Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Marine Site Characterization Surveys in the Area of Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lease Areas OCS-A 0486, 0487, and 0500, 52515-52538 [2022-18454]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2022 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[RTID 0648–XC136]
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to
Specified Activities; Taking Marine
Mammals Incidental to Marine Site
Characterization Surveys in the Area of
Commercial Lease of Submerged
Lands for Renewable Energy
Development on the Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS) Lease Areas OCS–A 0486,
0487, and 0500
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental
harassment authorization; request for
comments on proposed authorization
and possible renewal.
AGENCY:
NMFS has received a request
from Orsted Wind Power North America
LLC (Orsted) for authorization to take
marine mammals incidental to high
resolution geophysical (HRG) site
characterization surveys in coastal
waters from New York to Massachusetts
in the areas of Commercial Lease of
Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy
Development on the Outer Continental
Shelf Lease Areas OCS–A 0486, 0487,
0500, and along potential export cable
routes (ECR) to landfall locations
between Raritan Bay (part of the New
York Bight) and Falmouth, MA.
Pursuant to the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is
requesting comments on its proposal to
issue an incidental harassment
authorization (IHA) to incidentally take
marine mammals during the specified
activities. NMFS is also requesting
comments on a possible one-time, oneyear renewal that could be issued under
certain circumstances and if all
requirements are met, as described in
Request for Public Comments at the end
of this notice. NMFS will consider
public comments prior to making any
final decision on the issuance of the
requested MMPA authorization and
agency responses will be summarized in
the final notice of our decision.
DATES: Comments and information must
be received no later than September 26,
2022.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief,
Permits and Conservation Division,
Office of Protected Resources, National
Marine Fisheries Service and should be
submitted via email to ITP.taylor@
noaa.gov.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Aug 25, 2022
Jkt 256001
Instructions: NMFS is not responsible
for comments sent by any other method,
to any other address or individual, or
received after the end of the comment
period. Comments, including all
attachments, must not exceed a 25megabyte file size. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted online at
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/
incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act without
change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address)
voluntarily submitted by the commenter
may be publicly accessible. Do not
submit confidential business
information or otherwise sensitive or
protected information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jessica Taylor, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401.
Electronic copies of the application and
supporting documents, as well as a list
of the references cited in this document,
may be obtained online at:
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/
incidental-take-authorizations-undermarine-mammal-protection-act-otherenergy-activities-renewable. In case of
problems accessing these documents,
please call the contact listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The MMPA prohibits the ‘‘take’’ of
marine mammals, with certain
exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and
(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et
seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce
(as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon
request, the incidental, but not
intentional, taking of small numbers of
marine mammals by U.S. citizens who
engage in a specified activity (other than
commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region if certain findings
are made and either regulations are
proposed or, if the taking is limited to
harassment, a notice of a proposed IHA
is provided to the public for review.
Authorization for incidental takings
shall be granted if NMFS finds that the
taking will have a negligible impact on
the species or stock(s) and will not have
an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for
taking for subsistence uses (where
relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe
the permissible methods of taking and
other ‘‘means of effecting the least
practicable adverse impact’’ on the
affected species or stocks and their
habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of
similar significance, and on the
availability of the species or stocks for
taking for certain subsistence uses
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
52515
(referred to in shorthand as
‘‘mitigation’’); and requirements
pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring
and reporting of the takings are set forth.
The definitions of all applicable MMPA
statutory terms cited above are included
in the relevant sections below.
National Environmental Policy Act
To comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
NOAA Administrative Order (NAO)
216–6A, NMFS must review our
proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an
IHA) with respect to potential impacts
on the human environment.
This action is consistent with
categories of activities identified in
Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no
anticipated serious injury or mortality)
of the Companion Manual for NOAA
Administrative Order 216–6A, which do
not individually or cumulatively have
the potential for significant impacts on
the quality of the human environment
and for which we have not identified
any extraordinary circumstances that
would preclude this categorical
exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has
preliminarily determined that the
issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies
to be categorically excluded from
further NEPA review.
We will review all comments
submitted in response to this notice
prior to concluding our NEPA process
or making a final decision on the IHA
request.
