Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Construction of the Block Island Wind Farm, 16301-16315 [2014-06533]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 57 (Tuesday, March 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16301-16315]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06533]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XD163


Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; 
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Construction of the Block Island 
Wind Farm

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

[[Page 16302]]


ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request 
for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS has received an application from Deepwater Wind Block 
Island, LLC (DWBI) for an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) to 
take marine mammals, by harassment, incidental to development of the 
Block Island Wind Farm. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act 
(MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an IHA to 
DWBI to incidentally take, by Level B harassment only, marine mammals 
during the specified activity.

DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than April 
24, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the application should be addressed to Jolie 
Harrison, Supervisor, Incidental Take Program, Permits and Conservation 
Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The mailbox 
address for providing email comments is itp.magliocca@noaa.gov. 
Comments sent via email, including all attachments, must not exceed a 
25-megabyte file size. NMFS is not responsible for comments sent to 
addresses other than those provided here.
    Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record 
and will generally be posted to https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm without change. All Personal Identifying Information 
(for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the 
commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential 
Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
    An electronic copy of the application may be obtained by writing to 
the address specified above, telephoning the contact listed below (see 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or visiting the internet at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm. Documents cited in this 
notice may also be viewed, by appointment, during regular business 
hours, at the aforementioned address.
    NMFS is also preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) in 
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and will 
consider comments submitted in response to this notice as part of that 
process. The EA will be posted at the Web site listed above once it is 
finalized.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Magliocca, Office of 
Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) 
direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the 
incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine 
mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than 
commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain 
findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking 
is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is 
provided to the public for review.
    An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS 
finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or 
stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the 
availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 
relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements 
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings 
are set forth. NMFS has defined ``negligible impact'' in 50 CFR 216.103 
as ``an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be 
reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely 
affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of 
recruitment or survival.''
    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the 
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: any act of pursuit, torment, or 
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or 
marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the 
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not 
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 
sheltering [Level B harassment].

Summary of Request

    On March 11, 2013, NMFS received an application from DWBI for the 
taking of marine mammals incidental to construction of the Block Island 
Wind Farm. The application went through a series of revisions and the 
final version was submitted on October 17, 2013. NMFS determined that 
the application was adequate and complete on December 2, 2013.
    DWBI proposes to develop the Block Island Wind Farm (BIWF), a 30 
megawatt offshore wind farm. The proposed activity could begin in late 
2014 and last through late 2015; however, portions of the project would 
only occur for short, sporadic periods of times over the 1-year period. 
The following specific aspects of the proposed activities are likely to 
result in the take of marine mammals: Impact pile driving and the use 
of dynamically positioned (DP) vessel thrusters. Take, by Level B 
Harassment only, of individuals of nine species is anticipated to 
result from the specified activity.

Description of the Specified Activity

Overview

    The BIWF will consist of five, 6 megawatt wind turbine generators 
(WTGs), a submarine cable interconnecting the WTGs, and a transmission 
cable. Construction of the BIWF will involve the following activities: 
Cable landfall construction on Block Island via a short-distance 
horizontal directional drill (HDD) from an excavated trench box located 
on Crescent Beach, Block Island; jacket foundation installation; inter-
array and export cable installation; and WTG installation. Installation 
of the jacket foundation would require impact pile driving. The 
generation of underwater noise from impact pile driving and the DP 
vessel thruster may result in the incidental take of marine mammals.
    In connection with the BIWF, Deepwater Wind Block Island 
Transmission System, LLC (a different applicant) proposes to construct 
the Block Island Transmission System, a bi-directional submarine 
transmission cable that will run from Block Island to the Rhode Island 
mainland. Incidental take of marine mammals resulting from construction 
of the Block Island Transmission System will be assessed separately.

Dates and Duration

    Construction activities could begin in late 2014 and are scheduled 
to be complete by December 2015. The anticipated project work windows 
are provided in Table 1.

[[Page 16303]]



                                    Table 1--Anticipated Project Work Windows
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Activity                                         Anticipated work window
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contracting, mobilization, and verification............  January 2014-December 2014.
Onshore short-distance HDD installation................  December 2014-June 2015.
Onshore/offshore long-distance HDD installation........  January 2015-June 2015.
Onshore cable installation.............................  October 2014-May 2015.
Offshore cable installation............................  April 2015-August 2015.
Landfall demobilization and remediation................  May 2015-June 2015.
Foundation fabrication and transportation..............  October 2015-September 2015.
WTG jacket foundation--non-pile driving activity.......  April-July or August-October.
WTG jacket foundation--pile driving....................  May-July or August-October.
WTG installation and commissioning.....................  July-December.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NMFS is proposing to issue an authorization effective December 2014 
through November 2015, based on the anticipated work windows for in-
water construction that could result in the incidental take of marine 
mammals. While project activities may occur for 1 year, in-water pile 
driving is only expected to occur for up to 20 days (4 days for each 
WTG). Use of the DP vessel thruster during cable installation 
activities is expected to occur for 28 days maximum. Impact pile 
driving would occur during daylight hours only, starting approximately 
30 minutes after dawn and ending 30 minutes prior to dusk, unless a 
situation arises where stopping pile driving would compromise safety 
(either human health or environmental) and/or the integrity of the 
project. Cable installation (and subsequent use of the DP vessel 
thruster) would be conducted 24 hours per day.

Specified Geographic Region

    The offshore components of the BIWF will be located in state 
territorial waters. Construction staging and laydown for offshore 
construction is planned to occur at the Quonset Point port facility in 
North Kingstown, Rhode Island. The WTGs will be located on average of 
about 4.8 kilometers (km) southeast of Block Island, and about 25.7 km 
south of the Rhode Island mainland. The WTGs will be arranged in a 
radial configuration spaced about 0.8 km apart. The inter-array cable 
will connect the five WTGs for a total length of 3.2 km from the 
northernmost WTG to the southernmost WTG (Figure 1.2-1 of DWBI's 
application). Water depths along the WTG array and inter-array cable 
range up to 23.3 meters (m).
    The submarine portions of the export cable will be installed by a 
jet plow supported by a DP vessel. The export cable will originate at 
the northernmost WTG and travel 10 km to a manhole on Block Island. 
Water depths along the export cable submarine route range up to 36.9 m. 
Terrestrial cables, an interconnection switchyard, and other ancillary 
facilities associated with the BIWF will be located in the town of New 
Shoreham in Washington County, Rhode Island.

Detailed Description of Activities

    The following sections provide additional details associated with 
each portion of the BIWF construction.
1. Landfall Construction
    On Block Island, DWBI plans to bring the export cable ashore via a 
short-distance HDD. DWBI would use the short-distance HDD to install 
either a steel or high density polyethylene conduit for the cable under 
the beach. The excavated trench on Crescent Beach would be 
approximately 2 to 3 m wide, 4 m deep, and 11 m long. Spoils from the 
trench excavation would be stored on the respective beach and returned 
to the trench after cable installation. The HDD would enter through the 
shore side of the excavated trench and the cable conduit would be 
installed between the trench and the manhole. The export cable would 
then be pulled from the excavated trench into the respective manhole 
through the newly installed conduit. Sheet piling installations would 
occur at low tide.
    The coupling of land-based vibrations and nearshore sounds into the 
underwater acoustic field is not well understood and cannot be 
accurately predicted using current models. However, because the 
excavation for the cable trench and the HDD installation on the beach 
would occur onshore and because sand is generally a very poor conductor 
of vibrations, NMFS considers it unlikely that the underwater noise 
generated from either of these installations would result in harassment 
of marine mammals.
    A jet plow, supported by a DP cable installation barge, would be 
used to install the export cable below the seabed. The jet plow would 
be positioned over the trench at the mean low water mark on Crescent 
Beach and be pulled from shore by the cable installation barge.
2. Jacket Foundation Installation
    Offshore installation of the WTG jacket foundations would be 
carried out from a derrick barge moored to the seabed. Each jacket 
foundation would be lifted from the derrick barge, placed onto the 
seafloor, leveled, and made ready for piling. The piles would then be 
inserted above sea level into each corner of the jacket foundation in 
two segments. First, the lead sections of the piles would be inserted 
into the jacket foundation legs and then driven into the seafloor. 
Then, the second length of the piles would be placed on the lead pile 
section and welded into place. The jacket foundation piles would then 
be driven into the seafloor to the final penetration design depth or 
until refusal, whichever comes first. DWBI anticipates a final pile 
depth of up to 76.2 m. For the purpose of analysis, DWBI assumes that 
impact pile driving would start with a 200 kilojoule (kJ) rated 
hydraulic hammer, followed by a 600 kJ rated hammer to reach final 
design penetration. A 1,000-kilowatt unit would power the hammers. 
Changing out the hammers from 200 to 600 kJ would be required once the 
driving forces become ineffective, and would take about 30 to 60 
minutes to complete, during which time impact pile driving would cease. 
Once pile driving is complete, the top of the piles would be welded to 
the jacket foundation legs using shear plates and cut to allow for 
horizontal placement of the WTG transition deck. Finally, the boat 
landing and transition decks would be welded into place.
    Pile driving activities would occur during daylight hours only, 
unless a situation arises where stopping pile driving would compromise 
safety (either human health or environmental) and/or the integrity of 
the project. Installation of each jacket foundation would require 7 
days to complete; the duration of pile driving within this

