brief periods of time when
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 BSS 4;
(B) No marine mammals (excluding small delphinoids) 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) Buffer Zone and Exclusion Zone--The PSOs shall establish and
monitor a 500-m exclusion zone and a 1,000-m buffer zone. These 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 within the buffer zone (but outside the exclusion zone) shall
be communicated to the operator to prepare for the potential shutdown
of the acoustic source. PSOs must monitor the buffer zone for a minimum
of 30 minutes prior to ramp-up (i.e., pre-clearance).
(f) 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.
Ramp-up may not be initiated if any marine mammal is within the
designated buffer zone. If a marine mammal is observed within the
buffer zone during the pre-clearance 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 30 minutes for all other species).
PSOs would monitor the buffer zone during ramp-up, and ramp-up must
cease and the source shut down upon observation of marine mammals
within or approaching the buffer zone. Ramp-up may occur at times of
poor visibility if appropriate acoustic monitoring has occurred with no
detections in the 30 minutes prior to beginning ramp-up. Acoustic
source activation may only occur at times of poor visibility where
operational planning cannot reasonably avoid such circumstances. The
operator must notify a designated PSO of the planned start of ramp-up
as agreed-upon with the lead PSO; the notification time should not be
less than 60 minutes prior to the planned ramp-up. 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. 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. Total duration should be
approximately 20 minutes. The operator must provide information to the
PSO documenting that appropriate procedures were followed. Ramp-ups
shall be scheduled so as to minimize the time spent with source
activated prior to reaching the designated run-in.
(g) Shutdown Requirements
(i) Any PSO on duty has the authority to delay the start of survey
operations or to call for shutdown of the acoustic source (visual PSOs
on duty should be in agreement on the need for delay or shutdown before
requiring such action). When shutdown is called for by a PSO, the
acoustic source must be immediately deactivated and any dispute
resolved only following deactivation. The operator must establish and
maintain clear lines of communication directly between PSOs on duty and
crew controlling the acoustic source to ensure that shutdown commands
are conveyed swiftly while allowing PSOs to maintain watch. 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
[[Page 26323]]
initiation of dialogue as necessary. 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. 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 acoustic source must be shut
down as a precaution.
(ii) Upon completion of ramp-up, if a marine mammal appears within,
enters, or appears on a course to enter the exclusion zone, the
acoustic source must be shut down (i.e., power to the acoustic source
must be immediately turned off). If a marine mammal is detected
acoustically, the acoustic source must be shut down, unless the
acoustic PSO is confident that the animal detected is outside the
exclusion zone or that the detected species is not subject to the
shutdown requirement.
(A) This shutdown requirement is waived for dolphins of the
following genera: Steno, Tursiops, Stenella, Delphinus, Lagenodelphis,
and Lagenorhynchus. 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
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, shutdown must be implemented.
(iii) Shutdown of the acoustic source is required upon observation
of a right whale at any distance.
(iv) Shutdown of the acoustic source is required upon observation
of a 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.
(v) Shutdown of the acoustic source is required upon observation of
a diving sperm whale at any distance centered on the forward track of
the source vessel.
(vi) Shutdown of the acoustic source is required upon observation
(visual or acoustic) of a beaked whale or Kogia spp. at any distance.
(vii) Shutdown of the acoustic source is required upon observation
of an aggregation (i.e., six or more animals) of marine mammals of any
species that does not appear to be traveling.
(viii) Upon implementation of shutdown, the source may be
reactivated after the animal(s) has been observed exiting the exclusion
zone or following a 30-minute clearance period with no further
observation of the animal(s). Where there is no relevant zone (e.g.,
shutdown due to observation of a right whale), a 30-minute clearance
period must be observed following the last observation of the
animal(s).
(ix) If the acoustic source is shut down for reasons other than
mitigation (e.g., mechanical difficulty) for brief periods (i.e., 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 exclusion zone
and no acoustic detections have occurred. For any longer shutdown, pre-
clearance watch and ramp-up are required. For any shutdown at night or
in periods of poor visibility (e.g., BSS 4 or greater), ramp-up is
required but if the shutdown period was brief and constant observation
maintained, pre-clearance watch is not required.
(h) Miscellaneous Protocols
(i) The acoustic source 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.
(i) Closure Areas
(i) No use of the acoustic source may occur within 30 km of the
coast.
(ii) From November 1 through April 30, no use of the acoustic
source may occur within an area bounded by the greater of three
distinct components at any location: (1) A 47-km wide coastal strip
throughout the entire Mid- and South Atlantic OCS planning areas; (2)
Unit 2 of designated critical habitat for the North Atlantic right
whale, buffered by 10 km; and (3) the designated southeastern seasonal
management area (SMA) for the North Atlantic right whale, buffered by
10 km. North Atlantic right whale dynamic management areas (DMA;
buffered by 10 km) are also closed to use of the acoustic source when
in effect. It is the responsibility of the survey operators to monitor
appropriate media and to be aware of designated DMAs.
