Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Operation of an LNG Facility in Massachusetts Bay, 29485-29491 [E8-11417]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 21, 2008 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XI04
Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental
to Specified Activities; Operation of an
LNG Facility in Massachusetts Bay
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of issuance of an
incidental harassment authorization.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In accordance with
regulations implementing the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as
amended, notification is hereby given
that an Incidental Harassment
Authorization (IHA) to take marine
mammals, by harassment, incidental to
operation of an offshore liquefied
natural gas (LNG) facility in the
Massachusetts Bay, has been issued to
Northeast Gateway Energy BridgeTM
L.L.C. (Northeast Gateway) for a period
of 1 year.
DATES: This authorization is effective
from May 15, 2008, until May 14, 2009.
ADDRESSES: A copy of the application,
IHA, and a list of references used in this
document may be obtained by writing to
P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits,
Conservation and Education Division,
Office of Protected Resources, National
Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East–
West Highway, Silver Spring, MD
20910–3225. A copy of the application
may be obtained by writing to this
address or by telephoning the contact
listed here and is also available at:
https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/
incidental.htm#iha.
The Maritime Administration
(MARAD) and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)
Final Environmental Impact Statement
(Final EIS) on the Northeast Gateway
Energy Bridge LNG Deepwater Port
license application is available for
viewing at https://dms.dot.gov under the
docket number 22219.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Shane Guan, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 713–2289, ext
137.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and 101(a)(5)(D)
of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.)
direct the Secretary of Commerce
(Secretary) to allow, upon request, the
incidental, but not intentional taking of
marine mammals by U.S. citizens who
engage in a specified activity (other than
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:18 May 20, 2008
Jkt 214001
commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region if certain findings
are made and 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 shall be granted if
NMFS finds that the taking will have a
negligible impact on the species or
stock(s) and will not have an
unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for
certain subsistence uses, 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.’’
Subsection 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA
established an expedited process by
which citizens of the United States can
apply for an authorization to
incidentally take marine mammals by
harassment. Except with respect to
certain activities not pertinent here, the
MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as follows:
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].
Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45–
day time limit for NMFS review of an
application followed by a 30–day public
notice and comment period on any
proposed authorizations for the
incidental harassment of marine
mammals. Within 45 days of the close
of the comment period, NMFS must
either issue or deny issuance of the
authorization.
Description of the Activity
The Port consists of two subsea
Submerged Turret Loading (STL )
buoys, each with a flexible riser
assembly and a manifold connecting the
riser assembly, via a steel flowline, to
the subsea Pipeline Lateral. Northeast
Gateway utilizes vessels from its current
fleet of specially designed Energy–
BridgeTM Regasification Vessels
(EBRVs), each capable of transporting
approximately 2.9 billion ft3 (Bcf; 82
million m3) of natural gas condensed to
4.9 million ft3 (138,000 m3) of LNG.
Northeast Gateway will also add vessels
to its fleet that will have a cargo
capacity of approximately 151,000 m3.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
29485
The mooring system installed at the Port
is designed to handle both the existing
vessels and any of the larger capacity
vessels that may come into service in
the future. The EBRVs dock to the
STLTMTM buoys which serve as both
the single–point mooring system for the
vessels and the delivery conduit for
natural gas. Each of the STLTM buoys
is secured to the seafloor using a series
of suction anchors and a combination of
chain/cable anchor lines.
During the Port operations, EBRVs
servicing the Port would utilize the
newly configured and International
Maritime Organization–approved
Boston Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS)
on their approach to and departure from
the NEG Port at the earliest practicable
point of transit. EBRVs would maintain
speeds of 12 knots or less while in the
TSS except when transiting the Off Race
Point Seasonal Management Area
between March 1 and April 30, the
Great South Channel Seasonal
Management Area between April 1 and
July 31, or when there have been active
right whale sightings, active acoustic
detections, or both, in the vicinity of the
transiting EBRV in the TSS or at the
Port, in which case the vessels would
slow their speeds to 10 knots or less.
See the Mitigation, Monitoring and
Reporting Measurements section.
As an EBRV makes its final approach
to the Port, vessel speed will gradually
be reduced to 3 knots at 1.86 mi (1.16
km) out to less than 1 knot at a distance
of 1,640 ft (500 m) from the Port. When
an EBRV arrives at the Port, it will
retrieve one of the two permanently
anchored submerged STLTMTM buoys.
It will make final connection to the
buoy through a series of engine and bow
thruster actions. The EBRV will require
the use of thrusters for dynamic
positioning during docking procedure.
Typically, the docking procedure is
completed over a 10– to 30–minute
period, with the thrusters activated as
necessary for short periods of time in
second bursts, not a continuous sound
source. Once connected to the buoy, the
EBRV will begin vaporizing the liquified
natural gas (LNG) into its natural gas
state using the onboard regasification
system. As the LNG is regasified, natural
gas will be transferred at pipeline
pressures off the EBRV through the
STLTMTM buoy and flexible riser via a
steel flowline leading to the connecting
Pipeline Lateral. When the LNG vessel
is on the buoy, wind and current effects
on the vessel will be allowed to
‘‘weathervane’’ on the single–point
mooring system; therefore, thrusters will
not be used to maintain a stationary
position. It would take approximately 8
days for each EBRV to moor to the
E:\FR\FM\21MYN1.SGM
21MYN1
29486
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 21, 2008 / Notices
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES
STLTMTM Buoy, regasify its cargo of
LNG and send it to the Northeast
Gateway Pipeline Lateral, and disengage
from the buoy.
It is estimated that the Port could
receive approximately 65 cargo
deliveries a year. During this time
period thrusters will be engaged in use
for docking at the Port approximately 10
to 30 minutes for each vessel arrival and
departure.
The specified design life of the NEG
Port is about 40 years, with the
exception of the anchors, mooring
chain/rope, and riser/umbilical
assemblies, which are based on a
maintenance–free design life of 20
years. The buoy pick–up system
components are considered consumable
and will be inspected following each
buoy connection, and replaced (from
inside the STLTM compartment during
the normal cargo discharge period) as
deemed necessary. The underwater
components of the Port will be
inspected once yearly using either
divers or remotely operated vehicles to
check and record the condition of the
various STLTM system components.
These activities will be conducted using
the Port′s normal support vessel, and to
the extent possible will coincide with
planned weekly visits to the Port.
Detailed information on these
activities can be found in the MARAD/
USCG Final EIS on the Northeast
Gateway Project (see ADDRESSES for
availability) and in the IHA application.
Detailed information on the LNG
facility′s operation and maintenance
activities, and noise generated from
operations was also published in the
Federal Register on March 13, 2007 (72
FR 11328). No changes have been made
to these proposed activities.
Comments and Responses
A notice of receipt and request for
public comment on the application and
proposed authorization was published
on March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16266).
During the 30–day public comment
period, NMFS received comments from
the Marine Mammal Commission
(Commission) and two private citizens.
Comment 1: The Commission
recommends that NMFS issue the IHA
provided that (a) all marine mammal
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
measures identified in the Federal
Register notice are included in the
authorization and retained in any
proposed regulations issued by NMFS to
govern the activities over a five–year
period; and (b) operations be suspended
immediately if a dead or seriously
injured right whale or other marine
mammal is found in the vicinity of the
operations and the death or injury could
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:18 May 20, 2008
Jkt 214001
be attributable to the applicant’s
activities. Any suspension should
remain in place until NMFS (1) has
reviewed the situation and determined
that further deaths or serious injuries
are unlikely or (2) has issued regulations
authorizing such takes under section
101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Response: NMFS concurs with the
Commission′s recommendation raised
in the above comment, and extends the
requirement to any type of injury, not
just serious injury, if it could be
attributable to LNG activities.
Comment 2: One private citizen states
that more due diligence on the front end
is needed before NMFS issues the IHA.
Response: NMFS has conducted
extensive review of the best science
available regarding the biology of the
marine mammals affected and the
propagation of sounds from operations
of the offshore LNG port. This
information is supported by Draft and
Final Environmental Impact Statements
issued by MARAD and USCG under the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and a biological opinion
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act
(ESA).
Comment 3: One private citizen
questions why NMFS grants the permit
if there is harassment to marine
mammals.
Response: As stated in the beginning
of this document, the MMPA directs the
Secretary to allow, upon request, the
incidental, but not intentional taking 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. NMFS has made these
findings and followed the appropriate
process set forth in MMPA section
101(a)(5)(D).
Marine Mammals Affected by the
Activity
Marine mammal species that
potentially occur in the vicinity of the
Northeast Gateway facility include
several species of cetaceans and
pinnipeds:
North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena
glacialis),
humpback whale (Megaptera
novaeangliae),
fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus),
minke whale (B. acutorostrata),
pilot whale (Globicephala spp.),
Atlantic white–sided dolphin
(Lagenorhynchus acutus),
bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops
truncatus),
common dolphin (Delphinus delphis),
killer whale (Orcinus orca),
harbor porpoise (Phocoena
phocoena),
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), and
gray seal (Halichoerus grypus).
Information on those species that may
be impacted by this activity are
discussed in detail in the MARAD and
USCG Final EIS on the Northeast
Gateway LNG proposal. Please refer to
that document for more information on
these species and potential impacts
from construction and operation of this
LNG facility. In addition, general
information on these marine mammal
species can also be found in Wursig et
al. (2000) and in the NMFS Stock
Assessment Reports (Waring et al.,
2007). This latter document is available
at: https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/
publications/tm/tm201/. An updated
summary on several commonly sighted
marine mammal species distribution
and abundance in the vicinity of the
proposed action area is provided below.