[[Page 16304]]

timeframe is anticipated to be 4 days for each jacket foundation. The 
jacket foundations would be installed one at a time at each WTG 
location for a total of 5 weeks assuming no delays due to weather or 
other circumstances.
3. Offshore Cable Installation
    DWBI would use a jet plow, supported by a DP cable installation 
barge, to install the export cable and inter-array cable below the 
seabed. The jet plow would be positioned over the trench and pulled 
from shore by the cable installation vessel. The jet plow would likely 
be a rubber-tired or skid-mounted plow with a maximum width of about 
4.6 m, and pulled along the seafloor behind the cable-laying barge with 
assistance of a non-DP material barge. High-pressure water from vessel-
mounted pumps would be injected into the sediments through nozzles 
situated along the plow, causing the sediments to temporarily fluidize 
and create a liquefied trench. DWBI anticipates a temporary trench 
width of up to 1.5 m. As the plow is pulled along the route behind the 
barge, the cable would be laid into the temporary, liquefied trench 
through the back of the plow. The trench would be backfilled by the 
water current and the natural settlement of the suspended material. 
Umbilical cords would connect the submerged jet plow to control 
equipment on the vessel to allow the operators to monitor and control 
the installation process and make adjustments to the speed and 
alignment as the installation proceeds across the water.
    The export cable and inter-array cable would be buried to a target 
depth of 1.8 m beneath the seafloor. The actual burial depth depends on 
substrate encountered along the route and could vary from 1.2 to 2.4 m. 
If less than 1.2 m burial is achieved, DWBI may elect to install 
additional protection, such as concrete matting or rock piles. At each 
of the WTGs, the inter-array cable would be pulled into the jacket 
foundation through J-tubes installed on the sides of the jacket 
foundations. At the J-tubes, additional cable armoring such as sand 
bags and/or rocks would be used to protect the inter-array cable.
    A DP vessel would be used during cable installation in order to 
maintain precise coordinates. DP systems maintain their precise 
coordinates in waters through the use of automatic controls. These 
control systems use variable levels of power to counter forces from 
current and wind. During cable-lay activities, DWBI expects that a 
reduced 50 percent power level will be used by DP vessels. DWBI modeled 
scenarios using a source level of 180 dB re 1 micro Pascal for the DP 
vessel thruster, assuming water depths of 7, 10, 20, and 40 m, and 
thruster power of 50 percent. Detailed information on the acoustic 
modeling for this source is provided in Appendix A of DWBI's 
application (see ADDRESSES).
    Depending on bottom conditions, weather, and other factors, 
installation of the export cable and inter-array cable is expected to 
take 2 to 4 weeks. This schedule assumes a 24-hour work window with no 
delays due to weather or other circumstances.
4. WTG Installation
    The WTGs would be installed upon completion of the jacket 
foundations and the pull-in of the inter-array cable. The WTGs would be 
transported by a transportation barge to the BIWF from a temporary 
storage facility on the mainland. The transportation barge would set up 
at the installation site adjacent to a jack-up material barge. The 
jack-up barge legs would be lowered to the seafloor to provide a level 
work surface and begin the WTG installation. The WTGs would be 
installed in sections with the lower tower section lifted onto the 
transition deck followed by the upper tower section.
    Installation of each WTG would require 2 days to complete, assuming 
a 24-hour work window and no delays due to weather or other 
circumstances. None of the activities associated with installation of 
the WTGs is expected to result in the harassment of marine mammals.

Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity

    There are 34 marine mammal species with possible or confirmed 
occurrence in the proposed area of the specified activity (Table 2).

                            Table 2--Marine Mammal Species With Possible or Confirmed Occurrence in the Proposed Project Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Common name                Scientific name           Status             Occurrence          Seasonality             Range          Abundance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toothed whales (Odontocetes)       Lagenorhynchus        ...................  Confirmed..........  Year-round.........  North Carolina to         23,390
 Atlantic white-sided dolphin.      acutus.                                                                              Canada.
Atlantic spotted dolphin.........  Stenella frontalis..  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................       50,978
Bottlenose dolphin...............  Tursiops truncatus..  Strategic (northern  ...................  ...................  ...................        9,604
                                                          coastal stock).
Short-beaked common dolphin......  Delphinus delphis...  ...................  Common.............  Year-round.........  North Carolina to        120,743
                                                                                                                         Canada.
Harbor porpoise..................  Phocoena phocoena...  Strategic..........  Common.............  Year-round.........  North Carolina to         89,054
                                                                                                                         Greenland.
Killer whale.....................  Orcinus orca........  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................        (\1\)
False killer whale...............  Pseudorca crassidens  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................        (\1\)
Long-finned pilot whale..........  Globicephala malaena  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................       12,619
Short-finned pilot whale.........  Globicephala          ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................       24,674
                                    macrohynchus.
Risso's dolphin..................  Grampus griseus.....  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................       20,479
Striped dolphin..................  Stenella              ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................       94,462
                                    coeruleoalba.
White-beaked dolphin.............  Lagenorhynchus        ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................        2,003
                                    albirostris.
Sperm whale......................  Physeter              Endangered.........  ...................  ...................  ...................        4,804
                                    macrocephalus.
Pygmy sperm whale................  Kogia breviceps.....  Strategic..........  ...................  ...................  ...................          395
Dwarf sperm whale................  Kogia sima..........  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................          395
Cuvier's beaked whale............  Ziphius cavirostris.  Strategic..........  ...................  ...................  ...................        3,513
Blainville's beaked whale........  Mesoplodon            ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................        3,513
                                    densirostris.
Gervais' beaked whale............  Mesoplodon europaeus  Strategic..........  ...................  ...................  ...................        3,513
True's beaked whale..............  Mesoplodon mirus....  Strategic..........  ...................  ...................  ...................        3,513
Bryde's whale....................  Balaenoptera edeni..  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...........
Northern bottlenose whale........  Hyperoodon            ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...........
                                    ampullatus.
Baleen whales (Mysticetes) Minke   Balaenoptera          ...................  Common (spring and   Spring, summer,      Caribbean to               8,987
 whale.                             acutorostrata.                             summer).             fall.                Greenland.
Blue whale.......................  Balaenoptera          Endangered.........  ...................  ...................  ...................        (\1\)
                                    musculus.
Fin whale........................  Balaenoptera          Endangered.........  Common.............  Year-round.........  Caribbean to               3,985
                                    physalus.                                                                            Greenland.
Humpback whale...................  Megaptera             Endangered.........  Confirmed..........  Year-round.........  Caribbean to              11,570
                                    novaeangliae.                                                                        Greenland.

[[Page 16305]]

 
North Atlantic right whale.......  Eubalaena glacialis.  Endangered.........  Confirmed..........  Year-round.........  Southeastern U.S.            444
                                                                                                                         to Candada.
Sei whale........................  Balaenoptera          Endangered.........  ...................  ...................  ...................        (\1\)
                                    borealis.
Pinnipeds Gray seals.............  Halichoerus grypus..  ...................  Confirmed..........  Year-round.........  New England to           348,900
                                                                                                                         Canada.
Harbor seals.....................  Phoca vitulina......  ...................  Common.............  Spring, summer,      Florida to Canada..       99,340
                                                                                                    winter.
Hooded seals.....................  Cystophora cristata.  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................        (\1\)
Harp seal........................  Phoca groenlandica..  ...................  ...................  ...................  ...................        (\1\)
West Indian manatee..............  Trichechus manatus..  Endangered.........  ...................  ...................  ...................        3,802
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Unknown.

    The highlighted species in Table 2 are pelagic and/or northern 
species, or are so rarely sighted that their presence in the proposed 
project area, and therefore take, is unlikely. These species are not 
considered further in this proposed IHA notice. The West Indian manatee 
is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and is also not 
considered further in this proposed IHA notice. Further information on 
the biology and local distribution of these species can be found in 
section 4 of DWBI's application (see ADDRESSES), and the NMFS Marine 
Mammal Stock Assessment Reports, which are available online at: https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/.

Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals

    This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that the 
types of stressors associated with the specified activity (i.e., impact 
pile driving and use of the DP vessel thruster) have been observed to 
impact marine mammals. This discussion may also include reactions that 
we consider to rise to the level of a take and those that we do not 
consider to rise to the level of a take (for example, with acoustics, 
we may include a discussion of studies that showed animals not reacting 
at all to sound or exhibiting barely measurable avoidance). This 
section is intended as a background of potential effects and does not 
consider either the specific manner in which this activity will be 
carried out or the mitigation that will be implemented, and how either 
of those will shape the anticipated impacts from this specific 
activity. The ``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment'' section later 
in this document will include a quantitative analysis of the number of 
individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The 
``Negligible Impact Analysis'' section will include the analysis of how 
this specific activity will impact marine mammals and will consider the 
content of this ``Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine 
Mammals'' section, the ``Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment'' 
section, the ``Proposed Mitigation'' section, and the ``Anticipated 
Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat'' section to draw conclusions 
regarding the likely impacts of this activity on the reproductive 
success or survivorship of individuals, and from that on the affected 
marine mammal populations or stocks.