(iii) No use of the acoustic source may occur within Areas #2-5, as
designated by coordinates in Table 3 during applicable time periods.
Areas #2-4 are in effect year-round. Area #5 is in effect from July 1
through September 30.
(j) Vessel Strike Avoidance
(i) Vessel operators and crews must maintain a vigilant watch for
all marine mammals and slow down or stop their vessel or alter course,
as appropriate and regardless of vessel size, to avoid striking any
marine mammal. 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 and broadly
to identify a marine mammal as a right whale, other whale, or other
marine mammal (i.e., non-whale cetacean or pinniped). In this context,
``other whales'' includes sperm whales and all baleen whales other than
right whales.
(ii) All vessels, regardless of size, must observe the 10 kn speed
restriction in DMAs, the Mid-Atlantic SMA (from November 1 through
April 30), and critical habitat and the Southeast SMA (from November 15
through April 15).
(iii) Vessel speeds must also be reduced to 10 kn or less when
mother/calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages of cetaceans are observed
near a vessel.
(iv) All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 500
m from right whales. If a whale is observed but cannot be confirmed as
a species other than a right whale, the vessel operator must assume
that it is a right whale and take appropriate action. The following
avoidance measures must be taken if a right whale is within 500 m of
any vessel:
(A) While underway, the vessel operator must steer a course away
from the whale at 10 kn or less until the minimum separation distance
has been established.
(B) If a whale is spotted in the path of a vessel or within 100 m
of a vessel underway, the operator shall reduce speed and shift engines
to neutral. The operator shall re-engage engines only after the whale
has moved out of the path of the vessel and is more than 100 m away. If
the whale is still within 500 m of the vessel, the vessel must select a
course away from the whale's course at a speed of 10 kn or less. This
procedure must also be followed if a
[[Page 26324]]
whale is spotted while a vessel is stationary. Whenever possible, a
vessel should remain parallel to the whale's course while maintaining
the 500-m distance as it travels, avoiding abrupt changes in direction
until the whale is no longer in the area.
(v) All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 100
m from other whales. The following avoidance measures must be taken if
a whale other than a right whale is within 100 m of any vessel:
(A) The vessel underway 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 a 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.
(vi) All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 50
m from all other marine mammals, with an exception made for those
animals that approach the vessel. If an animal is encountered during
transit, a vessel shall attempt to remain parallel to the animal's
course, avoiding excessive speed or abrupt changes in course.
(k) All vessels associated with survey activity (e.g., source
vessels, chase vessels, supply vessels) must have a functioning
Automatic Identification System (AIS) onboard and operating at all
times, regardless of whether AIS would otherwise be required. Vessel
names and call signs must be provided to NMFS, and applicants must
notify NMFS when survey vessels are operating.
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 operator must also provide a night-vision
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 successfully complete relevant training, including
completion of all required coursework and passing (80 percent or
greater) a written and/or oral examination developed for the training
program.
(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. We
require that, at a minimum, the following information be reported:
(i) Vessel names (source vessel and other vessels associated with
survey) and call signs
(ii) PSO names and affiliations
(iii) Dates of departures and returns to port with port name
(iv) Dates and times (Greenwich Mean Time) of survey effort and
times corresponding with PSO effort
(v) Vessel location (latitude/longitude) when survey effort begins
and ends; vessel location at beginning and end of visual PSO duty
shifts
(vi) Vessel heading and speed at beginning and end of visual PSO
duty shifts and upon any line change
(vii) 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
(viii) 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)
(ix) 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.)
(x) 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
[[Page 26325]]
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
(xi) 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) ION 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 as an ESRI shapefile with all
necessary files and appropriate metadata. In addition to the report,
all raw observational data shall be made available to NMFS. The report
must summarize data collected as required under condition 5(d) of this
IHA and must provide corrected numbers of marine mammals ``taken,''
using correction factors given in Table 19. 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 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 prohibited by this IHA (if
issued), such as serious injury or mortality, ION shall immediately
cease the specified activities and immediately report the incident to
NMFS. The report must include the following information:
(A) Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
(B) Name and type of vessel involved;
(C) Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
(D) Description of the incident;
(E) Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the
incident;
(F) Water depth;
(G) Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction,
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
(H) Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours
preceding the incident;
(I) Species identification or description of the animal(s)
involved;
(J) Fate of the animal(s); and
(K) 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 ION to
determine what measures are necessary to minimize the likelihood of
further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. ION may not resume
their activities until notified by NMFS.