Humpback Whale
The highest abundance for humpback
whales was distributed primarily along
a relatively narrow corridor following
the 100–m (328 ft) isobath across the
southern Gulf of Maine from the
northwestern slope of Georges Bank,
south to the Great South Channel, and
northward alongside Cape Cod to
Stellwagen Bank and Jeffreys Ledge. The
relative abundance of whales increased
in the spring with the highest
occurrence along the slope waters
(between the 40– and 140–m, or 131–
and 459–ft, isobaths) off Cape Cod and
Davis Bank, Stellwagen Basin and
Tillies Basin and between the 50– and
200–m (164– and 656–ft) isobaths along
the inner slope of Georges Bank. High
abundance was also estimated for the
waters around Platts Bank. In the
summer months, abundance increased
markedly over the shallow waters (<50
m, or <164 ft) of Stellwagen Bank, the
waters (100 – 200 m, or 328 – 656 ft)
between Platts Bank and Jeffreys Ledge,
the steep slopes (between the 30– and
160–m isobaths) of Phelps and Davis
Bank north of the Great South Channel
towards Cape Cod, and between the 50–
and 100–m (164– and 328–ft) isobath for
almost the entire length of the steeply
sloping northern edge of Georges Bank.
This general distribution pattern
persisted in all seasons except winter,
when humpbacks remained at high
abundance in only a few locations
including Porpoise and Neddick Basins
adjacent to Jeffreys Ledge, northern
Stellwagen Bank and Tillies Basin, and
the Great South Channel.
Fin Whale
Spatial patterns of habitat utilization
by fin whales were very similar to those
of humpback whales. Spring and
E:\FR\FM\21MYN1.SGM
21MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 21, 2008 / Notices
summer high–use areas followed the
100–m (328 ft) isobath along the
northern edge of Georges Bank (between
the 50– and 200–m (164– and 656–ft)
isobaths), and northward from the Great
South Channel (between the 50– and
160–m, or 164– and 525–ft, isobaths).
Waters around Cashes Ledge, Platts
Bank, and Jeffreys Ledge are all high–
use areas in the summer months.
Stellwagen Bank was a high–use area for
fin whales in all seasons, with highest
abundance occurring over the southern
Stellwagen Bank in the summer months.
In fact, the southern portion of the
Stellwagen Bank National Marine
Sanctuary (SBNMS) was used more
frequently than the northern portion in
all months except winter, when high
abundance was recorded over the
northern tip of Stellwagen Bank. In
addition to Stellwagen Bank, high
abundance in winter was estimated for
Jeffreys Ledge and the adjacent Porpoise
Basin (100– to 160–m, 328– to 656–ft,
isobaths), as well as Georges Basin and
northern Georges Bank.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES
Minke Whale
Like other piscivorous baleen whales,
highest abundance for minke whale was
strongly associated with regions
between the 50– and 100–m (164– and
328–ft) isobaths, but with a slightly
stronger preference for the shallower
waters along the slopes of Davis Bank,
Phelps Bank, Great South Channel and
Georges Shoals on Georges Bank. Minke
whales were sighted in the SBNMS in
all seasons, with highest abundance
estimated for the shallow waters
(approximately 40 m, or 131 ft) over
southern Stellwagen Bank in the
summer and fall months. Platts Bank,
Cashes Ledge, Jeffreys Ledge, and the
adjacent basins (Neddick, Porpoise and
Scantium) also supported high relative
abundance. Very low densities of minke
whales remained throughout most of the
southern Gulf of Maine in winter.
North Atlantic Right Whale
North Atlantic right whales were
generally distributed widely across the
southern Gulf of Maine in spring with
highest abundance located over the
deeper waters (100– to 160–m, or 328–
to 525–ft, isobaths) on the northern edge
of the Great South Channel and deep
waters (100 300 m, 328 – 984 ft) parallel
to the 100–m (328–ft) isobath of
northern Georges Bank and Georges
Basin. High abundance was also found
in the shallowest waters (< 30 m, or <98
ft) of Cape Cod Bay, over Platts Bank
and around Cashes Ledge. Lower
relative abundance was estimated over
deep–water basins including Wilkinson
Basin, Rodgers Basin and Franklin
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:18 May 20, 2008
Jkt 214001
Basin. In the summer months, right
whales moved almost entirely away
from the coast to deep waters over
basins in the central Gulf of Maine
(Wilkinson Basin, Cashes Basin between
the 160– and 200–m, or 525– and 656–
ft, isobaths) and north of Georges Bank
(Rogers, Crowell and Georges Basins).
Highest abundance was found north of
the 100–m (328–ft) isobath at the Great
South Channel and over the deep slope
waters and basins along the northern
edge of Georges Bank. The waters
between Fippennies Ledge and Cashes
Ledge were also estimated as high–use
areas. In the fall months, right whales
were sighted infrequently in the Gulf of
Maine, with highest densities over
Jeffreys Ledge and over deeper waters
near Cashes Ledge and Wilkinson Basin.
In winter, Cape Cod Bay, Scantum
Basin, Jeffreys Ledge, and Cashes Ledge
were the main high–use areas. Although
SBNMS does not appear to support the
highest abundance of right whales,
sightings within SBNMS are reported
for all four seasons, albeit at low relative
abundance. Highest sighting within
SBNMS occured along the southern
edge of the Bank.
Pilot whale
Pilot whales arrived in the southern
Gulf of Maine in spring, with highest
abundance in the region occurring in
summer and fall. Summer high–use
areas included the slopes of northern
Georges Bank along the 100–m (328–ft)
isobath and pilot whales made extensive
use of the shoals of Georges Bank (<60
m, or <197 ft, depth). Similarly, fall
distributions were also primarily along
the slopes of northern Georges Bank, but
with high–use areas also occurring
amongst the deep–water basins and
ledges of the south–central Gulf of
Maine. Within SBNMS, pilot whales
were sighted infrequently and were
most often estimated at low density.
Cape Cod Bay and southern SBNMS
were the only locations with pilot whale
sightings for winter.
Atlantic White–Sided Dolphin
In spring, summer and fall, Atlantic
white–sided dolphins were widespread
throughout the southern Gulf of Maine,
with the high–use areas widely located
either side of the 100–m (328–ft) isobath
along the northern edge of Georges
Bank, and north from the Great South
Channel to Stellwagen Bank, Jeffreys
Ledge, Platts Bank and Cashes Ledge. In
spring, high–use areas existed in the
Great South Channel, northern Georges
Bank, the steeply sloping edge of Davis
Bank and Cape Cod, southern
Stellwagen Bank and the waters
between Jeffreys Ledge and Platts Bank.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
29487
In summer, there was a shift and
expansion of habitat toward the east and
northeast. High–use areas were
identified along most of the northern
edge of Georges Bank between the 50–
and 200–m (164– and 656–ft) isobaths
and northward from the Great South
Channel along the slopes of Davis Bank
and Cape Cod. High sightings were also
recorded over Truxton Swell, Wilkinson
Basin, Cashes Ledge and the
bathymetrically complex area northeast
of Platts Bank. High sightings of white–
sided dolphin were recorded within
SBNMS in all seasons, with highest
density in summer and most
widespread distributions in spring
located mainly over the southern end of
Stellwagen Bank. In winter, high
sightings were recorded at the northern
tip of Stellwagen Bank and Tillies
Basin.
A comparison of spatial distribution
patterns for all baleen whales
(Mysticeti) and all porpoises and
dolphins combined showed that both
groups have very similar spatial patterns
of high– and low–use areas. The baleen
whales, whether piscivorous or
planktivorous, were more concentrated
than the dolphins and porpoises. They
utilized a corridor that extended broadly
along the most linear and steeply
sloping edges in the southern Gulf of
Maine indicated broadly by the 100 m
(328 ft) isobath. Stellwagen Bank and
Jeffreys Ledge supported a high
abundance of baleen whales throughout
the year. Species richness maps
indicated that high–use areas for
individual whales and dolphin species
co–occurred, resulting in similar
patterns of species richness primarily
along the southern portion of the 100–
m (328–ft) isobath extending northeast
and northwest from the Great South
Channel. The southern edge of
Stellwagen Bank and the waters around
the northern tip of Cape Cod were also
highlighted as supporting high cetacean
species richness. Intermediate to high
numbers of species are also calculated
for the waters surrounding Jeffreys
Ledge, the entire Stellwagen Bank,
Platts Bank, Fippennies Ledge and
Cashes Ledge.
Killer Whale, Common Dolphin,
Bottlenose Dolphin, and Harbor
Porpoise
Although these four species are some
of the most widely distributed small
cetacean species in the world (Jefferson
et al., 1993), they were not commonly
seen in the vicinity of the project area
in Massachusetts Bay (Wiley et al.,
1994; NCCOS, 2006; Northeast Gateway
Marine Mammal Monitoring Weekly
Reports, 2007).
E:\FR\FM\21MYN1.SGM
21MYN1
29488
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 21, 2008 / Notices
Harbor Seal and Gray Seal
In the U.S. waters of the western
North Atlantic, both harbor and gray
seals were usually found from the coast
of Maine south to southern New
England and New York (Warrings et al.,
2007).
Along the southern New England and
New York coasts, harbor seals occur
seasonally from September through late
May (Schneider and Payne, 1983). In
recent years, their seasonal interval
along the southern New England to New
Jersey coasts had increased (deHart,
2002). In U.S. waters, harbor seal
breeding and pupping normally occur in
waters north of the New Hampshire/
Maine border, although breeding has
occurred as far south as Cape Cod in the
early part of the 20th century (Temte et
al., 1991; Katona et al., 1993).
Although gray seals were often seen
off the coast from New England to
Labrador, within the U.S. waters, only
small numbers of gray seals have been
observed pupping on several isolated
islands along the Maine coast and in
Nantucket–Vineyard Sound,
Massachusetts (Katona et al., 1993;
Rough, 1995). In the late 1990s, a year–
round breeding population of
approximately over 400 gray seals was
documented on outer Cape Cod and
Muskeget Island (Warring et al., 2007).