Background on Sound

    Sound is a physical phenomenon consisting of minute vibrations that 
travel through a medium, such as air or water, and is generally 
characterized by several variables. Frequency describes the sound's 
pitch and is measured in hertz (Hz) or kilohertz (kHz), while sound 
level describes the sound's intensity and is measured in decibels (dB). 
Sound level increases or decreases exponentially with each dB of 
change. The logarithmic nature of the scale means that each 10-dB 
increase is a 10-fold increase in acoustic power (and a 20-dB increase 
is then a 100-fold increase in power). A 10-fold increase in acoustic 
power does not mean that the sound is perceived as being 10 times 
louder, however. Sound levels are compared to a reference sound 
pressure (micro-Pascal) to identify the medium. For air and water, 
these reference pressures are ``re: 20 [mu]Pa'' and ``re: 1 [mu]Pa,'' 
respectively. Root mean square (RMS) is the quadratic mean sound 
pressure over the duration of an impulse. RMS is calculated by squaring 
all of the sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the 
square root of the average (Urick, 1975). RMS accounts for both 
positive and negative values; squaring the pressures makes all values 
positive so that they may be accounted for in the summation of pressure 
levels (Hastings and Popper, 2005). This measurement is often used in 
the context of discussing behavioral effects, in part because 
behavioral effects, which often result from auditory cues, may be 
better expressed through averaged units rather than by peak pressures.

Acoustic Impacts

    Impact pile driving and use of the DP vessel thruster during the 
BIWF project may temporarily impact marine mammals in the area due to 
elevated in-water sound levels. Marine mammals are continually exposed 
to many sources of sound. Naturally occurring sounds such as lightning, 
rain, sub-sea earthquakes, and biological sounds (e.g., snapping 
shrimp, whale songs) are widespread throughout the world's oceans. 
Marine mammals produce sounds in various contexts and use sound for 
various biological functions including, but not limited to: (1) Social 
interactions; (2) foraging; (3) orientation; and (4) predator 
detection. Interference with producing or receiving these sounds may 
result in adverse impacts. Audible distance, or received levels of 
sound depend on the nature of the sound source, ambient noise 
conditions, and the sensitivity of the receptor to the sound 
(Richardson et al., 1995). Type and significance of marine mammal 
reactions to sound are likely dependent on a variety of factors 
including, but not limited to, (1) the behavioral state of the animal 
(e.g., feeding, traveling, etc.); (2) frequency of the sound; (3) 
distance between the animal and the source; and (4) the level of the 
sound relative to ambient conditions (Southall et al., 2007).
    When considering the influence of various kinds of sound on the 
marine environment, it is necessary to understand that different kinds 
of marine life are sensitive to different frequencies of sound. Based 
on available behavioral data, audiograms have been derived using 
auditory evoked potentials, anatomical modeling, and other data, 
Southall et al. (2007) designate ``functional hearing groups'' for 
marine mammals and estimate the lower and upper frequencies of 
functional hearing of the groups. The functional groups and the 
associated frequencies are indicated below (though animals are less 
sensitive to sounds at the outer edge of their functional range

[[Page 16306]]

and most sensitive to sounds of frequencies within a smaller range 
somewhere in the middle of their functional hearing range):
     Low frequency cetaceans (13 species of mysticetes): 
functional hearing is estimated to occur between approximately 7 Hz and 
22 kHz (however, a study by Au et al. (2006) of humpback whale songs 
indicate that the range may extend to at least 24 kHz);
     Mid-frequency cetaceans (32 species of dolphins, six 
species of larger toothed whales, and 19 species of beaked and 
bottlenose whales): functional hearing is estimated to occur between 
approximately 150 Hz and 160 kHz;
     High frequency cetaceans (eight species of true porpoises, 
six species of river dolphins, Kogia, the franciscana, and four species 
of cephalorhynchids): functional hearing is estimated to occur between 
approximately 200 Hz and 180 kHz; and
     Pinnipeds in Water: functional hearing is estimated to 
occur between approximately 75 Hz and 75 kHz, with the greatest 
sensitivity between approximately 700 Hz and 20 kHz.
    As mentioned previously in this document, nine marine mammal 
species (seven cetaceans and two pinnipeds) are likely to occur in the 
proposed project area. Of the seven cetacean species likely to occur in 
DWBI's proposed project area, four are classified as low-frequency 
cetaceans (i.e., minke whale, fin whale, humpback whale, and North 
Atlantic right whale), two are classified as mid-frequency cetaceans 
(i.e., Atlantic white-sided dolphin and short-beaked common dolphin), 
and one is classified as a high-frequency cetacean (i.e., harbor 
porpoise) (Southall et al., 2007). A species' functional hearing group 
is a consideration when we analyze the effects of exposure to sound on 
marine mammals.
1. Hearing Impairment
    Marine mammals may experience temporary or permanent hearing 
impairment when exposed to loud sounds. Hearing impairment is 
classified by temporary threshold shift (TTS) and permanent threshold 
shift (PTS). There are no empirical data for onset of PTS in any marine 
mammal; therefore, PTS-onset must be estimated from TTS-onset 
measurements and from the rate of TTS growth with increasing exposure 
levels above the level eliciting TTS-onset. PTS is presumed to be 
likely if the hearing threshold is reduced by >= 40 dB (that is, 40 dB 
of TTS). PTS is considered auditory injury (Southall et al., 2007) and 
occurs in a specific frequency range and amount. Irreparable damage to 
the inner or outer cochlear hair cells may cause PTS; however, other 
mechanisms are also involved, such as exceeding the elastic limits of 
certain tissues and membranes in the middle and inner ears and 
resultant changes in the chemical composition of the inner ear fluids 
(Southall et al., 2007).
2. Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS)
    TTS is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during 
exposure to a loud sound (Kryter, 1985). While experiencing TTS, the 
hearing threshold rises and a sound must be stronger in order to be 
heard. At least in terrestrial mammals, TTS can last from minutes or 
hours to (in cases of strong TTS) days, can be limited to a particular 
frequency range, and can occur to varying degrees (i.e., a loss of a 
certain number of dBs of sensitivity). For sound exposures at or 
somewhat above the TTS threshold, hearing sensitivity in both 
terrestrial and marine mammals recovers rapidly after exposure to the 
noise ends.
    Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with 
conspecifics and in interpretation of environmental cues for purposes 
such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree 
(elevation of threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery time), and 
frequency range of TTS and the context in which it is experienced, TTS 
can have effects on marine mammals ranging from discountable to 
serious. For example, a marine mammal may be able to readily compensate 
for a brief, relatively small amount of TTS in a non-critical frequency 
range that takes place during a time when the animals is traveling 
through the open ocean, where ambient noise is lower and there are not 
as many competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger amount and 
longer duration of TTS sustained during a time when communication is 
critical for successful mother/calf interactions could have more 
serious impacts if it were in the same frequency band as the necessary 
vocalizations and of a severity that it impeded communication. The fact 
that animals exposed to levels and durations of sound that would be 
expected to result in this physiological response would also be 
expected to have behavioral responses of a comparatively more severe or 
sustained nature is also notable and potentially of more importance 
than the simple existence of a TTS.
    Scientific literature highlights the inherent complexity of 
predicting TTS onset in marine mammals, as well as the importance of 
considering exposure duration when assessing potential impacts (Mooney 
et al., 2009a, 2009b; Kastak et al., 2007). Generally, with sound 
exposures of equal energy, quieter sounds (lower SPL) of longer 
duration were found to induce TTS onset more than louder sounds (higher 
SPL) of shorter duration (more similar to subbottom profilers). For 
intermittent sounds, less threshold shift will occur than from a 
continuous exposure with the same energy (some recovery will occur 
between intermittent exposures) (Kryter et al., 1966; Ward, 1997). For 
sound exposures at or somewhat above the TTS-onset threshold, hearing 
sensitivity recovers rapidly after exposure to the sound ends. Southall 
et al. (2007) considers a 6 dB TTS (that is, baseline thresholds are 
elevated by 6 dB) to be a sufficient definition of TTS-onset. NMFS 
considers TTS as Level B harassment that is mediated by physiological 
effects on the auditory system; however, NMFS does not consider TTS-
onset to be the lowest level at which Level B harassment may occur. The 
potential for TTS is considered within NMFS' analysis of potential 
impacts from Level B harassment.
3. Tolerance
    Numerous studies have shown that underwater sounds from industrial 
activities are often readily detectable by marine mammals in the water 
at distances of many kilometers. However, other studies have shown that 
marine mammals at distances more than a few kilometers away often show 
no apparent response to industrial activities of various types (Miller 
et al., 2005). This is often true even in cases when the sounds must be 
readily audible to the animals based on measured received levels and 
the hearing sensitivity of that mammal group. Although various baleen 
whales, toothed whales, and (less frequently) pinnipeds have been shown 
to react behaviorally to underwater sound from sources such as airgun 
pulses or vessels under some conditions, at other times, mammals of all 
three types have shown no overt reactions (e.g., Malme et al., 1986; 
Richardson et al., 1995; Madsen and Mohl, 2000; Croll et al., 2001; 
Jacobs and Terhune, 2002; Madsen et al., 2002; Miller et al., 2005). In 
general, pinnipeds seem to be more tolerant of exposure to some types 
of underwater sound than are baleen whales. Richardson et al. (1995) 
found that vessel sound does not seem to strongly affect pinnipeds that 
are already in the water. Richardson et al. (1995) went on to explain 
that seals on haul-outs sometimes respond strongly to the