(ii) In the event that ION 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), ION shall immediately report
the incident to NMFS. The report must include the same information
identified in condition 6(b)(1) of this IHA. Activities may continue
while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work
with ION to determine whether additional mitigation measures or
modifications to the activities are appropriate.
(iii) In the event that ION 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), ION shall report the incident to
NMFS within 24 hours of the discovery. ION shall provide photographs or
video footage or other documentation of the stranded animal 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.
Western
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 Western's IHA application and using an array with
characteristics specified in the application, in the Atlantic Ocean
within BOEM's Mid- and South Atlantic OCS planning areas.
3. General Conditions
(a) A copy of this IHA must be in the possession of Western, the
vessel operator and other relevant personnel, the lead protected
species observer (PSO), and any other relevant designees of Western
operating under the authority of this IHA.
(b) The species authorized for taking are listed in Table 11. The
taking, by Level A and Level B harassment only, is limited to the
species and numbers listed in Table 11.
(c) The taking by serious injury or death of any of the species
listed in Table 11 or any taking of any other species of marine mammal
is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension, or
revocation of this IHA. Any taking exceeding the authorized amounts
listed in Table 11 is prohibited and may result in the modification,
suspension, or revocation of this IHA.
(d) Western 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. Western shall instruct relevant vessel personnel with
regard to the authority of the protected species monitoring team, and
shall ensure that relevant vessel personnel and protected species
monitoring team participate in a joint onboard briefing led by the
vessel operator and lead PSO to ensure that responsibilities,
communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring
[[Page 26326]]
protocol, operational procedures, and IHA requirements are clearly
understood. This briefing must be repeated when relevant new personnel
join the survey operations.
(e) During use of the acoustic source, if the source vessel
encounters any marine mammal species that are not listed in Table 11,
then the acoustic source must be shut down to avoid unauthorized take.
4. Mitigation Requirements
The holder of this Authorization is required to implement the
following mitigation measures:
(a) Western must use independent, dedicated, trained PSOs, meaning
that the PSOs must be employed by a third-party observer provider, may
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 (including brief alerts regarding maritime hazards), and
must have successfully completed an approved PSO training course. NMFS
must review and approve PSO resumes accompanied by a relevant training
course information packet that includes the name and qualifications
(i.e., experience, training completed, or educational background) of
the instructor(s), the course outline or syllabus, and course reference
material as well as a document stating successful completion of the
course.
(b) At least two PSOs must have a minimum of 90 days at-sea
experience working as PSOs during a deep penetration seismic survey,
with no more than 18 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), a minimum of 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) and 30 minutes prior to and during nighttime ramp-ups
of the airgun array.
(ii) Visual monitoring must begin not less than 30 minutes prior to
ramp-up and must continue until one hour after use of the acoustic
source ceases or until 30 minutes past sunset.
(iii) Visual PSOs shall coordinate to ensure 360[deg] 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 acoustic
PSOs, 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 two consecutive
hours 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) Any observations of marine mammals by crew members aboard any
vessel associated with the survey, including chase vessels, shall be
relayed to the source vessel and to the PSO team.
(vii) During good conditions (e.g., daylight hours; Beaufort sea
state (BSS) 3 or less), visual PSOs shall conduct observations when the
acoustic source is not operating for comparison of sighting rates and
behavior with and without use of the acoustic source and between
acquisition periods, to the maximum extent practicable.
(d) Acoustic Observation
(i) The source vessel 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.
(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) Acoustic PSOs may be on watch for a maximum of four
consecutive hours followed by a break of at least two hours between
watches and may conduct a maximum of 12 hours observation per 24-hour
period.
(iv) Survey activity may continue for brief periods of time when
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 BSS 4;
(B) No marine mammals (excluding small delphinoids) 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) Buffer Zone and Exclusion Zone--The PSOs shall establish and
monitor a 500-m exclusion zone and a 1,000-m buffer zone. These 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 within the buffer zone (but outside the exclusion zone) shall
be communicated to the operator to prepare for the potential shutdown
of the acoustic source. PSOs must monitor the buffer zone for a minimum
of 30 minutes prior to ramp-up (i.e., pre-clearance).
(f) 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.
Ramp-up may not be initiated if any marine mammal is within the
designated buffer zone. If a marine mammal is observed within the
buffer zone during the pre-clearance 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 30 minutes for all other species).