Summary of Request
On April 19, 2022, NMFS received a
request from Orsted for an IHA to take
small numbers of marine mammals
incidental to marine site
characterization surveys in federal
waters located OCS Commercial Lease
Areas off the coasts from Rhode Island
to Massachusetts, and along potential
ECRs to landfall locations between
Raritan Bay (part of the New York Bight)
and Falmouth, Massachusetts.
Following NMFS’ review of the draft
application, a revised version was
submitted on July 8, 2022. The
application was deemed adequate and
complete on August 3, 2022. Orsted’s
request is for take of 16 species of
marine mammals (consisting of 16
stocks) by Level B harassment only.
Neither Orsted nor NMFS expect serious
injury or mortality to result from this
activity and, therefore, an IHA is
appropriate.
NMFS previously issued IHAs and a
renewal IHA to Orsted for marine site
characterization HRG surveys in the
OCS–A 0486, 0487, and 0500 Lease
Areas (84 FR 52464, October 2, 2019; 85
E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
52516
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2022 / Notices
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
FR 63508, October 8, 2020; 87 FR 13975,
March 11, 2022). Orsted complied with
all the requirements (e.g., mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting) of the
previous IHA and information regarding
their monitoring results may be found in
the Effects of the Specified Activity on
Marine Mammals and their Habitat
section.
On August 1, 2022, NMFS announced
proposed changes to the existing North
Atlantic right whale vessel speed
regulations to further reduce the
likelihood of mortalities and serious
injuries to endangered right whales from
vessel collisions, which are a leading
cause of the species’ decline and a
primary factor in an ongoing Unusual
Mortality Event (87 FR 46921). Should
a final vessel speed rule be issued and
become effective during the effective
period of this IHA (or any other MMPA
incidental take authorization), the
authorization holder would be required
to comply with any and all applicable
requirements contained within the final
rule. Specifically, where measures in
any final vessel speed rule are more
protective or restrictive than those in
this or any other MMPA authorization,
authorization holders would be required
to comply with the requirements of the
rule. Alternatively, where measures in
this or any other MMPA authorization
are more restrictive or protective than
those in any final vessel speed rule, the
measures in the MMPA authorization
would remain in place. These changes
would become effective immediately
upon the effective date of any final
vessel speed rule and would not require
any further action on NMFS’s part.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Aug 25, 2022
Jkt 256001
Description of Proposed Activity
Overview
Orsted proposes to conduct HRG
surveys in the Lease Areas OCS–A 0486,
0487, 0500 and ECR Area in federal
waters from New York to Massachusetts
to support the characterization of the
existing seabed and subsurface
geological conditions, which is
necessary for the development of an
offshore electric transmission system.
The proposed project will use active
HRG sources operating at frequencies
lower than 180 kHz, which may result
in the incidental take of marine
mammals by Level B harassment. This
take of marine mammals is anticipated
to be in the form of behavioral
harassment and no serious injury or
mortality is anticipated, nor is any
proposed. In-water work will include
approximately 400 survey days using
multiple vessels lasting from September
25, 2022 to September 24, 2023.
Dates and Duration
As described above, HRG surveys are
expected to commence on September
25, 2022 and last through September 24,
2023 for up to approximately 400 survey
days (Table 1). Orsted is proposing to
conduct continuous HRG survey
operations 12-hours per day and 24hours per day using multiple vessels. A
survey day is defined as a 24-hour
activity day in which an assumed
number of line km are surveyed. The
number of anticipated survey days was
calculated as the number of days needed
to reach the overall level of effort
required to meet survey objectives
assuming any single vessel covers, on
average 70 line kilometer (km) per 24hour operations. A survey day accounts
for multiple vessels such that two
vessels operating within one 24-hour
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
period equates to two survey days. A
maximum of three vessels would work
concurrently in the project area in any
combination of 24-hour and 12-hour
vessels. To be conservative, our
exposure analysis assumes daily 24hour operations. Although vessels may
complete 20–80 km/day of actual source
operations, we anticipate that vessels
will average 70 line km of active IHAregulated sources per day. As shown by
Table 1, the estimated number of survey
days varies by Lease Area and ECR.