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES
Potential Effects of Noise on Marine
Mammals
The effects of noise on marine
mammals are highly variable, and can
be categorized as follows (based on
Richardson et al., 1995): (1) The noise
may be too weak to be heard at the
location of the animal (i.e., lower than
the prevailing ambient noise level, the
hearing threshold of the animal at
relevant frequencies, or both); (2) The
noise may be audible but not strong
enough to elicit any overt behavioral
response; (3) The noise may elicit
reactions of variable conspicuousness
and variable relevance to the well being
of the marine mammal; these can range
from temporary alert responses to active
avoidance reactions such as vacating an
area at least until the noise event ceases;
(4) Upon repeated exposure, a marine
mammal may exhibit diminishing
responsiveness (habituation), or
disturbance effects may persist; the
latter is most likely with sounds that are
highly variable in characteristics,
infrequent and unpredictable in
occurrence, and associated with
situations that a marine mammal
perceives as a threat; (5) Any
anthropogenic noise that is strong
enough to be heard has the potential to
reduce (mask) the ability of a marine
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:18 May 20, 2008
Jkt 214001
mammal to hear natural sounds at
similar frequencies, including calls from
conspecifics, and underwater
environmental sounds such as surf
noise; (6) If mammals remain in an area
because it is important for feeding,
breeding or some other biologically
important purpose even though there is
chronic exposure to noise, it is possible
that there could be noise–induced
physiological stress; this might in turn
have negative effects on the well–being
or reproduction of the animals involved;
and (7) Very strong sounds have the
potential to cause temporary or
permanent reduction in hearing
sensitivity. In terrestrial mammals, and
presumably marine mammals, received
sound levels must far exceed the
animal′s hearing threshold for there to
be any temporary threshold shift (TTS)
in its hearing ability. For transient
sounds, the sound level necessary to
cause TTS is inversely related to the
duration of the sound. Received sound
levels must be even higher for there to
be risk of permanent hearing
impairment. In addition, intense
acoustic (or explosive events) may cause
trauma to tissues associated with organs
vital for hearing, sound production,
respiration and other functions. This
trauma may include minor to severe
hemorrhage.
There are three general kinds of
sounds recognized by NMFS:
continuous (such as shipping sounds),
intermittent (such as vibratory pile
driving sounds), and impulse. No
impulse noise activities, such as
blasting or standard pile driving, are
associated with this project. The noise
sources of potential concern are
regasification/offloading (which is a
continuous sound) and dynamic
positioning of vessels using thrusters
(an intermittent sound). Based on
research by Malme et al. (1983; 1984),
for both continuous and intermittent
sound sources, Level B harassment is
presumed to begin at received levels of
120–dB.
None of the continuous sound sources
associated with operation of the
Northeast Gateway Project is expected
to exceed the 120–dB threshold for
Level B harassment. However, the
intermittent noises from thruster use
associated with dynamic positioning of
vessels during operation (docking) may
occasionally exceed this 120–dB
threshold. Consequently, thruster use
has the potential for a ‘‘take’’ by Level
B harassment of any marine mammal
occurring within a zone of
ensonification (greater than 120 dB)
emanating from the sound source. The
potential impacts to marine mammals
associated with sound propagation from
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
vessel movements, anchors, chains and
LNG regasification/offloading could be
the temporary and short–term
displacement of seals and whales from
within the 120–dB zones ensonified by
these noise sources. Animals would be
expexted to re–occupy the area once the
noise ceases. In the vicinity of the LNG
Port, where the water depth is about 80
m (262 ft), the 120–dB radius is
estimated to be approximately 2.56 km
(1.6 mi) from the second source during
dynamic positioning for the container
ship, making a zone of influence (ZOI)
of 21 km2 (8.1 mi2).
Estimates of Take by Harassment
The basis for Northeast Gateway′s
‘‘take’’ estimate is the number of marine
mammals that would be exposed to
sound levels in excess of 120 dB. This
is determined by multiplying the ZOI by
local marine mammal density estimates,
corrected to take account for 50 percent
marine mammals that may be
underwater, and then by estimated LNG
container ship visits per year. In the
case of data gaps, a conservative
approach was used to ensure the
potential number of takes is not
underestimated, as described next.
NMFS recognizes that baleen whale
species other than North Atlantic right
whales have been sighted in the project
area from May to November. However,
the occurrence and abundance of fin,
humpback, and minke is not well
documented within the project area.
Nonetheless, NMFS uses the data on
cetacean distribution within
Massachusetts Bay, such as those
published by the National Centers for
Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS, 2006),
to determine potential takes of marine
mammals in the vicinity of project area.
The NCCOS study used cetacean
sightings from two sources: (1) the
North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium
(NARWC) sightings database held at the
University of Rhode Island (Kenney,
2001); and (2) the Manomet Bird
Observatory (MBO) database, held at
NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science
Center (NEFSC). The NARWC data
contained survey efforts and sightings
data from ship and aerial surveys and
opportunistic sources between 1970 and
2005. The main data contributors
included: Cetacean and Turtles
Assessment Program (CETAP), Canadian
Department of Fisheries and Oceans,
PCCS, International Fund for Animal
Welfare, NOAA′s NEFSC, New England
Aquarium, Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution, and the University of Rhode
Island. A total of 653,725 km (406,293
mi) of survey track and 34,589 cetacean
observations were provisionally selected
for the NCCOS study in order to
E:\FR\FM\21MYN1.SGM
21MYN1
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 21, 2008 / Notices
minimize bias from uneven allocation of
survey effort in both time and space.
The sightings–per–unit–effort (SPUE)
was calculated for all cetacean species
by month covering the southern Gulf of
Maine study area, which also includes
the project area (NCCOS, 2006).
The MBO′s Cetacean and Seabird
Assessment Program (CSAP) was
contracted from 1980 to 1988 by NMFS
NEFSC to provide an assessment of the
relative abundance and distribution of
cetaceans, seabirds, and marine turtles
in the shelf waters of the northeastern
United States (MBO, 1987). The CSAP
program was designed to be completely
compatible with NMFS NEFSC
databases so that marine mammal data
could be compared directly with
fisheries data throughout the time series
during which both types of information
were gathered. A total of 5,210 km
(8,383 mi) of survey distance and 636
cetacean observations from the MBO
data were included in the NCCOS
analysis. Combined valid survey effort
for the NCCOS studies included 567,955
km (913,840 mi) of survey track for
small cetaceans (dolphins and
porpoises) and 658,935 km (1,060,226
mi) for large cetaceans (whales) in the
southern Gulf of Maine. The NCCOS
study then combined these two data sets
by extracting cetacean sighting records,
updating database field names to match
the NARWC database, creating geometry
to represent survey tracklines and
applying a set of data selection criteria
designed to minimize uncertainty and
bias in the data used.
Owning to the comprehensiveness
and total coverage of the NCCOS
cetacean distribution and abundance
study, NMFS calculated the estimated
take number of marine mammals based
on the most recent NCCOS report
published in December 2006. A
summary of seasonal cetacean
distribution and abundance in the
project area is provided above, in the
Marine Mammals Affected by the
Activity section. For a detailed
description and calculation of the
cetacean abundance data and sighting
per unit effort (SPUE), please refer to the
NCCOS study (NCCOS, 2006). These
data show that the upper limit of the
relative abundance of North Atlantic
right, fin, humpback, minke, and pilot
whales, and Atlantic white–sided
dolphins for all seasons, as calculated
by SPUE in number of animals per
square kilometer, is 0.0082, 0.0097,
0.0265, 0.0059, 0.0407, and 0.1314 n/
km, respectively.
In calculating the area density of these
species from these linear density data,
NMFS used 0.4 km (0.25 mi), which is
a quarter the distance of the radius for
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:18 May 20, 2008
Jkt 214001
visual monitoring (see Monitoring,
Mitigation, and Reporting section
below), as a conservative hypothetical
strip width (W). Thus the area density
(D) of these species in the project area
can be obtained by the following
formula:
D = SPUE/2W,
Based on the calculation, the
estimated take numbers per year for
North Atlantic right, fin, humpback,
minke, and pilot whales, and Atlantic
white–sided dolphins, within the 120–
dB ZOI of the LNG Port facility area of
approximately 21 km2 (8.1 mi2)
maximum ZOI, corrected for 50 percent
underwater, are 21, 90, 165, 15, 104, and
336, respectively. This estimate is based
on an average of 65 visits by LNG
container ships to the project area per
year (or approximately 1.25 visits per
week), operating the vessels′ thrusters
for dynamic positioning before
offloading natural gas. It is expected that
total amount of time of dynamic
positioning is about 30 minutes,
therefore, any marine mammals that are
potentially exposed to noise levels
about 120 dB re 1 microPa from
container ships′ dynamic positioning
would be brief. There is no danger of
injury, death, or hearing impairment
from the exposure to these noise levels.
These numbers represent approximately
7, 3, 18, 0.4, 0.3, and 0.7 percent of the
populations for these species,
respectively.
In addition, bottlenose dolphins,
common dolphins, killer whales, harbor
porpoises, harbor seals, and gray seals
could also be taken by Level B
harassment as a result of the deepwater
LNG port project. The numbers of
estimated take of these species are not
available because they are rare in the
project area. The population estimates
of these marine mammal species and
stock in the west North Atlantic basin
are 81,588, 120,743, 89,700, 99,340, and
195,000 for bottlenose dolphins,
common dolphins, harbor porpoises,
harbor seals, and gray seals, respectively
(Waring et al., 2007). No population
estimate is available for the North
Atlantic stock of killer whales, however,
their occurrence within the proposed
project area is rare. Since the
Massachusetts Bay represents only a
small fraction of the west North Atlantic
basin where these animals occur, and
these animals do not congregate in the
vicinity of the project area, NMFS
believes that only relatively small
numbers of these marine mammal
species would be potentially affected by
the Northeast Gateway LNG deepwater
project. From the most conservative
estimates of both marine mammal
densities in the project area and the size
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
29489
of the 120–dB zone of (noise) influence
(ZOI), the calculated number of
individual marine mammals for each
species that could potentially be
harassed annually is small relative to
the overall population size.
Potential Impact on Habitat
Operation of the Port and Pipeline
Lateral will result in long–term effects
on the marine environment, including
alteration of seafloor conditions,
continued disturbance of the seafloor,
regular withdrawal of sea water, and
regular generation of underwater noise.
A small area (0.14 acre) along the
Pipeline Lateral will be permanently
altered (armored) at two cable crossings.
In addition, the structures associated
with the Port will occupy 4.8 acres of
seafloor. An additional area of the
seafloor of up to 38 acres will be subject
to disturbance due to chain sweep while
the buoys are occupied. The benthic
community in the up–to 38 acres of soft
bottom that may be swept by the anchor
chains while EBRVs are docked will
have limited opportunity to recover, so
this area will experience a long–term
reduction in benthic productivity.