PSOs would monitor the buffer zone during ramp-up, and ramp-up must
cease and the source shut down upon observation of marine mammals
within or approaching the buffer zone. Ramp-up may occur at times of
poor visibility if appropriate acoustic monitoring has occurred with no
detections in the 30 minutes prior to beginning ramp-up. Acoustic
source activation may only occur at times of poor visibility where
operational
[[Page 26327]]
planning cannot reasonably avoid such circumstances. The operator must
notify a designated PSO of the planned start of ramp-up as agreed-upon
with the lead PSO; the notification time should not be less than 60
minutes prior to the planned ramp-up. 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. 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. Total duration should be approximately
20 minutes. The operator must provide information to the PSO
documenting that appropriate procedures were followed. Ramp-ups shall
be scheduled so as to minimize the time spent with source activated
prior to reaching the designated run-in.
(g) Shutdown Requirements
(i) Any PSO on duty has the authority to delay the start of survey
operations or to call for shutdown of the acoustic source (visual PSOs
on duty should be in agreement on the need for delay or shutdown before
requiring such action). When shutdown is called for by a PSO, the
acoustic source must be immediately deactivated and any dispute
resolved only following deactivation. The operator must establish and
maintain clear lines of communication directly between PSOs on duty and
crew controlling the acoustic source to ensure that shutdown commands
are conveyed swiftly while allowing PSOs to maintain watch. 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. 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. 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 acoustic source must be shut down as a
precaution.
(ii) Upon completion of ramp-up, if a marine mammal appears within,
enters, or appears on a course to enter the exclusion zone, the
acoustic source must be shut down (i.e., power to the acoustic source
must be immediately turned off). If a marine mammal is detected
acoustically, the acoustic source must be shut down, unless the
acoustic PSO is confident that the animal detected is outside the
exclusion zone or that the detected species is not subject to the
shutdown requirement.
(A) This shutdown requirement is waived for dolphins of the
following genera: Steno, Tursiops, Stenella, Delphinus, Lagenodelphis,
and Lagenorhynchus. 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
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, shutdown must be implemented.
(iii) Shutdown of the acoustic source is required upon observation
of a right whale at any distance.
(iv) Shutdown of the acoustic source is required upon observation
of a 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.
(v) Shutdown of the acoustic source is required upon observation of
a diving sperm whale at any distance centered on the forward track of
the source vessel.
(vi) Shutdown of the acoustic source is required upon observation
(visual or acoustic) of a beaked whale or Kogia spp. at any distance.
(vii) Shutdown of the acoustic source is required upon observation
of an aggregation (i.e., six or more animals) of marine mammals of any
species that does not appear to be traveling.
(viii) Upon implementation of shutdown, the source may be
reactivated after the animal(s) has been observed exiting the exclusion
zone or following a 30-minute clearance period with no further
observation of the animal(s). Where there is no relevant zone (e.g.,
shutdown due to observation of a right whale), a 30-minute clearance
period must be observed following the last observation of the
animal(s).
(ix) If the acoustic source is shut down for reasons other than
mitigation (e.g., mechanical difficulty) for brief periods (i.e., 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 exclusion zone
and no acoustic detections have occurred. For any longer shutdown, pre-
clearance watch and ramp-up are required. For any shutdown at night or
in periods of poor visibility (e.g., BSS 4 or greater), ramp-up is
required but if the shutdown period was brief and constant observation
maintained, pre-clearance watch is not required.
(h) Miscellaneous Protocols
(i) The acoustic source 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.
(i) Closure Areas
(i) No use of the acoustic source may occur within 30 km of the
coast.
(ii) From November 1 through April 30, no use of the acoustic
source may occur within an area bounded by the greater of three
distinct components at any location: (1) A 47-km wide coastal strip
throughout the entire Mid- and South Atlantic OCS planning areas; (2)
Unit 2 of designated critical habitat for the North Atlantic right
whale, buffered by 10 km; and (3) the designated southeastern seasonal
management area (SMA) for the North Atlantic right whale, buffered by
10 km. North Atlantic right whale dynamic management areas (DMA;
buffered by 10 km) are also closed to use of the acoustic source when
in effect. It is the responsibility of the survey operators to monitor
appropriate media and to be aware of designated DMAs.
(iii) No use of the acoustic source may occur within the areas
designated by coordinates in Table 3 during applicable time periods.
Area #1 is in effect from June 1 through August 31. Areas #2-4 are in
effect year-round. Area #5 is in effect from July 1 through September
30.
(j) Vessel Strike Avoidance
(i) Vessel operators and crews must maintain a vigilant watch for
all marine mammals and slow down or stop their vessel or alter course,
as appropriate and regardless of vessel size, to avoid striking any
marine mammal. A visual observer aboard the vessel must monitor a
vessel strike avoidance zone around the vessel according to the
parameters
[[Page 26328]]
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 and broadly
to identify a marine mammal as a right whale, other whale, or other
marine mammal (i.e., non-whale cetacean or pinniped). In this context,
``other whales'' includes sperm whales and all baleen whales other than
right whales.