TABLE 1—PROPOSED NUMBER OF
SURVEY DAYS FOR EACH LEASE
AREA AND ECR
Area
Total number
of survey
days 1
OCS–A–0486 ........................
OCA–A–0487 ........................
OCS–A–0500 ........................
ECR ......................................
10
10
200
180
Total ..................................
400
1 Up
to three total survey vessels may be
operating within both of the survey areas
concurrently.
Specific Geographic Region
Orsted’s survey activities would occur
in the Lease Areas located
approximately 14 miles (22.5 km) south
of Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts at
its closest point to land, as well as along
potential export cable route (ECR)
corridors off the coast of New York,
Connecticut, Rhode Island, and
Massachusetts to landfall locations
between Raritan Bay and Falmouth,
MA, as shown in Figure 1. Water depths
in the project area extend out from
shoreline to approximately 90 m in
depth.
E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2022 / Notices
52517
1(/'3/N1'W
100 l2014
16:59 Aug 25, 2022
Jkt 256001
expects the use of ROVs to have de
minimis impacts relative to the use of
vessels given the smaller sources and
inherent nature of utilizing an ROV
(e.g., much smaller size of an ROV
relative to a vessel and less acoustic
exposure given location of their use in
the water column). For these reasons,
our analysis focuses on the acoustic
sources themselves and the use of
vessels to deploy such sources, rather
than the specific use of ROVs to deploy
the survey equipment. Therefore, ROVs
are not further analyzed in this notice.
Acoustic sources planned for use
during HRG survey activities proposed
by Orsted for which sounds levels have
the potential to result in Level B
harassment of marine mammals include
the following:
• Shallow penetration, nonimpulsive, intermittent, mobile, nonparametric SBPs (i.e., CHIRP SBPs) are
used to map the near-surface
stratigraphy (top 0 to 10 m) of sediment
below seabed. A CHIRP system emits
sonar pulses that increase in frequency
from approximately 2 to 20 kHz over
time. The frequency range can be
adjusted to meet project variables. These
sources are typically mounted on a pole,
either over the side of the vessel or
through a moon pool in the bottom of
the hull. The operational configuration
and relatively narrow beamwidth of
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
these sources reduce the likelihood that
an animal would be exposed to the
signal;
• Medium penetration SBPs
(boomers) are used to map deeper
subsurface stratigraphy as needed. A
boomer is a broad-band sound source
operating in the 3.5 Hz to 10 kHz
frequency range. This system is
commonly mounted on a sled and
towed behind the vessel. Boomers are
impulsive and mobile sources; and
• Medium penetration SBPs
(sparkers) are used to map deeper
subsurface stratigraphy as needed.
Sparkers create acoustic pulses from 50
Hz to 4 kHz omnidirectionally from the
source, and are considered to be
impulsive and mobile sources. Sparkers
are typically towed behind the vessel
with adjacent hydrophone arrays to
receive the return signals.
Operation of the following survey
equipment types is not reasonably
expected to result in take of marine
mammals and will not be discussed
further beyond the brief summaries
provided below:
• Parametric SBPs, also commonly
referred to as sediment echosounders,
are used to provide high data density in
sub-bottom profiles that are typically
required for cable routes, very shallow
water, and archaeological surveys.