[[Page 16307]]

presence of vessels and at other times appear to show considerable 
tolerance of vessels, and Brueggeman et al. (1992) observed ringed 
seals (Pusa hispida) hauled out on ice pans displaying short-term 
escape reactions when a ship approached within 0.16-0.31 mi (0.25-0.5 
km).
4. Masking
    Masking is the obscuring of sounds of interest to an animal by 
other sounds, typically at similar frequencies. Marine mammals are 
highly dependent on sound, and their ability to recognize sound signals 
amid other sound is important in communication and detection of both 
predators and prey. Background ambient sound may interfere with or mask 
the ability of an animal to detect a sound signal even when that signal 
is above its absolute hearing threshold. Even in the absence of 
anthropogenic sound, the marine environment is often loud. Natural 
ambient sound includes contributions from wind, waves, precipitation, 
other animals, and (at frequencies above 30 kHz) thermal sound 
resulting from molecular agitation (Richardson et al., 1995).
    Background sound may also include anthropogenic sound, and masking 
of natural sounds can result when human activities produce high levels 
of background sound. Conversely, if the background level of underwater 
sound is high (e.g., on a day with strong wind and high waves), an 
anthropogenic sound source would not be detectable as far away as would 
be possible under quieter conditions and would itself be masked. 
Ambient sound is highly variable on continental shelves (Thompson, 
1965; Myrberg, 1978; Chapman et al., 1998; Desharnais et al., 1999). 
This results in a high degree of variability in the range at which 
marine mammals can detect anthropogenic sounds.
    Although masking is a phenomenon which may occur naturally, the 
introduction of loud anthropogenic sounds into the marine environment 
at frequencies important to marine mammals increases the severity and 
frequency of occurrence of masking. For example, if a baleen whale is 
exposed to continuous low-frequency sound from an industrial source, 
this would reduce the size of the area around that whale within which 
it can hear the calls of another whale. The components of background 
noise that are similar in frequency to the signal in question primarily 
determine the degree of masking of that signal. In general, little is 
known about the degree to which marine mammals rely upon detection of 
sounds from conspecifics, predators, prey, or other natural sources. In 
the absence of specific information about the importance of detecting 
these natural sounds, it is not possible to predict the impact of 
masking on marine mammals (Richardson et al., 1995). In general, 
masking effects are expected to be less severe when sounds are 
transient than when they are continuous. Masking is typically of 
greater concern for those marine mammals that utilize low-frequency 
communications, such as baleen whales, because of how far low-frequency 
sounds propagate.
5. Behavioral Disturbance
    Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-
specific. An animal's perception of and response to (in both nature and 
magnitude) an acoustic event can be influenced by prior experience, 
perceived proximity, bearing of the sound, familiarity of the sound, 
etc. (Southall et al., 2007). If a marine mammal does react briefly to 
an underwater sound by changing its behavior or moving a small 
distance, the impacts of the change are unlikely to be significant to 
the individual, let alone the stock or population. However, if a sound 
source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding 
area for a prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations 
could be significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007).
    The studies that address responses of low-frequency cetaceans to 
non-pulse sounds (such as the sound emitted from a DP vessel thruster) 
include data gathered in the field and related to several types of 
sound sources (of varying similarity to chirps), including: vessel 
noise, drilling and machinery playback, low-frequency M-sequences (sine 
wave with multiple phase reversals) playback, tactical low-frequency 
active sonar playback, drill ships, and non-pulse playbacks. These 
studies generally indicate no (or very limited) responses to received 
levels in the 90 to 120 dB re: 1[mu]Pa range and an increasing 
likelihood of avoidance and other behavioral effects in the 120 to 160 
dB range. As mentioned earlier, though, contextual variables play a 
very important role in the reported responses and the severity of 
effects do not increase linearly with received levels. Also, few of the 
laboratory or field datasets had common conditions, behavioral 
contexts, or sound sources, so it is not surprising that responses 
differ.
    The studies that address responses of mid-frequency cetaceans to 
non-pulse sounds include data gathered both in the field and the 
laboratory and related to several different sound sources (of varying 
similarity to chirps) including: pingers, drilling playbacks, ship and 
ice-breaking noise, vessel noise, Acoustic harassment devices (AHDs), 
Acoustic Deterrent Devices (ADDs), mid-frequency active sonar, and non-
pulse bands and tones. Southall et al. (2007) were unable to come to a 
clear conclusion regarding the results of these studies. In some cases 
animals in the field showed significant responses to received levels 
between 90 and 120 dB, while in other cases these responses were not 
seen in the 120 to 150 dB range. The disparity in results was likely 
due to contextual variation and the differences between the results in 
the field and laboratory data (animals typically responded at lower 
levels in the field).
    The studies that address responses of high-frequency cetaceans to 
non-pulse sounds include data gathered both in the field and the 
laboratory and related to several different sound sources (of varying 
similarity to chirps), including: Pingers, AHDs, and various laboratory 
non-pulse sounds. All of these data were collected from harbor 
porpoises. Southall et al. (2007) concluded that the existing data 
indicate that harbor porpoises are likely sensitive to a wide range of 
anthropogenic sounds at low received levels (around 90 to 120 dB), at 
least for initial exposures. All recorded exposures above 140 dB 
induced profound and sustained avoidance behavior in wild harbor 
porpoises (Southall et al., 2007). Rapid habituation was noted in some 
but not all studies.
    The studies that address the responses of pinnipeds in water to 
non-pulse sounds include data gathered both in the field and the 
laboratory and related to several different sound sources (of varying 
similarity to chirps), including: AHDs, various non-pulse sounds used 
in underwater data communication, underwater drilling, and construction 
noise. Few studies exist with enough information to include them in the 
analysis. The limited data suggest that exposures to non-pulse sounds 
between 90 and 140 dB generally do not result in strong behavioral 
responses of pinnipeds in water, but no data exist at higher received 
levels (Southall et al., 2007).
    Given the many uncertainties in predicting the quantity and types 
of impacts of noise on marine mammals, it is common practice to 
estimate how many mammals would be present within a particular distance 
of activities and/or exposed to a particular level of sound. In most 
cases, this approach likely overestimates the numbers of

[[Page 16308]]

marine mammals that would be affected in some biologically-important 
manner.
    The studies that address the responses of mid-frequency cetaceans 
to impulse sounds include data gathered both in the field and the 
laboratory and related to several different sound sources (of varying 
similarity to boomers), including: Small explosives, airgun arrays, 
pulse sequences, and natural and artificial pulses. The data show no 
clear indication of increasing probability and severity of response 
with increasing received level. Behavioral responses seem to vary 
depending on species and stimuli. Data on behavioral responses of high-
frequency cetaceans to multiple pulses is not available. Although 
individual elements of some non-pulse sources (such as pingers) could 
be considered pulses, it is believed that some mammalian auditory 
systems perceive them as non-pulse sounds (Southall et al., 2007).
    The studies that address the responses of pinnipeds in water to 
impulse sounds include data gathered in the field and related to 
several different sources (of varying similarity to boomers), 
including: Small explosives, impact pile driving, and airgun arrays. 
Quantitative data on reactions of pinnipeds to impulse sounds is 
limited, but a general finding is that exposures in the 150 to 180 dB 
range generally have limited potential to induce avoidance behavior 
(Southall et al., 2007).
6. Vessel Strike
    Vessels and in-water structures have the potential to cause 
physical disturbance to marine mammals. Various types of vessels 
already use the water surrounding Rhode Island and Block Island in 
particular. Tug boats and barges, both of which would be required 
during the BIWF construction are slow moving and follow a predictable 
course. Marine mammals would be able to easily avoid these vessels and 
are likely already habituated to the presence of numerous vessels.

Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat

    There are no feeding areas, rookeries, or mating grounds known to 
be biologically important to marine mammals within the proposed project 
area. There is also no designated critical habitat for any ESA-listed 
marine mammals. Harbor seals haul out on Block Island and points along 
Narragansett Bay, the most important haul-out being on the edge of New 
Harbor, about 2.4 km from the proposed BIWF landfall on Block Island. 
The only consistent haul-out locations for gray seals within the 
vicinity of Rhode Island are around Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge 
and Nantucket Sound in Massachusetts (more than 80 nautical miles from 
the proposed project area). NMFS' regulations at 50 CFR 224 designated 
the nearshore waters of the Mid-Atlantic Bight as the Mid-Atlantic U.S. 
Seasonal Management Area (SMA) for right whales in 2008. Mandatory 
vessel speed restrictions are in place in that SMA from November 1 
through April 30 to reduce the threat of collisions between ships and 
right whales around their migratory route and calving grounds.
    The BIWF involves activities that would disturb the seafloor and 
potentially affect benthic and finfish communities. Installation of the 
inter-array cable and export cable would result in the temporary 
disturbance of no more than 3.7 and 11.6 acres of seafloor, 
respectively. These installation activities would also result in 
temporary and localized increases in turbidity around the proposed 
project area. DWBI may also be required to install additional 
protective armoring in areas where the burial depth achieved is less 
than 1.2 m. DWBI expects that additional protection would be required 
at a maximum of 1 percent of the entire submarine cable, resulting in a 
conversion of up to 0.4 acres of soft substrate to hard substrate along 
the cable route. During the installation of additional protective 
armoring at the cable crossings and as necessary along the cable route, 
anchors and anchor chains would temporarily impact about 1.8 acres of 
bottom substrate during each anchoring event.
    The installation of the five WTGs would result in a total impact of 
about 0.35 acres. In this area, soft substrate would be permanently 
converted to hard substrate. Construction activities associated with 
the installation of the jacket foundations and WTGs would also result 
in the temporary disturbance of 28.9 acres of substrate from the 
placement of jack-up barge spuds, vessel anchors, and associated anchor 
sweep. Additional disturbance is also expected within the top few 
inches of substrate from the anchor chains during foundation 
installation as they rest on the seafloor or sweep across the bottom in 
response to bottom currents.
    Jet-plowing and impacts from construction vessel anchor placement 
and/or sweep would cause either the displacement or loss of benthic and 
finfish resources in the immediate areas of disturbance. This may 
result in a temporary loss of forage items and a temporary reduction in 
the amount of benthic habitat available for foraging marine mammals in 
the immediate proposed project area. However, the amount of habitat 
affected represents a very small percentage of the available foraging 
habitat in the proposed project area. Increased underwater sound levels 
may temporarily result in marine mammals avoiding or abandoning the 
area.
    Because of the temporary nature of the disturbance, the 
availability of similar habitat and resources in the surrounding area, 
and the lack of important or unique marine mammal habitat, the impacts 
to marine mammals and the food sources that they utilize are not 
expected to cause significant or long-term consequences for individual 
marine mammals or their populations.

Proposed Mitigation

    In order to issue an incidental take authorization (ITA) under 
section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible 
methods of taking pursuant to such activity, and other means of 
effecting the least practicable impact on such species or stock and its 
habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and 
areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species 
or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (where relevant).

Proposed Mitigation Measures

    With NMFS' input during the application process, DWBI is proposing 
the following mitigation measures during impact pile driving and use of 
the DP vessel thruster:
1. Marine Mammal Exclusion Zone
    At the onset of pile driving when the 200 kJ impact pile driving 
hammer is in use, protected species observers would visually monitor a 
200-m radius around each jacket foundation to reduce the potential for 
injury of marine mammals. After changing to the 600 kJ impact pile 
driving hammer, protected species observers would visually monitor a 
600-m radius. These distances are estimated to be the 180 dB isopleths 
based on DWBI's sound exposure model. A minimum of two observers would 
be stationed aboard each noise-producing construction support vessel. 
Each observer would visually monitor a 360-degree field of vision from 
the vessel. Observers would begin monitoring at least 30 minutes prior 
to impact pile driving, continue monitoring during impact pile driving, 
and stop monitoring 30 minutes after impact pile driving has ended. If 
a marine mammal is seen approaching or entering the 200-m or 600-m 
zones during impact pile driving (and following a 50 percent reduction 
in energy), DWBI would stop

[[Page 16309]]

impact pile driving as a precautionary measure to minimize noise 
impacts on the animal. The reduction would not be implemented at the 
risk of compromising safety (either human health or environmental) and/
or the integrity of the project.
2. Soft-start Procedures
    DWBI would use a soft-start (or ramp-up) procedure at the beginning 
of impact pile driving to alert marine mammals in the area. This 
procedure would require an initial set of three strikes from the impact 
hammer at 40 percent energy with a 1-minute waiting period between 
subsequent 3-strike sets. DWBI would repeat the procedure two 
additional times. DWBI would initiate a soft-start at the beginning of 
each day of pile driving, at the beginning of each pile segment, and if 
pile driving stops for more than 30 minutes. DWBI would not initiate a 
soft-start if the monitoring zone is obscured by fog, inclement 
weather, poor lighting conditions, etc.
3. Delay and Powerdown Procedures
    DWBI would delay impact pile driving if a marine mammal is observed 
within the relevant exclusion zone and until the exclusion zone is 
clear of marine mammals. DWBI proposes to reduce impact pile driving if 
a marine mammal is seen within or approaching the 200-m or 600-m 
exclusion zone. DWBI would reduce the hammer energy by 50 percent to a 
ramp-up level. If a marine mammal continues to move towards the sound 
source, DWBI would stop impact pile driving operations until the 
exclusion zone is clear of marine mammals for at least 30 minutes. DWBI 
would not implement the
4. DP Thruster Power Reduction
    A constant tension must be maintained during cable installation and 
any significant stoppage in vessel maneuverability during jet plow 
activities would result in damage to the cable. Therefore, during DP 
vessel operations, DWBI proposes to reduce DP thruster power to the 
maximum extent possible if a marine mammal approaches or enters a 5-m 
radius from the vessel (estimated to be the 160-dB isopleth from the 
vessel). This reduction would not be implemented at the risk of 
compromising safety and/or the integrity of the BIWF. DWBI would not 
increase power until the 5-m zone is clear of marine mammals for 30 
minutes.
5. Time of Day and Weather Restrictions
    DWBI would conduct impact pile driving during daylight hours only, 
starting approximately 30 minutes after dawn and ending 30 minutes 
before dusk. If a soft-start is initiated before the onset of inclement 
weather, DWBI would complete that segment of impact pile driving. DWBI 
would not initiate new impact pile driving activities until the entire 
monitoring zone is visible.

Mitigation Conclusions

    NMFS has carefully evaluated the applicant's proposed mitigation 
measures and considered a range of other measures in the context of 
ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least 
practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and 
their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included 
consideration of the following factors in relation to one another:
     The manner in which, and the degree to which, the 
successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize 
adverse impacts to marine mammals;
     The proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to 
minimize adverse impacts as planned; and
     The practicability of the measure for applicant 
implementation.
    Any mitigation measure(s) prescribed by NMFS should be able to 
accomplish, have a reasonable likelihood of accomplishing (based on 
current science), or contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of 
the general goals listed below:
    1. Avoidance or minimization of injury or death of marine mammals 
wherever possible (goals 2, 3, and 4 may contribute to this goal).
    2. A reduction in the numbers of marine mammals (total number or 
number at biologically important time or location) exposed to received 
levels of continuous noise, or other activities expected to result in 
the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, above, or to 
reducing harassment takes only).
    3. A reduction in the number of times (total number or number at 
biologically important time or location) individuals would be exposed 
to received levels of continuous noise, or other activities expected to 
result in the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to 1, 
above, or to reducing harassment takes only).
    4. A reduction in the intensity of exposures (either total number 
or number at biologically important time or location) to received 
levels of continuous noise, or other activities expected to result in 
the take of marine mammals (this goal may contribute to a, above, or to 
reducing the severity of harassment takes only).
    5. Avoidance or minimization of adverse effects to marine mammal 
habitat, paying special attention to the food base, activities that 
block or limit passage to or from biologically important areas, 
permanent destruction of habitat, or temporary destruction/disturbance 
of habitat during a biologically important time.
    6. For monitoring directly related to mitigation--an increase in 
the probability of detecting marine mammals, thus allowing for more 
effective implementation of the mitigation.
    Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as 
well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily 
determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of 
effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammals species or 
stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, 
mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.

Proposed Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an ITA for an activity, Section 101(a)(5)(D) of 
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth, ``requirements pertaining to 
the monitoring and reporting of such taking.'' The MMPA implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for ITAs 
must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary 
monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the 
species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine 
mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area.
    Monitoring measures prescribed by NMFS should accomplish one or 
more of the following general goals:
    1. An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, both 
within the mitigation zone (thus allowing for more effective 
implementation of the mitigation) and in general to generate more data 
to contribute to the analyses mentioned below;
    2. An increase in our understanding of how many marine mammals are 
likely to be exposed to levels of continuous noise from use of a DP 
vessel thruster that we associate with specific adverse effects, such 
as behavioral harassment, TTS, or PTS;
    3. An increase in our understanding of how marine mammals respond 
to stimuli expected to result in take and how anticipated adverse 
effects on individuals (in different ways and to varying degrees) may 
impact the population, species, or stock (specifically through effects 
on annual

[[Page 16310]]

rates of recruitment or survival) through any of the following methods:
     Behavioral observations in the presence of stimuli 
compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to 
accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other 
pertinent information);
     Physiological measurements in the presence of stimuli 
compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to 
accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other 
pertinent information);
     Distribution and/or abundance comparisons in times or 
areas with concentrated stimuli versus times or areas without stimuli;
    4. An increased knowledge of the affected species; and
    5. An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of certain 
mitigation and monitoring measures.