(ii) All vessels, regardless of size, must observe the 10 kn speed
restriction in DMAs, the Mid-Atlantic SMA (from November 1 through
April 30), and critical habitat and the Southeast SMA (from November 15
through April 15).
(iii) Vessel speeds must also be reduced to 10 kn or less when
mother/calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages of cetaceans are observed
near a vessel.
(iv) All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 500
m from right whales. If a whale is observed but cannot be confirmed as
a species other than a right whale, the vessel operator must assume
that it is a right whale and take appropriate action. The following
avoidance measures must be taken if a right whale is within 500 m of
any vessel:
(A) While underway, the vessel operator must steer a course away
from the whale at 10 kn or less until the minimum separation distance
has been established.
(B) If a whale is spotted in the path of a vessel or within 100 m
of a vessel underway, the operator shall reduce speed and shift engines
to neutral. The operator shall re-engage engines only after the whale
has moved out of the path of the vessel and is more than 100 m away. If
the whale is still within 500 m of the vessel, the vessel must select a
course away from the whale's course at a speed of 10 kn or less. This
procedure must also be followed if a whale is spotted while a vessel is
stationary. Whenever possible, a vessel should remain parallel to the
whale's course while maintaining the 500-m distance as it travels,
avoiding abrupt changes in direction until the whale is no longer in
the area.
(v) All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 100
m from other whales. The following avoidance measures must be taken if
a whale other than a right whale is within 100 m of any vessel:
(A) The vessel underway 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 a 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.
(vi) All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 50
m from all other marine mammals, with an exception made for those
animals that approach the vessel. If an animal is encountered during
transit, a vessel shall attempt to remain parallel to the animal's
course, avoiding excessive speed or abrupt changes in course.
(k) All vessels associated with survey activity (e.g., source
vessels, chase vessels, supply vessels) must have a functioning
Automatic Identification System (AIS) onboard and operating at all
times, regardless of whether AIS would otherwise be required. Vessel
names and call signs must be provided to NMFS, and applicants must
notify NMFS when survey vessels are operating.
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 operator must also provide a night-vision
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 successfully complete relevant training, including
completion of all required coursework and passing (80 percent or
greater) a written and/or oral examination developed for the training
program.
(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. We
require that, at a minimum, the following information be reported:
(i) Vessel names (source vessel and other vessels associated with
survey) and call signs
(ii) PSO names and affiliations
(iii) Dates of departures and returns to port with port name
(iv) Dates and times (Greenwich Mean Time) of survey effort and
times corresponding with PSO effort
(v) Vessel location (latitude/longitude) when survey effort begins
and ends; vessel location at beginning and end of visual PSO duty
shifts
(vi) Vessel heading and speed at beginning and end of visual PSO
duty shifts and upon any line change
(vii) 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
[[Page 26329]]
(viii) 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)
(ix) 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.)
(x) 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
(xi) 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) Western shall submit monthly interim reports detailing the
amount and location of line-kms surveyed, all marine mammal
observations with closest approach distance, and corrected numbers of
marine mammals ``taken,'' using correction factors given in Table 19.
(b) Western 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 as an ESRI shapefile with all
necessary files and appropriate metadata. In addition to the report,
all raw observational data shall be made available to NMFS. The report
must summarize the information submitted in interim monthly reports as
well as additional data collected as required under condition 5(d) of
this IHA. The draft report must be accompanied by a certification from
the lead PSO as to the accuracy of the report, and the lead PSO may
submit directly 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
on the draft report.
(c) 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 prohibited by this IHA (if
issued), such as serious injury or mortality, Western shall immediately
cease the specified activities and immediately report the incident to
NMFS. The report must include the following information:
(A) Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
(B) Name and type of vessel involved;
(C) Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
(D) Description of the incident;
(E) Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the
incident;
(F) Water depth;
(G) Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction,
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
(H) Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours
preceding the incident;
(I) Species identification or description of the animal(s)
involved;
(J) Fate of the animal(s); and
(K) 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 Western to
determine what measures are necessary to minimize the likelihood of
further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. Western may not
resume their activities until notified by NMFS.
(ii) In the event that Western 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), Western shall immediately
report the incident to NMFS. The report must include the same
information identified in condition 6(c)(1) of this IHA. Activities may
continue while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS
will work with Western to determine whether additional mitigation
measures or modifications to the activities are appropriate.