Parametric SPBs are typically mounted
E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
EN26AU22.000
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Figure 1. Project area for site characterization surveys
52518
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2022 / Notices
on a pole, either over the side of the
vessel or through a moon pool in the
bottom of the hull. Crocker and
Fratantonio (2016) does not provide
relevant measurements or source data
for parametric SBPs, however, some
source information is provided by the
manufacturer. For the proposed project,
the SBP used would generate short, very
narrow-beam (1° to 3.5°) sound pulses at
relatively high frequencies (generally
around 85 to 100 kHz). The narrow
beam width significantly reduces the
potential for exposure while the high
frequencies of the source are rapidly
attenuated in seawater. Given the
narrow beam width and relatively high
frequency. NMFS does not reasonably
expect there to be potential for marine
mammals to be exposed to the signal;
• Acoustic cores are seabed-mounted
sources with three distinct sound
sources: A high-frequency parametric
source, a high-frequency CHIRP sonar,
and a low-frequency CHIRP sonar. The
beam width is narrow (3.5° to 8°) and
the source is operated roughly 3.5 m
above the seabed from a seabed mount,
with the transducer pointed directly
downward;
• Ultra-short baseline (USBL)
positioning systems are used to provide
high accuracy ranges by measuring the
time between the acoustic pulses
transmitted by vessel transceiver and a
transponder (or beacon) necessary to
produce the acoustic profile. It is a twocomponent system with a moon pool- or
side pole mounted transceiver and one
or several transponders mounted on
other survey equipment. USBLs are
expected to produce extremely small
acoustic propagation distances in their
typical operating configuration;
• Multibeam echosounders (MBES)
are used to determine water depths and
general bottom topography. MBES sonar
systems project sonar pulses in several
angled beams from a transducer
mounted to a ship’s hull. The beams
radiate out from the transducer in a fanshaped pattern orthogonally to the
ship’s direction. All of the proposed
MBESs have operating frequencies >180
kHz and, therefore, are outside the
general hearing range of marine
mammals; and
• Side scan sonars (SSS) are used for
seabed sediment classification purposes
and to identify natural and man-made
acoustic targets on the seafloor. The
sonar device emits conical or fanshaped pulses down toward the seafloor
in multiple beams at a wide angle,
perpendicular to the path of the sensor
through the water column. All of the
proposed SSS have operating
frequencies >180 kHZ and, therefore,
are outside the general hearing range of
marine mammals.
Table 2 identifies representative
survey equipment with the expected
potential to result in exposure of marine
mammals and thus potentially result in
take. The make and model of the listed
geophysical equipment may vary
depending on availability and the final
equipment choices will vary depending
upon the final survey design, vessel
availability, and survey contractor
selection.
TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIVE HRG SURVEY EQUIPMENT 1
HRG survey equipment
Representative equipment
CHIRPs (non-impulsive,
non-parametric).
ET 216 (2000DS or
3200 top unit).
ET 424 3200–XS ..........
ET 512i ..........................
GeoPulse 5430A ...........
Teledyne Benthos Chirp
III—TTV 170.
Pangeo SBI ...................
AA, Dura-spark UHD
Sparker (400 tips, 500
J) 2.
AA, Dura-spark UHD
Sparker Model 400 ×
400 2.
GeoMarine, Dual 400
Sparker, Model GeoSource 800 2 3.
GeoMarine Sparker,
Model Geo-Source
200–400 2 3.
GeoMarine Sparker,
Model Geo-Source
200 Lightweight 2 3.
AA, triple plate S-Boom
(700–1,000 J) 4.
Sparker (impulsive) ........
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Sparkers and Boomers
(impulsive).
Operating
frequency
ranges
(kHz)
SL
(SPL dB re 1
μPa m)
SL
(SEL dB re 1
μPa2 m2 s)
SL
(PK dB re 1
μPa m)
Beamwidth
ranges
(degrees)
Pulse
duration
(width)
(millisecond)
Pulse
repetition
rate
(Hz)
2–16
2–8
4–24
0.7–12
2–17
2–7
195
178
..........................
24 ..............
20
6
176
179
196
197
152
158
183
185
..........................
..........................
..........................
..........................
71 ..............
80 ..............
55 ..............
100 ............
3.4
9
50
60
2
8
10
15
4.5–12.5
0.3–1.2
188.2
203
165
174
..........................
211
120 ............
Omni ..........
4.5
1.1
45
4
0.3–1.2
203
174
211
Omni ..........
1.1
4
0.4–5
203
174
211
Omni ..........
1.1
2
0.3–1.2
203
174
211
Omni ..........
1.1
4
0.3–1.2
203
174
211
Omni ..........
1.1
4
0.1–5
205
172
211
80 ..............