Proposed Monitoring Measures

    DWBI submitted a marine mammal monitoring plan as part of the IHA 
application. It can be found in section 12 of their application. The 
plan may be modified or supplemented based on comments or new 
information received from the public during the public comment period.
1. Visual Monitoring
    DWBI would use two protected species observers (in addition to 
those used for mitigation) to visually monitor the Level B harassment 
zone during all impact pile driving. During use of the 200 kJ impact 
pile driving hammer, a 3.6-km radius would be monitored, and during use 
of the 600 kJ impact pile driving hammer, a 7-km radius (or maximum 
distance visible) would be monitored. DWBI would also use two protected 
species observers to visually monitor a 5-m radius around the vessel 
during DP vessel thruster use. Observers would estimate distances to 
marine mammals visually, using laser range finders, or by using reticle 
binoculars during daylight hours. During night operations (DP vessel 
thruster use only), observers would use night-vision binoculars. 
Observers would record their position using hand-held or vessel global 
positioning system units for each sighting, vessel position change, and 
any environmental change. Each observer would scan the surrounding area 
for visual indication of marine mammal presence. Observers would be 
located from the highest available vantage point on the associated 
operational platform (e.g., support vessel, barge or tug), estimated to 
be at least 6 m above the waterline.
    Prior to initiation of construction work, all crew members on 
barges, tugs, and support vessels would undergo environmental training, 
a component of which would focus on the procedures for sighting and 
protection of marine mammals. DWBI would also conduct a briefing with 
the construction supervisors and crews and observers to define chains 
of command, discuss communication procedures, provide an overview of 
the monitoring purposes, and review operational procedures. The DWBI 
Construction Compliance Manager (or other authorized individual) would 
have the authority to stop or delay impact pile driving activities if 
deemed necessary.
2. Acoustic Field Verification
    DWBI would conduct field verification of the estimated 200-m and 
600-m exclusion zones during impact pile driving to determine whether 
the proposed distances correspond accurately to the relevant isopleths.
    DWBI would take acoustic measurements during impact pile driving of 
the last half (deepest pile segment) for any given open-water pile and 
would also measure from two reference locations at two water depths (a 
depth at mid-water and at about 1 m above the seafloor). If the field 
measurements determine that the actual Level A (180-dB isopleth) and 
Level B (160-dB isopleth) harassment zones are less than or beyond the 
proposed distances, a new zone may be established accordingly. DWBI 
would notify NMFS and the USACE within 24 hours if a new marine mammal 
exclusion zone is established that extends beyond the proposed 200-m or 
600-m distances. Implementation of a smaller zone would be contingent 
on NMFS' review and would not be used until NMFS approves the change.
    DWBI would also perform field verification of the 160-dB isopleth 
associated with DP vessel thruster use during cable installation. DWBI 
would take acoustic measurements from two reference locations at two 
water depths (a depth at mid-water and at about 1 m above the 
seafloor). Similar to field verification during impact pile driving, 
the DP thruster power reduction zone may be modified as necessary.

Proposed Reporting Measures

    Observers would record dates and locations of construction 
operations; times of observations; location and weather; details of 
marine mammal sightings (e.g., species, age, numbers, behavior); and 
details of any observed take.
    DWBI proposes to provide the following notifications and reports 
during construction activities:
     Notification to NMFS and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
(USACE) within 24-hours of beginning construction activities and again 
within 24-hours of completion;
     Detailed report of field-verification measurements within 
7 days of completion (including: sound levels, durations, spectral 
characteristics, DP thruster use, etc.) and notification to NMFS and 
the USACE within 24-hours if a new zone is established;
     Notification to NMFS and USACE within 24-hours if field 
verification measurements suggest a larger marine mammal exclusion 
zone;
     Final technical report to NMFS and the USACE within 120 
days of completion of the specified activity documenting methods and 
monitoring protocols, mitigation implementation, marine mammal 
observations, other results, and discussion of mitigation 
effectiveness.
    In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly 
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner not permitted by the 
authorization (if issued), such as an injury, serious injury, or 
mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or entanglement), 
DWBI shall immediately cease the specified activities and immediately 
report the incident to the Incidental Take Program Supervisor, Permits 
and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-
427-8401 and/or by email to Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov and 
Michelle.Magliocca@noaa.gov and the Northeast Regional Stranding 
Coordinator at 978-281-9300 (Mendy.Garron@noaa.gov). The report must 
include the following information:
     Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the 
incident;
     Name and type of vessel involved;
     Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
     Description of the incident;
     Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding 
the incident;
     Water depth;
     Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, 
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
     Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 
hours preceding the incident;
     Species identification or description of the animal(s) 
involved;
     Fate of the animal(s); and
     Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if 
equipment is available).
    DWBI shall not resume its activities until we are able to review 
the

[[Page 16311]]

circumstances of the prohibited take. We will work with DWBI to 
determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further 
prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. DWBI may not resume their 
activities until notified by us via letter, email, or telephone.
    In the event that DWBI discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, 
and the lead visual observer determines that the cause of the injury or 
death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (i.e., in less than 
a moderate state of decomposition), DWBI shall immediately report the 
incident to the Incidental Take Program Supervisor, Permits and 
Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, at 301-427-8401 
and/or by email to Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov and 
Michelle.Magliocca@noaa.gov and the Northeast Regional Stranding 
Coordinator at 978-281-9300 (Mendy.Garron@noaa.gov). The report must 
include the same information identified in the paragraph above this 
section. Activities may continue while we review the circumstances of 
the incident. We would work with DWBI to determine whether 
modifications in the activities are appropriate.
    In the event that DWBI discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, 
and the lead visual observer determines that the injury or death is not 
associated with or related to the authorized activities (e.g., 
previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced 
decomposition, or scavenger damage), DWBI would report the incident to 
the Incidental Take Program Supervisor, Permits and Conservation 
Division, Office of Protected Resources, at 301-427-8401 and/or by 
email to Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov and Michelle.Magliocca@noaa.gov and 
the Northeast Regional Stranding Coordinator at 978-281-9300 
(Mendy.Garron@noaa.gov), within 24 hours of the discovery. DWBIT would 
provide photographs or video footage (if available) or other 
documentation of the stranded animal sighting to us.

Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment

    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the 
MMPA defines ``harassment'' as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or 
annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or 
marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the 
potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild 
by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not 
limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or 
sheltering [Level B harassment].
    Project activities that have the potential to harass marine 
mammals, as defined by the MMPA, include noise associated with impact 
pile driving, and noise associated with the use of DP vessel thrusters 
during cable installation. Harassment could take the form of masking, 
temporary threshold shift, avoidance, or other changes in marine mammal 
behavior. NMFS anticipates that impacts to marine mammals would be in 
the form of behavioral harassment and no take by injury, serious 
injury, or mortality is proposed. NMFS does not anticipate take 
resulting from the movement of vessels associated with construction 
because there will be a limited number of vessels moving at slow speeds 
over a relatively shallow, nearshore area.
    NMFS' current acoustic exposure criteria for estimating take are 
shown in Table 3 below. DWBI's modeled distances to these acoustic 
exposure criteria are shown in Table 4. Details on the model 
characteristics and results are provided in the Underwater Acoustic 
Report at the end of DWBI's application (see ADDRESSES). DWBI and NMFS 
believe that this estimate represents the worst-case scenario and that 
the actual distance to the Level B harassment threshold may be shorter.

            Table 3--NMFS' Current Acoustic Exposure Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Non-explosive sound
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Criterion           Criterion definition        Threshold
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A Harassment (Injury).  Permanent Threshold   180 dB re 1 microPa-
                               Shift (PTS). (Any     m (cetaceans)/190
                               level above that      dB re 1 microPa-m
                               which is known to     (pinnipeds) root
                               cause TTS).           mean square (rms).
Level B Harassment..........  Behavioral            160 dB re 1 microPa-
                               Disruption (for       m (rms).
                               impulse noises).
Level B Harassment..........  Behavioral            120 dB re 1 microPa-
                               Disruption (for       m (rms).
                               continuous, noise).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


     Table 4--DWBI's Modeled Distances to Acoustic Exposure Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Distance to Level  Distance to Level
             Activity                 B  harassment      A  harassment
                                     (160 or 120 dB)      (180/190 dB)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact pile driving (hammer energy            7,000 m              600 m
 = 600 kJ)........................
Impact pile driving (hammer energy            3,600 m              200 m
 = 200 kJ)........................
DP vessel thruster use............            4,750 m               <5 m
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DWBI estimated species densities within the proposed project area 
in order to estimate the number of marine mammal exposures to sound 
levels above 120 dB (continuous noise) or 160 dB (impulsive noise). 
DWBI used sightings per unit effort (SPUE) from Kenney and Vigness-
Raposa (2009) for relative cetacean abundance and the Northeast Navy 
OPAREA Density Estimates (DoN, 2007) for seal abundance. Based on 
multiple reports, harbor seal abundance off the coast of Rhode Island 
is thought to be about 20 percent of the total abundance for southern 
New England. Because the seasonality and habitat use of gray seals off 
the coast of Rhode Island roughly overlaps with harbor seals, DWBI 
applied this 20 percent estimate to both pinniped species. The 2007 and 
2009 density estimates relied upon for this proposed authorization are 
the best scientific data available. NMFS is not aware of any efforts to 
collect more recent density estimates than those relied upon here.
    Estimated takes were calculated by multiplying the average highest 
species density (per 100 km\2\) by the zone of

[[Page 16312]]

influence, multiplied by a correction factor of 1.5 to account for 
marine mammals underwater, multiplied by the number of days of the 
specified activity. A detailed description of the DWBI's model used to 
calculate zones of influence is provided in the Underwater Acoustic 
Report at the end of their application (see ADDRESSES).
    DWBI used a zone of influence of 89.6 km\2\ and a total 
construction period of 20 days to estimate take from impact pile 
driving. This zone of influence is based on use of the largest 600 kJ 
impact hammer. Jacket foundation installation (requiring impact pile 
driving) is scheduled to occur between the months of May through July 
or August through October. DWBI used a zone of influence of 25.1 km\2\ 
and a maximum installation period of 28 days to estimate take from use 
of the DP vessel thruster during cable installation. The zone of 
influence represents the average ensonified area across the three 
representative water depths along the cable route (10 m, 20 m, and 40 
m). DWBI expects cable installation to occur between April and August.
    To be conservative, DWBI based take calculations on the highest 
seasonal species density over which impact pile driving and use of the 
DP vessel thruster was scheduled to occur. DWBI's requested take 
numbers are provided in Table 5 and this is also the number of takes 
NMFS is proposing to authorize. DWBI's calculations do not take into 
account whether a single animal is harassed multiple times or whether 
each exposure is a different animal. Therefore, the numbers in Table 5 
are the maximum number of animals that may be harassed during impact 
pile driving (i.e., DWBI assumes that each exposure event is a 
different animal). These estimates do not account for mitigation 
measures that DWBI would implement during the specified activities.
    DWBI did not request, and NMFS is not proposing, take from vessel 
strike. We do not anticipate marine mammals to be impacted by vessel 
movement because a limited number of vessels would be involved in 
construction activities and they would mostly move at slow speeds 
throughout construction.