(iii) In the event that Western 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), Western shall report the incident
to NMFS within 24 hours of the discovery. Western shall provide
photographs or video footage or other documentation of the stranded
animal 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
[[Page 26330]]
NMFS determines the authorized taking is having more than a negligible
impact on the species or stock of affected marine mammals.
CGG
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 CGG's IHA application and using an array with
characteristics specified in the application, in the Atlantic Ocean
within BOEM's Mid- and South Atlantic OCS planning areas.
3. General Conditions
(a) A copy of this IHA must be in the possession of CGG, the vessel
operator and other relevant personnel, the lead protected species
observer (PSO), and any other relevant designees of CGG operating under
the authority of this IHA.
(b) The species authorized for taking are listed in Table 11. The
taking, by Level A and Level B harassment only, is limited to the
species and numbers listed in Table 11.
(c) The taking by serious injury or death of any of the species
listed in Table 11 or any taking of any other species of marine mammal
is prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension, or
revocation of this IHA. Any taking exceeding the authorized amounts
listed in Table 11 is prohibited and may result in the modification,
suspension, or revocation of this IHA.
(d) CGG 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. CGG shall instruct
relevant vessel personnel with regard to the authority of the protected
species monitoring team, and shall ensure that relevant vessel
personnel and protected species monitoring team participate in a joint
onboard briefing led by the vessel operator and lead PSO to ensure that
responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring
protocol, operational procedures, and IHA requirements are clearly
understood. This briefing must be repeated when relevant new personnel
join the survey operations.
(e) During use of the acoustic source, if the source vessel
encounters any marine mammal species that are not listed in Table 11,
then the acoustic source must be shut down to avoid unauthorized take.
4. Mitigation Requirements
The holder of this Authorization is required to implement the
following mitigation measures:
(a) CGG must use independent, dedicated, trained PSOs, meaning that
the PSOs must be employed by a third-party observer provider, may 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 (including brief alerts regarding maritime hazards), and
must have successfully completed an approved PSO training course. NMFS
must review and approve PSO resumes accompanied by a relevant training
course information packet that includes the name and qualifications
(i.e., experience, training completed, or educational background) of
the instructor(s), the course outline or syllabus, and course reference
material as well as a document stating successful completion of the
course.
(b) At least two PSOs must have a minimum of 90 days at-sea
experience working as PSOs during a deep penetration 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), a minimum of 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) and 30 minutes prior to and during nighttime ramp-ups
of the airgun array.
(ii) Visual monitoring must begin not less than 30 minutes prior to
ramp-up and must continue until one hour after use of the acoustic
source ceases or until 30 minutes past sunset.
(iii) Visual PSOs shall coordinate to ensure 360[deg] 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 acoustic
PSOs, 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 two consecutive
hours 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) Any observations of marine mammals by crew members aboard any
vessel associated with the survey, including chase vessels, shall be
relayed to the source vessel and to the PSO team.
(vii) During good conditions (e.g., daylight hours; Beaufort sea
state (BSS) 3 or less), visual PSOs shall conduct observations when the
acoustic source is not operating for comparison of sighting rates and
behavior with and without use of the acoustic source and between
acquisition periods, to the maximum extent practicable.
(d) Acoustic Observation
(i) The source vessel 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.
(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) Acoustic PSOs may be on watch for a maximum of four
consecutive hours followed by a break of at least two hours between
watches and may conduct a maximum of 12 hours observation per 24-hour
period.
(iv) Survey activity may continue for brief periods of time when
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 BSS 4;
[[Page 26331]]
(B) No marine mammals (excluding small delphinoids) 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) Buffer Zone and Exclusion Zone--The PSOs shall establish and
monitor a 500-m exclusion zone and a 1,000-m buffer zone. These 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 within the buffer zone (but outside the exclusion zone) shall
be communicated to the operator to prepare for the potential shutdown
of the acoustic source. PSOs must monitor the buffer zone for a minimum
of 30 minutes prior to ramp-up (i.e., pre-clearance).
(f) 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.
Ramp-up may not be initiated if any marine mammal is within the
designated buffer zone. If a marine mammal is observed within the
buffer zone during the pre-clearance 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 30 minutes for all other species).
PSOs would monitor the buffer zone during ramp-up, and ramp-up must
cease and the source shut down upon observation of marine mammals
within or approaching the buffer zone. Ramp-up may occur at times of
poor visibility if appropriate acoustic monitoring has occurred with no
detections in the 30 minutes prior to beginning ramp-up. Acoustic
source activation may only occur at times of poor visibility where
operational planning cannot reasonably avoid such circumstances. The
operator must notify a designated PSO of the planned start of ramp-up
as agreed-upon with the lead PSO; the notification time should not be
less than 60 minutes prior to the planned ramp-up. 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. 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. Total duration should be
approximately 20 minutes. The operator must provide information to the
PSO documenting that appropriate procedures were followed. Ramp-ups
shall be scheduled so as to minimize the time spent with source
activated prior to reaching the designated run-in.