0.6
4
μPa = micropascal; AA = Applied Acoustics; CF = Crocker and Fratantonio (2016); CHIRP = compressed high-intensity radiated pulses; dB = decibel; EM = equipment mounted; ET = edgetech; J = joule; Omni = omnidirectional source; re = referenced to; PK = zero-to-peak sound pressure level; PM = pole mounted; SBI = subbottom imager; SL = source level; SPL = root-mean-square sound pressure level; T = towed; TB = Teledyne benthos; UHD = ultra-high definition; WFA = weighting
factor adjustment.
1 Operational parameters listed here differ from those listed in the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Biological Assessment published in February 2021 (Baker
and Howson, 2021).
2 The Dura-spark measurements and specifications provided in Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) were used for all sparker systems proposed for the survey. The
data provided in Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) represent the most applicable data for similar sparker systems with comparable operating methods and settings
when manufacturer or other reliable measurements are not available.
3 The AA Dura-spark (500 J, 400tips) was used as a proxy source.
4 Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) provide S-Boom measurements using two different power sources (CSP–D700 and CSP–N). The CSP–D700 power source was
used in the 700 J measurements but not in the 1,000 J measurements. The CSP–N source was measured for both 700 J and 1,000 J operations but resulted in a
lower SL; therefore, the single maximum SL value was used for both operational levels of the S-Boom.
The deployment of certain types of
HRG survey equipment, including some
of the equipment planned for use during
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Aug 25, 2022
Jkt 256001
Orsted’s proposed activity, produces
sound in the marine environment that
has the potential to result in harassment
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
of marine mammals. Proposed
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
measures are described in detail later in
E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
52519
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2022 / Notices
this document (please see Proposed
Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring
and Reporting).
Description of Marine Mammals in the
Area of Specified Activities
Sections 3 and 4 of the application
summarize available information
regarding status and trends, distribution
and habitat preferences, and behavior
and life history of the potentially
affected species. NMFS fully considered
all of this information, and we refer the
reader to these descriptions,
incorporated here by reference, instead
of reprinting the information.
Additional information regarding
population trends and threats may be
found in NMFS Stock Assessment
Reports (SARs; www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/marine-mammal-protection/
marine-mammal-stock-assessments)
and more general information about
these species (e.g., physical and
behavioral descriptions) may be found
on NMFS website (https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
Table 3 lists all species or stocks for
which take is expected and proposed to
be authorized for these activities, and
summarizes information related to the
population or stock, including
regulatory status under the MMPA and
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and
potential biological removal (PBR),
where known. PBR is defined by the
MMPA as the maximum number of
animals, not including natural
mortalities, that may be removed from a
marine mammal stock while allowing
that stock to reach or maintain its
optimum sustainable population (as
described in NMFS’ SARs). While no
serious injury or mortality is anticipated
or authorized here, PBR and annual
serious injury and mortality from
anthropogenic sources are included here
as gross indicators of the status of the
species and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates
presented in this document represent
the total number of individuals that
make up a given stock or the total
number estimated within a particular
study or survey area. NMFS’ stock
abundance estimates for most species
represent the total estimate of
individuals within the geographic area,
if known, that comprises that stock. For
some species, this geographic area may
extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed
stocks in this region are assessed in
NMFS U.S. draft 2021 U.S. Atlantic and
Gulf of Mexico SARs. All values
presented in Table 3 are the most recent
available at the time of publication and
are available in the 2020 SARs (Hayes
et al., 2021) and draft 2021 SARs
(available online at: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/draftmarine-mammal-stock-assessmentreports).
TABLE 3—SPECIES LIKELY IMPACTED BY THE SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES
Common name
Scientific name
Stock
I
ESA/
MMPA
status;
strategic
(Y/N) 1
Stock abundance (CV, Nmin,
most recent abundance survey) 2
I
Annual
M/SI 3
PBR
I
I
Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
North Atlantic right whale ..
Humpback whale ..............
Fin whale ...........................
Sei whale ..........................
Minke whale ......................
Eubalaena glacialis .....................
Megaptera novaeangliae ............
Balaenoptera physalus ...............
Balaenoptera borealis .................
Balaenoptera acutorostrata ........
Western Atlantic ...............
Gulf of Maine ....................
Western North Atlantic .....
Nova Scotia ......................