                               Table 5--DWBI's Estimated Take for the BIWF Project
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Maximum       Estimated       Maximum       Estimated
                                             seasonal       take by        seasonal       take by       Total
          Common species name             density  (per     Level B     density  (per     Level B     estimated
                                            100 km\2\)     harassment     100 km\2\)     harassment      take
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Impact Pile Driving
                                              DP Vessel Thruster       ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic white-sided dolphin...........             7.46          201             1.23           13          214
Short-beaked common dolphin............             8.21          221             2.59           28          249
Harbor porpoise........................             0.47           13             0.74            8           21
Minke whale............................             0.44           12             0.14            2           14
Fin whale..............................             1.92           52             2.15           23           75
Humpback whale.........................             0.11            3             0.11            2            5
North Atlantic right whale.............             0.04            2             0.06            1            3
Gray seal..............................            14.16           77            14.16           30          107
Harbor seal............................             9.74           53             9.74           21           74
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                    Table 6--Species Information and Take Proposed for Authorization by NMFS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Percentage  of
                                                       Take  proposed   Abundance        stock        Population
                 Common species name                        for          of stock     potentially       trend
                                                       authorization                    affected
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic white-sided dolphin........................              214       23,390              0.9        (\1\)
Short-beaked common dolphin.........................              249      120,743              0.2        (\1\)
Harbor porpoise.....................................               21       89,054             0.02        (\1\)
Minke whale.........................................               14        8,987             0.16        (\1\)
Fin whale...........................................               75        3,985             1.88        (\1\)
Humpback whale......................................                5       11,570             0.04   Increasing
                                                                                                           (\2\)
North Atlantic right whale..........................                3          444             0.67   Increasing
                                                                                                           (\2\)
Gray seal...........................................              107      348,900             0.03   Increasing
                                                                                                           (\2\)
Harbor seal.........................................               74       99,340             0.07    N/A (\1\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ N/A
\2\ Increasing.

Analysis and Preliminary Determinations

Negligible Impact

    Negligible impact is ``an impact resulting from the specified 
activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably 
likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on 
annual rates of recruitment or survival'' (50 CFR 216.103). A 
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse 
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of Level B harassment takes, 
alone, is not enough information on which to base an impact 
determination. In addition to considering estimates of the number of 
marine mammals that might be ``taken'' through behavioral harassment, 
NMFS must consider other factors, such as the likely nature of any 
responses (their intensity, duration, etc.), the context of any 
responses (critical reproductive time or location, migration, etc.), as 
well as the number

[[Page 16313]]

and nature of estimated Level A harassment takes, the number of 
estimated mortalities, and effects on habitat.
    DWBI did not request, and NMFS is not proposing, take of marine 
mammals by injury, serious injury, or mortality. NMFS expects that take 
would be in the form of behavioral harassment. Exposure to sound levels 
above 160 dB during impact pile driving would not last for more than 12 
hours per day for 20 non-consecutive days. Exposure to sound levels 
above 120 dB during use of the DP vessel thruster may last for 24 hours 
per day for 28 days. While use of the DP thruster may last for 
consecutive days, the vessel would be moving and therefore not focused 
on one specific area for the entire duration. Given the duration and 
intensity of the activity, and the fact that shipping contributes to 
the ambient sound levels around Rhode Island, NMFS does not anticipate 
the proposed take estimates to impact annual rates of recruitment or 
survival. Animals may temporarily avoid the immediate area, but are not 
expected to permanently abandon the area. Marine mammal habitat may be 
impacted by elevated sound levels and sediment disturbance, but these 
impacts would be temporary. Furthermore, there are no feeding areas, 
rookeries, or mating grounds known to be biologically important to 
marine mammals within the proposed project area. There is also no 
designated critical habitat for any ESA-listed marine mammals. The 
proposed mitigation measures are expected to reduce the number and/or 
severity of takes by (1) giving animals the opportunity to move away 
from the sound source before the pile driver reaches full energy; (2) 
reducing the intensity of exposure within a certain distance by 
reducing the DP vessel thruster power; and (3) preventing animals from 
being exposed to sound levels reaching 180 dB during impact pile 
driving.
    Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the 
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into 
consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and 
mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine 
mammal take from DWBI's BIWF project will have a negligible impact on 
the affected marine mammal species or stocks.

Small Numbers

    The number of individual animals that may be exposed to sound 
levels above 160 dB (impact pile driving) and 120 dB (DP vessel 
thruster) is small relative to the species or stock size (Table 6). The 
proposed take numbers are the maximum numbers of animals that are 
expected to be harassed during the BIWF project; it is possible that 
some of these exposures may occur to the same individual. NMFS 
preliminarily finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken 
relative to the populations of the affected species or stocks.

Impact on Availability of Affected Species for Taking for Subsistence 
Uses

    There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated 
by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of 
affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact 
on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for 
subsistence purposes.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    There are three marine mammal species that are listed as endangered 
under the ESA: Fin whale, humpback whale, and North Atlantic right 
whale. Under section 7 of the ESA, the USACE (the federal permitting 
agency for the actual construction) consulted with NMFS on the proposed 
BIWF project. NMFS Northeast Region issued a Biological Opinion on 
January 30, 2014, concluding that the Block Island Wind Farm project 
(which includes the BIWF) may adversely affect but is not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of fin whale, humpback whale, or 
North Atlantic right whale. NMFS is also consulting internally on the 
issuance of an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for this 
activity. The Biological Opinion may be amended to include an 
incidental take exemption for these marine mammal species.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    The USACE is preparing an Environmental Assessment on the 
construction and operation of the BIWF. The USACE's EA is not expected 
to be finalized prior to NMFS making a determination on the issuance of 
an IHA. Therefore, NMFS is currently conducting an analysis, pursuant 
to the NEPA, to determine whether or not DWBI's proposed activity may 
have a significant effect on the human environment. This analysis will 
be completed prior to the issuance or denial of this proposed IHA.

Proposed Authorization

    As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to 
issue an IHA to DWBI for conducting impact pile driving and use of a DP 
vessel thruster during construction of the BIWF from late 2014 to late 
2015, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and 
reporting requirements are incorporated. The proposed IHA language is 
provided next.
    This section contains a draft of the IHA itself. The wording 
contained in this section is proposed for inclusion in the IHA (if 
issued).
    Deepwater Wind Block Island, LLC (DWBI) (56 Exchange Terrace, Suite 
101, Providence, RI 02903-1772) is hereby authorized under section 
101(a)(5)(D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 
1371(a)(5)(D)) and 50 CFR 216.107, to harass marine mammals incidental 
to impact pile driving and DP vessel thruster use during construction 
of the Block Island Wind Farm (BIWF).
    1. This Authorization is valid from December 1, 2014 through 
November 31, 2015.
    2. This Authorization is valid for construction of the BIWF off 
Block Island, Rhode Island, as described in the Incidental Harassment 
Authorization (IHA) application.
    3. The holder of this authorization (Holder) is hereby authorized 
to take, by Level B harassment only, 214 Atlantic white-sided dolphins 
(Lagenorhynchus acutus), 249 short-beaked common dolphins (Delphinus 
delphis), 21 harbor porpoises (Phocoena phocoena), 14 minke whales 
(Balaenoptera acutorostrata), 75 fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus), 5 
humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae), 3 North Atlantic right whales 
(Eubalaena glacialis), 107 gray seals (Halichoerus grypus), and 74 
harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) incidental to impact pile driving DP 
vessel thruster use associated with construction of the BIWF.
    4. The taking of any marine mammal in a manner prohibited under 
this IHA must be reported immediately to NMFS' Northeast Region, 55 
Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2276; phone 978-281-9328, 
and NMFS' Office of Protected Resources, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver 
Spring, MD 20910; phone 301-427-8401; fax 301-713-0376.
    5. The Holder or designees must notify NMFS' Northeast Region and 
Headquarters at least 24 hours prior to the seasonal commencement of 
the specified activity (see contact information in 4 above).
6. Mitigation Requirements
    The Holder is required to abide by the following mitigation 
conditions listed in 6(a)-(e). Failure to comply with these conditions 
may result in the