(g) Shutdown Requirements
(i) Any PSO on duty has the authority to delay the start of survey
operations or to call for shutdown of the acoustic source (visual PSOs
on duty should be in agreement on the need for delay or shutdown before
requiring such action). When shutdown is called for by a PSO, the
acoustic source must be immediately deactivated and any dispute
resolved only following deactivation. The operator must establish and
maintain clear lines of communication directly between PSOs on duty and
crew controlling the acoustic source to ensure that shutdown commands
are conveyed swiftly while allowing PSOs to maintain watch. 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. 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. 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 acoustic source must be shut down as a
precaution.
(ii) Upon completion of ramp-up, if a marine mammal appears within,
enters, or appears on a course to enter the exclusion zone, the
acoustic source must be shut down (i.e., power to the acoustic source
must be immediately turned off). If a marine mammal is detected
acoustically, the acoustic source must be shut down, unless the
acoustic PSO is confident that the animal detected is outside the
exclusion zone or that the detected species is not subject to the
shutdown requirement.
(A) This shutdown requirement is waived for dolphins of the
following genera: Steno, Tursiops, Stenella, Delphinus, Lagenodelphis,
and Lagenorhynchus. 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
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, shutdown must be implemented.
(iii) Shutdown of the acoustic source is required upon observation
of a right whale at any distance.
(iv) Shutdown of the acoustic source is required upon observation
of a 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.
(v) Shutdown of the acoustic source is required upon observation of
a diving sperm whale at any distance centered on the forward track of
the source vessel.
(vi) Shutdown of the acoustic source is required upon observation
(visual or acoustic) of a beaked whale or Kogia spp. at any distance.
(vii) Shutdown of the acoustic source is required upon observation
of an aggregation (i.e., six or more animals) of marine mammals of any
species that does not appear to be traveling.
(viii) Upon implementation of shutdown, the source may be
reactivated after the animal(s) has been observed exiting the exclusion
zone or following a 30-minute clearance period with no further
observation of the animal(s). Where there is no relevant zone (e.g.,
shutdown due to observation of a right whale), a 30-minute clearance
period must be observed following the last observation of the
animal(s).
(ix) If the acoustic source is shut down for reasons other than
mitigation (e.g., mechanical difficulty) for brief periods (i.e., 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 exclusion zone
and no acoustic detections have occurred. For any longer shutdown, pre-
clearance watch and ramp-up are required. For any shutdown at night or
in periods of poor visibility (e.g., BSS 4 or greater), ramp-up is
required but if the shutdown period was brief and constant observation
maintained, pre-clearance watch is not required.
(h) Miscellaneous Protocols
(i) The acoustic source 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.
[[Page 26332]]
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.
(i) Closure Areas
(i) No use of the acoustic source may occur within 30 km of the
coast.
(ii) From November 1 through April 30, no use of the acoustic
source may occur within an area bounded by the greater of three
distinct components at any location: (1) A 47-km wide coastal strip
throughout the entire Mid- and South Atlantic OCS planning areas; (2)
Unit 2 of designated critical habitat for the North Atlantic right
whale, buffered by 10 km; and (3) the designated southeastern seasonal
management area (SMA) for the North Atlantic right whale, buffered by
10 km. North Atlantic right whale dynamic management areas (DMA;
buffered by 10 km) are also closed to use of the acoustic source when
in effect. It is the responsibility of the survey operators to monitor
appropriate media and to be aware of designated DMAs.
(iii) No use of the acoustic source may occur within Areas #2-5, as
designated by coordinates in Table 3 during applicable time periods.
Areas #2-4 are in effect year-round. Area #5 is in effect from July 1
through September 30.
(j) Vessel Strike Avoidance
(i) Vessel operators and crews must maintain a vigilant watch for
all marine mammals and slow down or stop their vessel or alter course,
as appropriate and regardless of vessel size, to avoid striking any
marine mammal. 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 and broadly
to identify a marine mammal as a right whale, other whale, or other
marine mammal (i.e., non-whale cetacean or pinniped). In this context,
``other whales'' includes sperm whales and all baleen whales other than
right whales.
(ii) All vessels, regardless of size, must observe the 10 kn speed
restriction in DMAs, the Mid-Atlantic SMA (from November 1 through
April 30), and critical habitat and the Southeast SMA (from November 15
through April 15).