Each EBRV will require the
withdrawal of an average of 4.97 million
gallons per day of sea water for general
ship operations during its 8–day stay at
the Port. As with hydrostatic testing,
plankton associated with the sea water
will not likely survive this activity.
Based on densities of plankton in
Massachusetts Bay, it is estimated that
sea water use during operations will
consume, on a daily basis, about 3 200
x 1,010 phytoplankton cells (about
several hundred grams of biomass), 6.5
x 108 zooplankters (equivalent to about
1.2 kg of copepods), and on the order of
30,000 fish eggs and 5,000 fish larvae.
Also, the daily removal of sea water will
reduce the food resources available for
planktivorous organisms. However, the
removal of these species is minor
relative to the overall area they occupy
and unlikely to measurably affect the
food sources available to marine
mammals.
Monitoring, Mitigation, and Reporting
Measures
All individuals onboard the EBRVs
responsible for the navigation and
lookout duties on the vessel must
receive training prior to assuming
navigation and lookout duties, a
component of which will be training on
marine mammal sighting/reporting and
vessel strike avoidance measures. Crew
training of EBRV personnel will stress
individual responsibility for marine
mammal awareness and reporting.
E:\FR\FM\21MYN1.SGM
21MYN1
29490
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 21, 2008 / Notices
If a marine mammal is sighted by a
crew member, an immediate notification
will be made to the Person–in–Charge
on board the vessel and the Northeast
Port Manager, who will ensure that the
required reporting procedures are
followed.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES
Vessel Strike Avoidance
(1) All EBRVs approaching or
departing the port will comply with the
Mandatory Ship Reporting (MSR)
system to keep apprised of right whale
sightings in the vicinity. Vessel
operators will also receive active
detections from the passive acoustic
array prior to and during transit through
the northern leg of the Boston TSS
where the buoys are installed.
(2) In response to active right whale
sightings (detected acoustically or
reported through other means such as
the MSR or SAS), and taking into
account safety and weather conditions,
EBRVs will take appropriate actions to
minimize the risk of striking whales,
including reducing speed to 10 knots or
less and alerting personnel responsible
for navigation and lookout duties to
concentrate their efforts.
(3) EBRVs will maintain speeds of 12
knots or less while in the TSS until
reaching the vicinity of the buoys
(except during the seasons and areas
defined below, when speed will be
limited to 10 knots or less). At 1.86
miles (3 km) from the NEG port, speed
will be reduced to 3 knots, and to less
than 1 knot at 1,640 ft (500 m) from the
buoy.
(4) EBRVs will reduce transit speed to
10 knots or less (unless hydrographic,
meteorological, or traffic conditions
dictate an alternative speed to maintain
the safety or maneuverability of the
vessel) from March 1 – April 30 in all
waters bounded by straight lines
connecting the following points in the
order stated below. This area is also
known as the Off Race Point Seasonal
Management Area (SMA).
42°30′N 70°30′W
42°30′N 69v45′W
41°40′N 69°45′W
41°40′N 69°57′W
42°04.8′N 70°10′W
42°12′N 70°15′W
42°12′N 70°30′W
42°30′N 70°30′W
(5) EBRVs will reduce transit speed to
10 knots or less (unless hydrographic,
meteorological, or traffic conditions
dictate an alternative speed to maintain
the safety or maneuverability of the
vessel) from April 1 – July 31 in all
waters bounded by straight lines
connecting the following points in the
order stated below. This area is also
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:18 May 20, 2008
Jkt 214001
known as the Great South Channel
SMA.
42°30′N 69°45′W
42°30′N 67°27′W
42°09′N 67°08.4′W
41°00′N 69°05′W
41°40′N 69°45′W
42°30′N 69°45′W
(6) EBRVs are not expected to transit
Cape Cod Bay. However, in the event
transit through Cape Cod Bay is
required, EBRVs will reduce transit
speed to 10 knots or less (unless
hydrographic, meteorological, or traffic
conditions dictate an alternative speed
to maintain the safety or
maneuverability of the vessel) from
January 1 – May 15 in all waters in Cape
Cod Bay, extending to all shorelines of
Cape Cod Bay, with a northern
boundary of 42°12′N latitude.
(7) In such cases where speeds in
excess of the ten knot speed maximums
as described above are required, the
reasons for the deviation, the speed at
which the vessel is operated, the area,
and the time and duration of such
deviation will be documented in the
logbook of the vessel and reported to the
NMFS Northeast Region Ship Strike
Coordinator.
Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM)
Program
An array of Auto–detection Buoys
(ABs) have been installed in the Boston
TSS that meets the criteria specified in
the recommendations developed by
NOAA through consultation with the
USCG under the National Marine
Sanctuary Act (NMSA). The system will
be monitored during the LNG Port
operations and will provide near real–
time information on the presence of
vocalizing whales in the shipping lanes.
An archival array of acoustic
recording units (ARUs), or ‘‘pop–ups,’’
has been installed around the port site
that meets the criteria specified in the
program developed by NOAA in
consultation with the USCG under the
National Marine Sanctuary Act (NMSA).
The ARUs will be in place for 5 years
following initiation of operations to
monitor the actual acoustic output of
port operations and alert NOAA to any
unanticipated adverse effects of port
operations, such as large–scale
abandonment of the area.
Reporting
The Project area is within the
Mandatory Ship Reporting Area
(MSRA), so all vessels entering and
exiting the MSRA would report their
activities to WHALESNORTH. During
all phases of the Northeast Gateway
LNG Port operation, sightings of any
injured or dead marine mammals would
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
be reported immediately to the USCG or
NMFS, regardless of whether the injury
or death is caused by project activities.
An annual report on marine mammal
monitoring and mitigation would be
submitted to NMFS Office of Protected
Resources and NMFS Northeast
Regional Office within 90 days after the
expiration of the IHA. The annual report
should include data collected for each
distinct marine mammal species
observed in the project area in the
Massachusetts Bay during the period of
LNG facility operation. Description of
marine mammal behavior, overall
numbers of individuals observed,
frequency of observation, and any
behavioral changes and the context of
the changes relative to operation
activities shall also be included in the
annual report.
ESA
On February 5, 2007, NMFS
concluded consultation with MARAD
and the USCG, under section 7 of the
ESA, on the proposed construction and
operation of the Northeast Gateway LNG
facility and issued a biological opinion.
The finding of that consultation was
that the construction and operation of
the Northeast Gateway LNG terminal
may adversely affect, but is not likely to
jeopardize, the continued existence of
northern right, humpback, and fin
whales, and is not likely to adversely
affect sperm, sei, or blue whales and
Kemp′s ridley, loggerhead, green or
leatherback sea turtles. An incidental
take statement (ITS) was issued
following NMFS′ issuance of the IHA.
On November 15, 2007, Northeast
Gateway and Algonquin submitted a
letter to NMFS requesting an extension
for the LNG Port construction into
December 2007. Upon reviewing
Northeast Gateway′s weekly marine
mammal monitoring reports submitted
under the previous IHA, NMFS
recognized that the potential take of
some marine mammals resulting from
the LNG Port and Pipeline Lateral by
Level B behavioral harassment likely
had exceeded the original take
estimates. Therefore, NMFS Northeast
Region (NER) reinitiated consultation
with MARAD and USCG on the
construction and operation of the
Northeast Gateway LNG facility. On
November 30, 2007, NMFS NER issued
a revised biological opinion, reflecting
the revised construction time period
and including a revised ITS. This
revised biological opinion concluded
that the construction and operation of
the Northeast Gateway LNG terminal
may adversely affect, but is not likely to
jeopardize, the continued existence of
northern right, humpback, and fin
E:\FR\FM\21MYN1.SGM
21MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 21, 2008 / Notices
whales, and is not likely to adversely
affect sperm, sei, or blue whales. NMFS
has concluded that issuance of this IHA
renewal would not have impacts beyond
what was analyzed in the November 30,
2007, biological opinion, so additional
consultation is not required.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES
NEPA
MARAD and the USCG released a
Final EIS/Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) for the proposed Northeast
Gateway Port and Pipeline Lateral. A
notice of availability was published by
MARAD on October 26, 2006 (71 FR
62657). The Final EIS/EIR provides
detailed information on the proposed
project facilities, construction methods
and analysis of potential impacts on
marine mammal.
NMFS was a cooperating agency (as
defined by the Council on
Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1501.6))
in the preparation of the Draft and Final
EISs. NMFS has reviewed the Final EIS
and has adopted it. Therefore, the
preparation of another EIS or EA is not
warranted.
Determinations
NMFS has determined that the impact
of operation of the Northeast Gateway
Port Project may result, at worst, in a
temporary modification in behavior of
small numbers of certain species of
marine mammals that may be in close
proximity to the Northeast Gateway
LNG facility and associated pipeline
during its operation. These activities are
expected to result in some local short–
term displacement only of the affected
species or stocks of marine mammals.
Taking these two factors together, NMFS
concludes that the activity will have no
more than a negligible impact on the
affected species or stocks, as there will
be no expected effects on annual rates
of survival and reproduction of these
species or stocks. This determination is
further supported by the required
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
measures described in this document
and in NMFS′ Biological Opinion on
this action.
As a result of implementation of the
described mitigation and monitoring
measures, no take by injury or death
would be requested, anticipated or
authorized, and the potential for
temporary or permanent hearing
impairment is very unlikely due to the
relatively low noise levels (and
consequently small zone of impact).
While the number of marine
mammals that may be harassed will
depend on the distribution and
abundance of marine mammals in the
vicinity of the LNG Port facility, the
estimated numbers of marine mammals
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:18 May 20, 2008
Jkt 214001
to be harassed is small relative to the
affected species or stock sizes.
Authorization
NMFS has issued an IHA to Northeast
Gateway for conducting LNG Port
facility operations in Massachusetts
Bay, provided the previously mentioned
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements are incorporated.
Dated: May 15, 2008.
Helen Golde,
Deputy Director, Office of Protected
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E8–11417 Filed 5–20–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army
Notice of Availability of the Draft
Supplemental Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement for
Army Growth and Force Structure
Realignment To Support Operations in
the Pacific Theater
Department of the Army, DOD.
Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Department of the Army
announces the availability of a Draft
Supplemental Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement
(DSPEIS) for the growth and
realignment of the United States Army
to support Operations in the Pacific
Theater. The Department of the Army
has prepared a DSPEIS that evaluates
the potential environmental and
socioeconomic effects associated with
alternatives for implementing the
growth, realignment, and transformation
of the Army’s forces to support
Operations in the Pacific Theater.
Potential impacts have been analyzed in
the DSPEIS at installations that are
capable of supporting operations in the
Pacific Theater.
DATES: The public comment period will
end 45 days after publication of a Notice
of Availability in the Federal Register
by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
Send all written comments
and suggestions concerning this DSPEIS
to: Public Affairs Office, U.S. Army
Environmental Command, Building
E4460, Attention: IMAE–PA 5179
Hoadley Road, Aberdeen Proving
Ground, MD 21010–5401. Comments
may also be sent to: APGR-USAEC
PublicComments@conus.army.mil.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Public Affairs Office at (410) 436–2556
or facsimile at (410) 436–1693 during
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
29491
normal business hours 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Eastern Daylight Time, Monday through
Friday.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Army’s Proposed Action and analysis
within the DSPEIS covers those
activities the Army may undertake from
2008 through 2013 to grow, realign, and
transform its forces to support
operations in the Pacific Theater.
Implementation of the Proposed Action
will ensure the proper capabilities exist
to sustain operations and regional
security in the Pacific Theater now and
into the foreseeable future. The
implementation of the Proposed Action
will better meet military operational
needs, national and regional security
requirements, and the needs of the
Army’s Soldiers and their Families. To
implement the Proposed Action, new
units with critical military skills must
be stationed at locations that are capable
of supporting strategic deployment and
mobilization requirements in the Pacific
Theater. These stationing locations must
be capable of accommodating unit
training, garrison operations,
maintenance activities, and the needs of
Soldiers and their Families.
The current global security
environment is turbulent,
unpredictable, and rapidly changing. It
has placed considerable demands on the
nation’s military, and highlighted the
need for the Army to correct shortfalls
in high-demand skills while reassessing
its force capabilities. No one has felt the
impacts of the recent demands of the
modern security environment more than
Soldiers and their Families. To meet the
challenges of the 21st century security
environment, the Army requires the
growth and restructuring of its forces to
support operations across the Pacific
Theater to sustain the broad range of
missions required to promote regional,
national, and global stability.
The DSPEIS supplements the Army’s
Final Programmatic EIS for Army
Growth and Force Structure
Realignment (2007). The DSPEIS
examines major Army training
installations that were not in the 2007
PEIS, but are capable of supporting
operations in the Pacific Theater and the
ability of those installations to support
new unit stationing actions. The DSPEIS
includes analysis of specific actions that
will need to be taken (such as the
construction of housing and quality of
life facilities, the construction of new
training ranges and infrastructure, and
changes in the intensity of use of
maneuver land and firing ranges) to
station new units as part of the Army’s
overall efforts to grow and realign the
force.
E:\FR\FM\21MYN1.SGM
21MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 99 (Wednesday, May 21, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29485-29491]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-11417]
[[Page 29485]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XI04
Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Operation of an LNG Facility in Massachusetts Bay
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with regulations implementing the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that an
Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to take marine mammals, by
harassment, incidental to operation of an offshore liquefied natural
gas (LNG) facility in the Massachusetts Bay, has been issued to
Northeast Gateway Energy Bridge\TM\ L.L.C. (Northeast Gateway) for a
period of 1 year.
DATES: This authorization is effective from May 15, 2008, until May
14, 2009.
ADDRESSES: A copy of the application, IHA, and a list of references
used in this document may be obtained by writing to P. Michael Payne,
Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of
Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225. A copy of the application may be
obtained by writing to this address or by telephoning the contact
listed here and is also available at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
permits/incidental.htm#iha.
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)
Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) on the Northeast
Gateway Energy Bridge LNG Deepwater Port license application is
available for viewing at https://dms.dot.gov under the docket number
22219.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shane Guan, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 713-2289, ext 137.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to allow, upon
request, the incidental, but not intentional taking 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 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 shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking
will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not
have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species
or stock(s) for certain subsistence uses, 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.''
Subsection 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited
process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an
authorization to incidentally take marine mammals by harassment. Except
with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines
``harassment'' as follows:
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].
Section 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS
review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment
period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of
marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS
must either issue or deny issuance of the authorization.
Description of the Activity
The Port consists of two subsea Submerged Turret Loading (STL )
buoys, each with a flexible riser assembly and a manifold connecting
the riser assembly, via a steel flowline, to the subsea Pipeline
Lateral. Northeast Gateway utilizes vessels from its current fleet of
specially designed Energy-Bridge\TM\ Regasification Vessels (EBRVs),
each capable of transporting approximately 2.9 billion ft\3\ (Bcf; 82
million m\3\) of natural gas condensed to 4.9 million ft\3\ (138,000
m\3\) of LNG. Northeast Gateway will also add vessels to its fleet that
will have a cargo capacity of approximately 151,000 m\3\. The mooring
system installed at the Port is designed to handle both the existing
vessels and any of the larger capacity vessels that may come into
service in the future. The EBRVs dock to the STLTM\TM\ buoys which
serve as both the single-point mooring system for the vessels and the
delivery conduit for natural gas. Each of the STLTM buoys is secured to
the seafloor using a series of suction anchors and a combination of
chain/cable anchor lines.
During the Port operations, EBRVs servicing the Port would utilize
the newly configured and International Maritime Organization-approved
Boston Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) on their approach to and
departure from the NEG Port at the earliest practicable point of
transit. EBRVs would maintain speeds of 12 knots or less while in the
TSS except when transiting the Off Race Point Seasonal Management Area
between March 1 and April 30, the Great South Channel Seasonal
Management Area between April 1 and July 31, or when there have been
active right whale sightings, active acoustic detections, or both, in
the vicinity of the transiting EBRV in the TSS or at the Port, in which
case the vessels would slow their speeds to 10 knots or less. See the
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Measurements section.
As an EBRV makes its final approach to the Port, vessel speed will
gradually be reduced to 3 knots at 1.86 mi (1.16 km) out to less than 1
knot at a distance of 1,640 ft (500 m) from the Port. When an EBRV
arrives at the Port, it will retrieve one of the two permanently
anchored submerged STLTM\TM\ buoys. It will make final connection to
the buoy through a series of engine and bow thruster actions. The EBRV
will require the use of thrusters for dynamic positioning during
docking procedure. Typically, the docking procedure is completed over a
10- to 30-minute period, with the thrusters activated as necessary for
short periods of time in second bursts, not a continuous sound source.
Once connected to the buoy, the EBRV will begin vaporizing the
liquified natural gas (LNG) into its natural gas state using the
onboard regasification system. As the LNG is regasified, natural gas
will be transferred at pipeline pressures off the EBRV through the
STLTM\TM\ buoy and flexible riser via a steel flowline leading to the
connecting Pipeline Lateral. When the LNG vessel is on the buoy, wind
and current effects on the vessel will be allowed to ``weathervane'' on
the single-point mooring system; therefore, thrusters will not be used
to maintain a stationary position. It would take approximately 8 days
for each EBRV to moor to the
[[Page 29486]]
STLTM\TM\ Buoy, regasify its cargo of LNG and send it to the Northeast
Gateway Pipeline Lateral, and disengage from the buoy.
It is estimated that the Port could receive approximately 65 cargo
deliveries a year. During this time period thrusters will be engaged in
use for docking at the Port approximately 10 to 30 minutes for each
vessel arrival and departure.
The specified design life of the NEG Port is about 40 years, with
the exception of the anchors, mooring chain/rope, and riser/umbilical
assemblies, which are based on a maintenance-free design life of 20
years. The buoy pick-up system components are considered consumable and
will be inspected following each buoy connection, and replaced (from
inside the STLTM compartment during the normal cargo discharge period)
as deemed necessary. The underwater components of the Port will be
inspected once yearly using either divers or remotely operated vehicles
to check and record the condition of the various STLTM system
components. These activities will be conducted using the Port's normal
support vessel, and to the extent possible will coincide with planned
weekly visits to the Port.
Detailed information on these activities can be found in the MARAD/
USCG Final EIS on the Northeast Gateway Project (see ADDRESSES for
availability) and in the IHA application. Detailed information on the
LNG facility's operation and maintenance activities, and noise
generated from operations was also published in the Federal Register on
March 13, 2007 (72 FR 11328). No changes have been made to these
proposed activities.
Comments and Responses
A notice of receipt and request for public comment on the
application and proposed authorization was published on March 27, 2008
(73 FR 16266). During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received
comments from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission) and two private
citizens.
Comment 1: The Commission recommends that NMFS issue the IHA
provided that (a) all marine mammal mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting measures identified in the Federal Register notice are
included in the authorization and retained in any proposed regulations
issued by NMFS to govern the activities over a five-year period; and
(b) operations be suspended immediately if a dead or seriously injured
right whale or other marine mammal is found in the vicinity of the
operations and the death or injury could be attributable to the
applicant's activities. Any suspension should remain in place until
NMFS (1) has reviewed the situation and determined that further deaths
or serious injuries are unlikely or (2) has issued regulations
authorizing such takes under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA.
Response: NMFS concurs with the Commission's recommendation raised
in the above comment, and extends the requirement to any type of
injury, not just serious injury, if it could be attributable to LNG
activities.
Comment 2: One private citizen states that more due diligence on
the front end is needed before NMFS issues the IHA.
Response: NMFS has conducted extensive review of the best science
available regarding the biology of the marine mammals affected and the
propagation of sounds from operations of the offshore LNG port. This
information is supported by Draft and Final Environmental Impact
Statements issued by MARAD and USCG under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) and a biological opinion pursuant to the Endangered
Species Act (ESA).
Comment 3: One private citizen questions why NMFS grants the permit
if there is harassment to marine mammals.
Response: As stated in the beginning of this document, the MMPA
directs the Secretary to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not
intentional taking 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. NMFS has made these
findings and followed the appropriate process set forth in MMPA section
101(a)(5)(D).