[[Page 16314]]

modification, suspension, or revocation of this IHA.
    (a) Marine Mammal Exclusion Zone: Protected species observers shall 
visually monitor an estimated 180-dB isopleth during all impact pile 
driving activity to ensure that no marine mammals enter this zone. A 
minimum of two observers shall be stationed aboard the noise-producing 
support vessel and shall monitor a 360-degree field of vision. 
Observers shall begin monitoring at least 30 minutes prior to impact 
pile driving, continue monitoring during impact pile driving, and stop 
monitoring 30 minutes after impact pile driving has ended.
    (b) Soft-start Procedures: Soft-start procedures shall be 
implemented at the beginning of each day and if pile driving has 
stopped for more than 30 minutes. Contractors shall initiate a set of 
three strikes from the impact hammer at 40 percent energy with a 1-
minute waiting period between subsequent three-strike sets. This 
procedure shall be repeated two additional times before full energy is 
reached.
    (c) Delay and Powerdown Procedures: The Holder shall delay impact 
pile driving if a marine mammal is observed within the estimated 180-dB 
isopleth marine mammal exclusion zone and until the exclusion zone is 
clear of marine mammals. The Holder shall reduce impact pile driving 
energy by 50 percent if a marine mammal continues toward or enters the 
180-dB isopleth.
    (d) DP Thruster Power Reduction: The Holder shall reduce DP 
thruster power to the maximum extent possible if a marine mammal 
approaches or enters the estimated 160-dB isopleth from the vessel. The 
Holder shall not increase power until the zone is clear of marine 
mammals for 30 minutes.
    (e) Time of Day and Weather Restrictions: The Holder shall conduct 
impact pile driving during daylight hours only, starting approximately 
30 minutes after dawn and ending 30 minutes before dusk unless a 
situation arises where stopping pile driving would compromise safety 
(either human health or environmental) and/or the integrity of the 
project. The Holder shall not initiate impact pile driving until the 
entire marine mammal exclusion zone is visible.
7. Monitoring Requirements
    The Holder is required to abide by the following monitoring 
conditions listed in 7(a)-(b). Failure to comply with these conditions 
may result in the modification, suspension, or revocation of this IHA.
    (a) General: If the Level B harassment area is obscured by fog or 
poor lighting conditions, the start of impact pile driving shall be 
delayed until the area is visible.
    (b) Visual Monitoring: Protected species observers shall survey the 
estimated 160-dB isopleths 30 minutes before, during, and 30 minutes 
after all in-water impact pile driving and the estimated 120-dB 
isopleth 30 minutes before, during, and 30 minutes after use of DP 
vessel thrusters. The observers shall be stationed on the highest 
available vantage point on the associated operating platform. Observers 
shall estimate distances to marine mammals visually, using laser range 
finders, or by using reticle binoculars during daylight hours. During 
night operations (DP vessel thruster use only), observers shall use 
night-vision binoculars. Information recorded during each observation 
shall be used to estimate numbers of animals potentially taken and 
shall include the following:
     Numbers of individuals observed;
     Frequency of observation;
     Location (i.e., distance from the sound source);
     Impact pile driving status (i.e., soft-start, active, post 
pile driving, etc.);
     DP vessel thruster status (i.e., energy level); and
     Reaction of the animal(s) to relevant sound source (if 
any) and observed behavior, including bearing and direction of travel.
    (c) Acoustic Field Verification: The Holder shall conduct field 
verification of the estimated 180-dB isopleths during impact pile 
driving. Acoustic measurements shall be taken during impact pile 
driving of the last half (deepest pile segment) for any given open-
water pile and from two reference locations at two water depths (a 
depth at mid-water and at about 1 m above the seafloor). If the field 
measurements show that the 180-dB isopleth is less than or beyond the 
initially proposed distances, a new zone may be established 
accordingly. The Holder shall notify NMFS within 24 hours if a new 
marine mammal exclusion zone is established that extends beyond what is 
initially established. Implementation of a smaller zone shall be 
contingent on NMFS' review and shall not be used until NMFS approves 
the change.
    The Holder shall also perform field verification of the 160-dB 
isopleth associated with DP vessel thruster use during cable 
installation. Acoustic measurements shall be taken from two reference 
locations at two water depths (a depth at mid-water and at about 1 m 
above the seafloor). Similar to field verification during impact pile 
driving, the DP thruster power reduction zone may be modified as 
necessary.
8. Reporting Requirements
    The Holder shall provide the following notifications during 
construction activities:
     Notification to NMFS within 24-hours of beginning 
construction and again within 24-hours of completion;
     Detailed report of field-verification measurements within 
7 days of completion and notification to NMFS within 24-hours if a new 
zone is established; and
     Notification to NMFS within 24-hours if field verification 
measurements suggest a larger marine mammal exclusion zone.
    The Holder shall submit a technical report to the Office of 
Protected Resources, NMFS, within 120 days of the conclusion of 
monitoring.
    (a) The report shall contain the following information:
     A summary of the activity and monitoring plan (i.e., 
dates, times, locations);
     A summary of mitigation implementation;
     Monitoring results and a summary that addresses the goals 
of the monitoring plan, including the following:
    [cir] Environmental conditions when observations were made:
    [cir] Water conditions (i.e., Beaufort sea-state, tidal state)
    [cir] Weather conditions (i.e., percent cloud cover, visibility, 
percent glare)
    [cir] Date and time survey initiated and terminated
    [cir] Date, time, number, species, and any other relevant data 
regarding marine mammals observed (for pre-activity, during activity, 
and post-activity surveys)
    [cir] Description of the observed behaviors (in both the presence 
and absence of activities):
     If possible, the correlation to underwater sound level 
occurring at the time of any observable behavior
     Estimated exposure/take numbers during activities; and
     An assessment of the implementation and effectiveness of 
prescribed mitigation and monitoring measures.
    (b) In the unanticipated event that the specified activity clearly 
causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner not permitted by the 
authorization (if issued), such as an injury, serious injury, or 
mortality (e.g., ship-strike, gear interaction, and/or entanglement), 
the Holder shall immediately cease the specified activities and 
immediately report the incident to the Incidental Take Program 
Supervisor, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of

[[Page 16315]]

Protected Resources, NMFS, at 301-427-8401 and/or by email to 
Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov and Michelle.Magliocca@noaa.gov and the 
Northeast Regional Stranding Coordinator at 978-281-9300 
(Mendy.Garron@noaa.gov). The report must include the following 
information:
     Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the 
incident;
     Name and type of vessel involved;
     Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
     Description of the incident;
     Status of all sound source use in the 24 hours preceding 
the incident;
     Water depth;
     Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction, 
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, and visibility);
     Description of all marine mammal observations in the 24 
hours preceding the incident;
     Species identification or description of the animal(s) 
involved;
     Fate of the animal(s); and
     Photographs or video footage of the animal(s) (if 
equipment is available).
    The Holder shall not resume its activities until we are able to 
review the circumstances of the prohibited take. NMFS will work with 
the Holder to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of 
further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. The Holder may not 
resume activities until notified by us via letter, email, or telephone.
    (c) In the event that the Holder discovers an injured or dead 
marine mammal, and the lead visual observer determines that the cause 
of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent 
(i.e., in less than a moderate state of decomposition as we describe in 
the next paragraph), the Holder shall immediately report the incident 
to the Incidental Take Program Supervisor, Permits and Conservation 
Division, Office of Protected Resources, at 301-427-8401 and/or by 
email to Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov and Michelle.Magliocca@noaa.gov and 
the Northeast Regional Stranding Coordinator at 978-281-9300 
(Mendy.Garron@noaa.gov). The report must include the same information 
identified in the paragraph above this section. Activities may continue 
while we review the circumstances of the incident. NMFS will work with 
the Holder to determine whether modifications in the activities are 
appropriate.
    (d) In the event that the Holder discovers an injured or dead 
marine mammal, and the lead visual observer determines that the injury 
or death is not associated with or related to the authorized activities 
(e.g., previously wounded animal, carcass with moderate to advanced 
decomposition, or scavenger damage), the Holder shall report the 
incident to the Incidental Take Program Supervisor, Permits and 
Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, at 301-427-8401 
and/or by email to Jolie.Harrison@noaa.gov and 
Michelle.Magliocca@noaa.gov and the Northeast Regional Stranding 
Coordinator at 978-281-9300 (Mendy.Garron@noaa.gov) within 24 hours of 
the discovery. The Holder shall provide photographs or video footage 
(if available) or other documentation of the stranded animal sighting 
to us.
    9. A copy of this IHA must be in the possession of the lead 
contractor on site and protected species observers operating under the 
authority of this authorization.
    10. This IHA may be modified, suspended, or withdrawn if the Holder 
fails to abide by the conditions prescribed herein or if the authorized 
taking is having more than a negligible impact on the species or stock 
of affected marine mammals.

Request for Public Comments

    NMFS requests comment on our analysis, the draft authorization, and 
any other aspect of the Notice of Proposed IHA for DWBI's construction 
of the BIWF. Please include with your comments any supporting data or 
literature citations to help inform our final decision on DWBI's 
request for an MMPA authorization.

    Dated: March 20, 2014.
Donna S. Wieting,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-06533 Filed 3-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P