(iii) Vessel speeds must also be reduced to 10 kn or less when
mother/calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages of cetaceans are observed
near a vessel.
(iv) All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 500
m from right whales. If a whale is observed but cannot be confirmed as
a species other than a right whale, the vessel operator must assume
that it is a right whale and take appropriate action. The following
avoidance measures must be taken if a right whale is within 500 m of
any vessel:
(A) While underway, the vessel operator must steer a course away
from the whale at 10 kn or less until the minimum separation distance
has been established.
(B) If a whale is spotted in the path of a vessel or within 100 m
of a vessel underway, the operator shall reduce speed and shift engines
to neutral. The operator shall re-engage engines only after the whale
has moved out of the path of the vessel and is more than 100 m away. If
the whale is still within 500 m of the vessel, the vessel must select a
course away from the whale's course at a speed of 10 kn or less. This
procedure must also be followed if a whale is spotted while a vessel is
stationary. Whenever possible, a vessel should remain parallel to the
whale's course while maintaining the 500-m distance as it travels,
avoiding abrupt changes in direction until the whale is no longer in
the area.
(v) All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 100
m from other whales. The following avoidance measures must be taken if
a whale other than a right whale is within 100 m of any vessel:
(A) The vessel underway 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 a 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.
(vi) All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 50
m from all other marine mammals, with an exception made for those
animals that approach the vessel. If an animal is encountered during
transit, a vessel shall attempt to remain parallel to the animal's
course, avoiding excessive speed or abrupt changes in course.
(k) All vessels associated with survey activity (e.g., source
vessels, chase vessels, supply vessels) must have a functioning
Automatic Identification System (AIS) onboard and operating at all
times, regardless of whether AIS would otherwise be required. Vessel
names and call signs must be provided to NMFS, and applicants must
notify NMFS when survey vessels are operating.
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 operator must also provide a night-vision
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 successfully complete relevant training, including
completion of all required coursework and passing (80 percent or
greater) a written and/or oral examination developed for the training
program.
(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
[[Page 26333]]
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. We
require that, at a minimum, the following information be reported:
(i) Vessel names (source vessel and other vessels associated with
survey) and call signs
(ii) PSO names and affiliations
(iii) Dates of departures and returns to port with port name
(iv) Dates and times (Greenwich Mean Time) of survey effort and
times corresponding with PSO effort
(v) Vessel location (latitude/longitude) when survey effort begins
and ends; vessel location at beginning and end of visual PSO duty
shifts
(vi) Vessel heading and speed at beginning and end of visual PSO
duty shifts and upon any line change
(vii) 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
(viii) 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)
(ix) 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.)
(x) 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
(xi) 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) CGG shall submit monthly interim reports detailing the amount
and location of line-kms surveyed, all marine mammal observations with
closest approach distance, and corrected numbers of marine mammals
``taken,'' using correction factors given in Table 19.
(b) CGG 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 as an ESRI shapefile with all
necessary files and appropriate metadata. In addition to the report,
all raw observational data shall be made available to NMFS. The report
must summarize the information submitted in interim monthly reports as
well as additional data collected as required under condition 5(d) of
this IHA. The draft report must be accompanied by a certification from
the lead PSO as to the accuracy of the report, and the lead PSO may
submit directly 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
on the draft report.
(c) 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 prohibited by this IHA (if
issued), such as serious injury or mortality, CGG shall immediately
cease the specified activities and immediately report the incident to
NMFS. The report must include the following information:
(A) Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
(B) Name and type of vessel involved;
(C) Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
(D) Description of the incident;
[[Page 26334]]
(E) Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding the
incident;
(F) Water depth;
(G) Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction,
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
(H) Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 hours
preceding the incident;
(I) Species identification or description of the animal(s)
involved;
(J) Fate of the animal(s); and
(K) 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 CGG to
determine what measures are necessary to minimize the likelihood of
further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. CGG may not resume
their activities until notified by NMFS.
(ii) In the event that CGG 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), CGG shall immediately report
the incident to NMFS. The report must include the same information
identified in condition 6(c)(1) of this IHA. Activities may continue
while NMFS reviews the circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work
with CGG to determine whether additional mitigation measures or
modifications to the activities are appropriate.
(iii) In the event that CGG 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), CGG shall report the incident to
NMFS within 24 hours of the discovery. CGG shall provide photographs or
video footage or other documentation of the stranded animal 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.
Request for Public Comments
We request comment on our analyses, the draft authorizations, and
any other aspect of this Notice of Proposed IHAs for the proposed
geophysical survey activities. Please include with your comments any
supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final
decision on the individual requests for MMPA authorization.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-11542 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P