Marine Mammals Affected by the Activity
Marine mammal species that potentially occur in the vicinity of the
Northeast Gateway facility include several species of cetaceans and
pinnipeds:
North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis),
humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae),
fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus),
minke whale (B. acutorostrata),
pilot whale (Globicephala spp.),
Atlantic white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus acutus),
bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus),
common dolphin (Delphinus delphis),
killer whale (Orcinus orca),
harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena),
harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), and
gray seal (Halichoerus grypus).
Information on those species that may be impacted by this activity
are discussed in detail in the MARAD and USCG Final EIS on the
Northeast Gateway LNG proposal. Please refer to that document for more
information on these species and potential impacts from construction
and operation of this LNG facility. In addition, general information on
these marine mammal species can also be found in Wursig et al. (2000)
and in the NMFS Stock Assessment Reports (Waring et al., 2007). This
latter document is available at: https://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/
publications/tm/tm201/. An updated summary on several commonly sighted
marine mammal species distribution and abundance in the vicinity of the
proposed action area is provided below.
Humpback Whale
The highest abundance for humpback whales was distributed primarily
along a relatively narrow corridor following the 100-m (328 ft) isobath
across the southern Gulf of Maine from the northwestern slope of
Georges Bank, south to the Great South Channel, and northward alongside
Cape Cod to Stellwagen Bank and Jeffreys Ledge. The relative abundance
of whales increased in the spring with the highest occurrence along the
slope waters (between the 40- and 140-m, or 131- and 459-ft, isobaths)
off Cape Cod and Davis Bank, Stellwagen Basin and Tillies Basin and
between the 50- and 200-m (164- and 656-ft) isobaths along the inner
slope of Georges Bank. High abundance was also estimated for the waters
around Platts Bank. In the summer months, abundance increased markedly
over the shallow waters (<50 m, or <164 ft) of Stellwagen Bank, the
waters (100 - 200 m, or 328 - 656 ft) between Platts Bank and Jeffreys
Ledge, the steep slopes (between the 30- and 160-m isobaths) of Phelps
and Davis Bank north of the Great South Channel towards Cape Cod, and
between the 50- and 100-m (164- and 328-ft) isobath for almost the
entire length of the steeply sloping northern edge of Georges Bank.
This general distribution pattern persisted in all seasons except
winter, when humpbacks remained at high abundance in only a few
locations including Porpoise and Neddick Basins adjacent to Jeffreys
Ledge, northern Stellwagen Bank and Tillies Basin, and the Great South
Channel.
Fin Whale
Spatial patterns of habitat utilization by fin whales were very
similar to those of humpback whales. Spring and
[[Page 29487]]
summer high-use areas followed the 100-m (328 ft) isobath along the
northern edge of Georges Bank (between the 50- and 200-m (164- and 656-
ft) isobaths), and northward from the Great South Channel (between the
50- and 160-m, or 164- and 525-ft, isobaths). Waters around Cashes
Ledge, Platts Bank, and Jeffreys Ledge are all high-use areas in the
summer months. Stellwagen Bank was a high-use area for fin whales in
all seasons, with highest abundance occurring over the southern
Stellwagen Bank in the summer months. In fact, the southern portion of
the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary (SBNMS) was used more
frequently than the northern portion in all months except winter, when
high abundance was recorded over the northern tip of Stellwagen Bank.
In addition to Stellwagen Bank, high abundance in winter was estimated
for Jeffreys Ledge and the adjacent Porpoise Basin (100- to 160-m, 328-
to 656-ft, isobaths), as well as Georges Basin and northern Georges
Bank.
Minke Whale
Like other piscivorous baleen whales, highest abundance for minke
whale was strongly associated with regions between the 50- and 100-m
(164- and 328-ft) isobaths, but with a slightly stronger preference for
the shallower waters along the slopes of Davis Bank, Phelps Bank, Great
South Channel and Georges Shoals on Georges Bank. Minke whales were
sighted in the SBNMS in all seasons, with highest abundance estimated
for the shallow waters (approximately 40 m, or 131 ft) over southern
Stellwagen Bank in the summer and fall months. Platts Bank, Cashes
Ledge, Jeffreys Ledge, and the adjacent basins (Neddick, Porpoise and
Scantium) also supported high relative abundance. Very low densities of
minke whales remained throughout most of the southern Gulf of Maine in
winter.
North Atlantic Right Whale
North Atlantic right whales were generally distributed widely
across the southern Gulf of Maine in spring with highest abundance
located over the deeper waters (100- to 160-m, or 328- to 525-ft,
isobaths) on the northern edge of the Great South Channel and deep
waters (100 300 m, 328 - 984 ft) parallel to the 100-m (328-ft) isobath
of northern Georges Bank and Georges Basin. High abundance was also
found in the shallowest waters (< 30 m, or <98 ft) of Cape Cod Bay,
over Platts Bank and around Cashes Ledge. Lower relative abundance was
estimated over deep-water basins including Wilkinson Basin, Rodgers
Basin and Franklin Basin. In the summer months, right whales moved
almost entirely away from the coast to deep waters over basins in the
central Gulf of Maine (Wilkinson Basin, Cashes Basin between the 160-
and 200-m, or 525- and 656-ft, isobaths) and north of Georges Bank
(Rogers, Crowell and Georges Basins). Highest abundance was found north
of the 100-m (328-ft) isobath at the Great South Channel and over the
deep slope waters and basins along the northern edge of Georges Bank.
The waters between Fippennies Ledge and Cashes Ledge were also
estimated as high-use areas. In the fall months, right whales were
sighted infrequently in the Gulf of Maine, with highest densities over
Jeffreys Ledge and over deeper waters near Cashes Ledge and Wilkinson
Basin. In winter, Cape Cod Bay, Scantum Basin, Jeffreys Ledge, and
Cashes Ledge were the main high-use areas. Although SBNMS does not
appear to support the highest abundance of right whales, sightings
within SBNMS are reported for all four seasons, albeit at low relative
abundance. Highest sighting within SBNMS occured along the southern
edge of the Bank.
Pilot whale
Pilot whales arrived in the southern Gulf of Maine in spring, with
highest abundance in the region occurring in summer and fall. Summer
high-use areas included the slopes of northern Georges Bank along the
100-m (328-ft) isobath and pilot whales made extensive use of the
shoals of Georges Bank (<60 m, or <197 ft, depth). Similarly, fall
distributions were also primarily along the slopes of northern Georges
Bank, but with high-use areas also occurring amongst the deep-water
basins and ledges of the south-central Gulf of Maine. Within SBNMS,
pilot whales were sighted infrequently and were most often estimated at
low density. Cape Cod Bay and southern SBNMS were the only locations
with pilot whale sightings for winter.
Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin
In spring, summer and fall, Atlantic white-sided dolphins were
widespread throughout the southern Gulf of Maine, with the high-use
areas widely located either side of the 100-m (328-ft) isobath along
the northern edge of Georges Bank, and north from the Great South
Channel to Stellwagen Bank, Jeffreys Ledge, Platts Bank and Cashes
Ledge. In spring, high-use areas existed in the Great South Channel,
northern Georges Bank, the steeply sloping edge of Davis Bank and Cape
Cod, southern Stellwagen Bank and the waters between Jeffreys Ledge and
Platts Bank. In summer, there was a shift and expansion of habitat
toward the east and northeast. High-use areas were identified along
most of the northern edge of Georges Bank between the 50- and 200-m
(164- and 656-ft) isobaths and northward from the Great South Channel
along the slopes of Davis Bank and Cape Cod. High sightings were also
recorded over Truxton Swell, Wilkinson Basin, Cashes Ledge and the
bathymetrically complex area northeast of Platts Bank. High sightings
of white-sided dolphin were recorded within SBNMS in all seasons, with
highest density in summer and most widespread distributions in spring
located mainly over the southern end of Stellwagen Bank. In winter,
high sightings were recorded at the northern tip of Stellwagen Bank and
Tillies Basin.
A comparison of spatial distribution patterns for all baleen whales
(Mysticeti) and all porpoises and dolphins combined showed that both
groups have very similar spatial patterns of high- and low-use areas.
The baleen whales, whether piscivorous or planktivorous, were more
concentrated than the dolphins and porpoises. They utilized a corridor
that extended broadly along the most linear and steeply sloping edges
in the southern Gulf of Maine indicated broadly by the 100 m (328 ft)
isobath. Stellwagen Bank and Jeffreys Ledge supported a high abundance
of baleen whales throughout the year. Species richness maps indicated
that high-use areas for individual whales and dolphin species co-
occurred, resulting in similar patterns of species richness primarily
along the southern portion of the 100-m (328-ft) isobath extending
northeast and northwest from the Great South Channel. The southern edge
of Stellwagen Bank and the waters around the northern tip of Cape Cod
were also highlighted as supporting high cetacean species richness.
Intermediate to high numbers of species are also calculated for the
waters surrounding Jeffreys Ledge, the entire Stellwagen Bank, Platts
Bank, Fippennies Ledge and Cashes Ledge.
Killer Whale, Common Dolphin, Bottlenose Dolphin, and Harbor Porpoise
Although these four species are some of the most widely distributed
small cetacean species in the world (Jefferson et al., 1993), they were
not commonly seen in the vicinity of the project area in Massachusetts
Bay (Wiley et al., 1994; NCCOS, 2006; Northeast Gateway Marine Mammal
Monitoring Weekly Reports, 2007).
[[Page 29488]]
Harbor Seal and Gray Seal
In the U.S. waters of the western North Atlantic, both harbor and
gray seals were usually found from the coast of Maine south to southern
New England and New York (Warrings et al., 2007).
Along the southern New England and New York coasts, harbor seals
occur seasonally from September through late May (Schneider and Payne,
1983). In recent years, their seasonal interval along the southern New
England to New Jersey coasts had increased (deHart, 2002). In U.S.
waters, harbor seal breeding and pupping normally occur in waters north
of the New Hampshire/Maine border, although breeding has occurred as
far south as Cape Cod in the early part of the 20\th\ century (Temte et
al., 1991; Katona et al., 1993).
Although gray seals were often seen off the coast from New England
to Labrador, within the U.S. waters, only small numbers of gray seals
have been observed pupping on several isolated islands along the Maine
coast and in Nantucket-Vineyard Sound, Massachusetts (Katona et al.,
1993; Rough, 1995). In the late 1990s, a year-round breeding population
of approximately over 400 gray seals was documented on outer Cape Cod
and Muskeget Island (Warring et al., 2007).
Potential Effects of Noise on Marine Mammals
The effects of noise on marine mammals are highly variable, and can
be categorized as follows (based on Richardson et al., 1995): (1) The
noise may be too weak to be heard at the location of the animal (i.e.,
lower than the prevailing ambient noise level, the hearing threshold of
the animal at relevant frequencies, or both); (2) The noise may be
audible but not strong enough to elicit any overt behavioral response;
(3) The noise may elicit reactions of variable conspicuousness and
variable relevance to the well being of the marine mammal; these can
range from temporary alert responses to active avoidance reactions such
as vacating an area at least until the noise event ceases; (4) Upon
repeated exposure, a marine mammal may exhibit diminishing
responsiveness (habituation), or disturbance effects may persist; the
latter is most likely with sounds that are highly variable in
characteristics, infrequent and unpredictable in occurrence, and
associated with situations that a marine mammal perceives as a threat;
(5) Any anthropogenic noise that is strong enough to be heard has the
potential to reduce (mask) the ability of a marine mammal to hear
natural sounds at similar frequencies, including calls from
conspecifics, and underwater environmental sounds such as surf noise;
(6) If mammals remain in an area because it is important for feeding,
breeding or some other biologically important purpose even though there
is chronic exposure to noise, it is possible that there could be noise-
induced physiological stress; this might in turn have negative effects
on the well-being or reproduction of the animals involved; and (7) Very
strong sounds have the potential to cause temporary or permanent
reduction in hearing sensitivity. In terrestrial mammals, and
presumably marine mammals, received sound levels must far exceed the
animal's hearing threshold for there to be any temporary threshold
shift (TTS) in its hearing ability. For transient sounds, the sound
level necessary to cause TTS is inversely related to the duration of
the sound. Received sound levels must be even higher for there to be
risk of permanent hearing impairment. In addition, intense acoustic (or
explosive events) may cause trauma to tissues associated with organs
vital for hearing, sound production, respiration and other functions.
This trauma may include minor to severe hemorrhage.
There are three general kinds of sounds recognized by NMFS:
continuous (such as shipping sounds), intermittent (such as vibratory
pile driving sounds), and impulse. No impulse noise activities, such as
blasting or standard pile driving, are associated with this project.
The noise sources of potential concern are regasification/offloading
(which is a continuous sound) and dynamic positioning of vessels using
thrusters (an intermittent sound). Based on research by Malme et al.
(1983; 1984), for both continuous and intermittent sound sources, Level
B harassment is presumed to begin at received levels of 120-dB.
None of the continuous sound sources associated with operation of
the Northeast Gateway Project is expected to exceed the 120-dB
threshold for Level B harassment. However, the intermittent noises from
thruster use associated with dynamic positioning of vessels during
operation (docking) may occasionally exceed this 120-dB threshold.
Consequently, thruster use has the potential for a ``take'' by Level B
harassment of any marine mammal occurring within a zone of
ensonification (greater than 120 dB) emanating from the sound source.
The potential impacts to marine mammals associated with sound
propagation from vessel movements, anchors, chains and LNG
regasification/offloading could be the temporary and short-term
displacement of seals and whales from within the 120-dB zones
ensonified by these noise sources. Animals would be expexted to re-
occupy the area once the noise ceases. In the vicinity of the LNG Port,
where the water depth is about 80 m (262 ft), the 120-dB radius is
estimated to be approximately 2.56 km (1.6 mi) from the second source
during dynamic positioning for the container ship, making a zone of
influence (ZOI) of 21 km\2\ (8.1 mi\2\).
Estimates of Take by Harassment
The basis for Northeast Gateway's ``take'' estimate is the number
of marine mammals that would be exposed to sound levels in excess of
120 dB. This is determined by multiplying the ZOI by local marine
mammal density estimates, corrected to take account for 50 percent
marine mammals that may be underwater, and then by estimated LNG
container ship visits per year. In the case of data gaps, a
conservative approach was used to ensure the potential number of takes
is not underestimated, as described next.
NMFS recognizes that baleen whale species other than North Atlantic
right whales have been sighted in the project area from May to
November. However, the occurrence and abundance of fin, humpback, and
minke is not well documented within the project area. Nonetheless, NMFS
uses the data on cetacean distribution within Massachusetts Bay, such
as those published by the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science
(NCCOS, 2006), to determine potential takes of marine mammals in the
vicinity of project area.
The NCCOS study used cetacean sightings from two sources: (1) the
North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium (NARWC) sightings database held
at the University of Rhode Island (Kenney, 2001); and (2) the Manomet
Bird Observatory (MBO) database, held at NMFS Northeast Fisheries
Science Center (NEFSC). The NARWC data contained survey efforts and
sightings data from ship and aerial surveys and opportunistic sources
between 1970 and 2005. The main data contributors included: Cetacean
and Turtles Assessment Program (CETAP), Canadian Department of
Fisheries and Oceans, PCCS, International Fund for Animal Welfare,
NOAA's NEFSC, New England Aquarium, Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution, and the University of Rhode Island. A total of 653,725 km
(406,293 mi) of survey track and 34,589 cetacean observations were
provisionally selected for the NCCOS study in order to
[[Page 29489]]
minimize bias from uneven allocation of survey effort in both time and
space. The sightings-per-unit-effort (SPUE) was calculated for all
cetacean species by month covering the southern Gulf of Maine study
area, which also includes the project area (NCCOS, 2006).
The MBO's Cetacean and Seabird Assessment Program (CSAP) was
contracted from 1980 to 1988 by NMFS NEFSC to provide an assessment of
the relative abundance and distribution of cetaceans, seabirds, and
marine turtles in the shelf waters of the northeastern United States
(MBO, 1987). The CSAP program was designed to be completely compatible
with NMFS NEFSC databases so that marine mammal data could be compared
directly with fisheries data throughout the time series during which
both types of information were gathered. A total of 5,210 km (8,383 mi)
of survey distance and 636 cetacean observations from the MBO data were
included in the NCCOS analysis. Combined valid survey effort for the
NCCOS studies included 567,955 km (913,840 mi) of survey track for
small cetaceans (dolphins and porpoises) and 658,935 km (1,060,226 mi)
for large cetaceans (whales) in the southern Gulf of Maine. The NCCOS
study then combined these two data sets by extracting cetacean sighting
records, updating database field names to match the NARWC database,
creating geometry to represent survey tracklines and applying a set of
data selection criteria designed to minimize uncertainty and bias in
the data used.
Owning to the comprehensiveness and total coverage of the NCCOS
cetacean distribution and abundance study, NMFS calculated the
estimated take number of marine mammals based on the most recent NCCOS
report published in December 2006. A summary of seasonal cetacean
distribution and abundance in the project area is provided above, in
the Marine Mammals Affected by the Activity section. For a detailed
description and calculation of the cetacean abundance data and sighting
per unit effort (SPUE), please refer to the NCCOS study (NCCOS, 2006).
These data show that the upper limit of the relative abundance of North
Atlantic right, fin, humpback, minke, and pilot whales, and Atlantic
white-sided dolphins for all seasons, as calculated by SPUE in number
of animals per square kilometer, is 0.0082, 0.0097, 0.0265, 0.0059,
0.0407, and 0.1314 n/km, respectively.
In calculating the area density of these species from these linear
density data, NMFS used 0.4 km (0.25 mi), which is a quarter the
distance of the radius for visual monitoring (see Monitoring,
Mitigation, and Reporting section below), as a conservative
hypothetical strip width (W). Thus the area density (D) of these
species in the project area can be obtained by the following formula:
D = SPUE/2W,
Based on the calculation, the estimated take numbers per year for
North Atlantic right, fin, humpback, minke, and pilot whales, and
Atlantic white-sided dolphins, within the 120-dB ZOI of the LNG Port
facility area of approximately 21 km2 (8.1 mi2) maximum ZOI, corrected
for 50 percent underwater, are 21, 90, 165, 15, 104, and 336,
respectively. This estimate is based on an average of 65 visits by LNG
container ships to the project area per year (or approximately 1.25
visits per week), operating the vessels' thrusters for dynamic
positioning before offloading natural gas. It is expected that total
amount of time of dynamic positioning is about 30 minutes, therefore,
any marine mammals that are potentially exposed to noise levels about
120 dB re 1 microPa from container ships' dynamic positioning would be
brief. There is no danger of injury, death, or hearing impairment from
the exposure to these noise levels. These numbers represent
approximately 7, 3, 18, 0.4, 0.3, and 0.7 percent of the populations
for these species, respectively.
In addition, bottlenose dolphins, common dolphins, killer whales,
harbor porpoises, harbor seals, and gray seals could also be taken by
Level B harassment as a result of the deepwater LNG port project. The
numbers of estimated take of these species are not available because
they are rare in the project area. The population estimates of these
marine mammal species and stock in the west North Atlantic basin are
81,588, 120,743, 89,700, 99,340, and 195,000 for bottlenose dolphins,
common dolphins, harbor porpoises, harbor seals, and gray seals,
respectively (Waring et al., 2007). No population estimate is available
for the North Atlantic stock of killer whales, however, their
occurrence within the proposed project area is rare. Since the
Massachusetts Bay represents only a small fraction of the west North
Atlantic basin where these animals occur, and these animals do not
congregate in the vicinity of the project area, NMFS believes that only
relatively small numbers of these marine mammal species would be
potentially affected by the Northeast Gateway LNG deepwater project.
From the most conservative estimates of both marine mammal densities in
the project area and the size of the 120-dB zone of (noise) influence
(ZOI), the calculated number of individual marine mammals for each
species that could potentially be harassed annually is small relative
to the overall population size.
Potential Impact on Habitat
Operation of the Port and Pipeline Lateral will result in long-term
effects on the marine environment, including alteration of seafloor
conditions, continued disturbance of the seafloor, regular withdrawal
of sea water, and regular generation of underwater noise. A small area
(0.14 acre) along the Pipeline Lateral will be permanently altered
(armored) at two cable crossings. In addition, the structures
associated with the Port will occupy 4.8 acres of seafloor. An
additional area of the seafloor of up to 38 acres will be subject to
disturbance due to chain sweep while the buoys are occupied. The
benthic community in the up-to 38 acres of soft bottom that may be
swept by the anchor chains while EBRVs are docked will have limited
opportunity to recover, so this area will experience a long-term
reduction in benthic productivity.
Each EBRV will require the withdrawal of an average of 4.97 million
gallons per day of sea water for general ship operations during its 8-
day stay at the Port. As with hydrostatic testing, plankton associated
with the sea water will not likely survive this activity. Based on
densities of plankton in Massachusetts Bay, it is estimated that sea
water use during operations will consume, on a daily basis, about 3 200
x 1,010 phytoplankton cells (about several hundred grams of biomass),
6.5 x 108 zooplankters (equivalent to about 1.2 kg of copepods), and on
the order of 30,000 fish eggs and 5,000 fish larvae. Also, the daily
removal of sea water will reduce the food resources available for
planktivorous organisms. However, the removal of these species is minor
relative to the overall area they occupy and unlikely to measurably
affect the food sources available to marine mammals.
Monitoring, Mitigation, and Reporting Measures
All individuals onboard the EBRVs responsible for the navigation
and lookout duties on the vessel must receive training prior to
assuming navigation and lookout duties, a component of which will be
training on marine mammal sighting/reporting and vessel strike
avoidance measures. Crew training of EBRV personnel will stress
individual responsibility for marine mammal awareness and reporting.
[[Page 29490]]
If a marine mammal is sighted by a crew member, an immediate
notification will be made to the Person-in-Charge on board the vessel
and the Northeast Port Manager, who will ensure that the required
reporting procedures are followed.
Vessel Strike Avoidance
(1) All EBRVs approaching or departing the port will comply with
the Mandatory Ship Reporting (MSR) system to keep apprised of right
whale sightings in the vicinity. Vessel operators will also receive
active detections from the passive acoustic array prior to and during
transit through the northern leg of the Boston TSS where the buoys are
installed.
(2) In response to active right whale sightings (detected
acoustically or reported through other means such as the MSR or SAS),
and taking into account safety and weather conditions, EBRVs will take
appropriate actions to minimize the risk of striking whales, including
reducing speed to 10 knots or less and alerting personnel responsible
for navigation and lookout duties to concentrate their efforts.
(3) EBRVs will maintain speeds of 12 knots or less while in the TSS
until reaching the vicinity of the buoys (except during the seasons and
areas defined below, when speed will be limited to 10 knots or less).
At 1.86 miles (3 km) from the NEG port, speed will be reduced to 3
knots, and to less than 1 knot at 1,640 ft (500 m) from the buoy.
(4) EBRVs will reduce transit speed to 10 knots or less (unless
hydrographic, meteorological, or traffic conditions dictate an
alternative speed to maintain the safety or maneuverability of the
vessel) from March 1 - April 30 in all waters bounded by straight lines
connecting the following points in the order stated below. This area is
also known as the Off Race Point Seasonal Management Area (SMA).
42[deg]30'N 70[deg]30'W
42[deg]30'N 69v45'W
41[deg]40'N 69[deg]45'W
41[deg]40'N 69[deg]57'W
42[deg]04.8'N 70[deg]10'W
42[deg]12'N 70[deg]15'W
42[deg]12'N 70[deg]30'W
42[deg]30'N 70[deg]30'W
(5) EBRVs will reduce transit speed to 10 knots or less (unless
hydrographic, meteorological, or traffic conditions dictate an
alternative speed to maintain the safety or maneuverability of the
vessel) from April 1 - July 31 in all waters bounded by straight lines
connecting the following points in the order stated below. This area is
also known as the Great South Channel SMA.
42[deg]30'N 69[deg]45'W
42[deg]30'N 67[deg]27'W
42[deg]09'N 67[deg]08.4'W
41[deg]00'N 69[deg]05'W
41[deg]40'N 69[deg]45'W
42[deg]30'N 69[deg]45'W
(6) EBRVs are not expected to transit Cape Cod Bay. However, in the
event transit through Cape Cod Bay is required, EBRVs will reduce
transit speed to 10 knots or less (unless hydrographic, meteorological,
or traffic conditions dictate an alternative speed to maintain the
safety or maneuverability of the vessel) from January 1 - May 15 in all
waters in Cape Cod Bay, extending to all shorelines of Cape Cod Bay,
with a northern boundary of 42[deg]12'N latitude.
(7) In such cases where speeds in excess of the ten knot speed
maximums as described above are required, the reasons for the
deviation, the speed at which the vessel is operated, the area, and the
time and duration of such deviation will be documented in the logbook
of the vessel and reported to the NMFS Northeast Region Ship Strike
Coordinator.
Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) Program
An array of Auto-detection Buoys (ABs) have been installed in the
Boston TSS that meets the criteria specified in the recommendations
developed by NOAA through consultation with the USCG under the National
Marine Sanctuary Act (NMSA). The system will be monitored during the
LNG Port operations and will provide near real-time information on the
presence of vocalizing whales in the shipping lanes.
An archival array of acoustic recording units (ARUs), or ``pop-
ups,'' has been installed around the port site that meets the criteria
specified in the program developed by NOAA in consultation with the
USCG under the National Marine Sanctuary Act (NMSA). The ARUs will be
in place for 5 years following initiation of operations to monitor the
actual acoustic output of port operations and alert NOAA to any
unanticipated adverse effects of port operations, such as large-scale
abandonment of the area.
Reporting
The Project area is within the Mandatory Ship Reporting Area
(MSRA), so all vessels entering and exiting the MSRA would report their
activities to WHALESNORTH. During all phases of the Northeast Gateway
LNG Port operation, sightings of any injured or dead marine mammals
would be reported immediately to the USCG or NMFS, regardless of
whether the injury or death is caused by project activities.
An annual report on marine mammal monitoring and mitigation would
be submitted to NMFS Office of Protected Resources and NMFS Northeast
Regional Office within 90 days after the expiration of the IHA. The
annual report should include data collected for each distinct marine
mammal species observed in the project area in the Massachusetts Bay
during the period of LNG facility operation. Description of marine
mammal behavior, overall numbers of individuals observed, frequency of
observation, and any behavioral changes and the context of the changes
relative to operation activities shall also be included in the annual
report.
ESA
On February 5, 2007, NMFS concluded consultation with MARAD and the
USCG, under section 7 of the ESA, on the proposed construction and
operation of the Northeast Gateway LNG facility and issued a biological
opinion. The finding of that consultation was that the construction and
operation of the Northeast Gateway LNG terminal may adversely affect,
but is not likely to jeopardize, the continued existence of northern
right, humpback, and fin whales, and is not likely to adversely affect
sperm, sei, or blue whales and Kemp's ridley, loggerhead, green or
leatherback sea turtles. An incidental take statement (ITS) was issued
following NMFS' issuance of the IHA.
On November 15, 2007, Northeast Gateway and Algonquin submitted a
letter to NMFS requesting an extension for the LNG Port construction
into December 2007. Upon reviewing Northeast Gateway's weekly marine
mammal monitoring reports submitted under the previous IHA, NMFS
recognized that the potential take of some marine mammals resulting
from the LNG Port and Pipeline Lateral by Level B behavioral harassment
likely had exceeded the original take estimates. Therefore, NMFS
Northeast Region (NER) reinitiated consultation with MARAD and USCG on
the construction and operation of the Northeast Gateway LNG facility.
On November 30, 2007, NMFS NER issued a revised biological opinion,
reflecting the revised construction time period and including a revised
ITS. This revised biological opinion concluded that the construction
and operation of the Northeast Gateway LNG terminal may adversely
affect, but is not likely to jeopardize, the continued existence of
northern right, humpback, and fin
[[Page 29491]]
whales, and is not likely to adversely affect sperm, sei, or blue
whales. NMFS has concluded that issuance of this IHA renewal would not
have impacts beyond what was analyzed in the November 30, 2007,
biological opinion, so additional consultation is not required.
NEPA
MARAD and the USCG released a Final EIS/Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) for the proposed Northeast Gateway Port and Pipeline Lateral. A
notice of availability was published by MARAD on October 26, 2006 (71
FR 62657). The Final EIS/EIR provides detailed information on the
proposed project facilities, construction methods and analysis of
potential impacts on marine mammal.
NMFS was a cooperating agency (as defined by the Council on
Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1501.6)) in the preparation of the Draft
and Final EISs. NMFS has reviewed the Final EIS and has adopted it.
Therefore, the preparation of another EIS or EA is not warranted.
Determinations
NMFS has determined that the impact of operation of the Northeast
Gateway Port Project may result, at worst, in a temporary modification
in behavior of small numbers of certain species of marine mammals that
may be in close proximity to the Northeast Gateway LNG facility and
associated pipeline during its operation. These activities are expected
to result in some local short-term displacement only of the affected
species or stocks of marine mammals. Taking these two factors together,
NMFS concludes that the activity will have no more than a negligible
impact on the affected species or stocks, as there will be no expected
effects on annual rates of survival and reproduction of these species
or stocks. This determination is further supported by the required
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures described in this
document and in NMFS' Biological Opinion on this action.
As a result of implementation of the described mitigation and
monitoring measures, no take by injury or death would be requested,
anticipated or authorized, and the potential for temporary or permanent
hearing impairment is very unlikely due to the relatively low noise
levels (and consequently small zone of impact).
While the number of marine mammals that may be harassed will depend
on the distribution and abundance of marine mammals in the vicinity of
the LNG Port facility, the estimated numbers of marine mammals to be
harassed is small relative to the affected species or stock sizes.
Authorization
NMFS has issued an IHA to Northeast Gateway for conducting LNG Port
facility operations in Massachusetts Bay, provided the previously
mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are
incorporated.
Dated: May 15, 2008.
Helen Golde,
Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E8-11417 Filed 5-20-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S