Canadian East Coastal ....
E/D, Y
-/-, Y
E/D, Y
E/D, Y
-/-, N
I
368 (0; 364; 5 2019) ....................
1,396 (0; 1,380; 2016) ................
6,802 (0.24; 5,573; 2016) ...........
6,292 (1.02; 3,098; 2016) ...........
21,968 (0.31; 17,002; 2016) .......
I
I
0.7
22
11
6.2
170
I
7.7
12.15
1.8
0.8
10.6
Order Cetartiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
Sperm whale .....................
Long-finned pilot whale .....
Striped dolphin ..................
Atlantic white-sided dolphin.
Bottlenose dolphin ............
Physeter macrocephalus ............
Globicephala melas ....................
Stenella coeruleoalba .................
Lagenorhynchus acutus ..............
North Atlantic ....................
Western North Atlantic .....
Western North Atlantic .....
Western North Atlantic .....
E/D, Y
-/-, N
-, -, N
-/-, N
4,349 (0.28; 3,451; 2016) ...........
39,215 (0.3; 30,627; 2016) .........
67,036 (0.29, 52,939, 2016) .......
93,233 (0.71; 54,443; 2016) .......
3.9
306
529
544
0
29
0
27
Tursiops truncatus ......................
-/-, N
62,851 (0.23; 51,914; 2016) .......
519
28
Short-beaked Common
dolphin.
Atlantic spotted dolphin .....
Risso’s dolphin ..................
Delphinus delphis .......................
Western North Atlantic
Offshore.
Western North Atlantic .....
-/-, N
172,974(0.21, 145,216, 2016) ....
1,452
390
-/-, N
-/-, N
39,921 (0.27; 32,032; 2016) .......
35,215 (0.19; 30,051; 2016) .......
320
301
0
34
Harbor porpoise ................
Phocoena phocoena ...................
-/-, N
95,543 (0.31; 74,034; 2016) .......
851
164
61,336 (0.08; 57,637; 2018) .......
27,300 (0.22; 22,785; 2018) .......
1,729
1,389
339
4,453
Stenella frontalis .........................
Grampus griseus ........................
Western North Atlantic .....
Western North Atlantic
Sock.
Gulf of Maine/Bay of
Fundy.
Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Harbor seal .......................
Gray seal 4 ........................
Phoca vitulina .............................
Halichoerus grypus .....................
Western North Atlantic .....
Western North Atlantic .....
-/-, N
-/-, N
1 ESA status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or which is determined to be
declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA
as depleted and as a strategic stock.
2 NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments. CV is
the coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable.
3 These values, found in NMFS’ SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial fisheries,
ship strike).
4 NMFS’ stock abundance estimate (and associated PBR value) applies to U.S. population only. Total stock abundance (including animals in Canada) is approximately 451,431. The annual M/SI value given is for the total stock.
5 The draft 2022 SARs have yet to be released; however, NMFS has updated its species web page to recognize the population estimate for NARWs is now below
350 animals (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/north-atlantic-right-whale).
As indicated above, all 16 species
(with 16 managed stocks) in Table 3
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Aug 25, 2022
Jkt 256001
temporally and spatially co-occur with
the activity to the degree that take is
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
reasonably likely to occur. All species
that could potentially occur in the
E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
52520
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2022 / Notices
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
proposed survey areas are included in
Table 6 of the IHA application. While
the blue whale (Balaenoptera
musculus), Cuvier’s beaked whale
(Ziphius cavirostris), four species of
Mesoplodont beaked whale
(Mesoplodon spp.), dwarf and pygmy
sperm whale (Kogia sima and Kogia
breviceps), short-finned pilot whale
(Globicephala macrorhynchus),
northern bottlenose whale (Hyperoodon
ampullatus), killer whale (Orcinus
orca), pygmy killer whale (Feresa
attenuata), false killer whale (Pseudorca
crassidens), melon-headed whale
(Peponocephala electra), white-beaked
dolphin (Lagenorhynchus albirostris),
pantropical spotted dolphin (Stenella
attenuata), Fraser’s dolphin
(Lagenodelphis hosei), rough-toothed
dolphin (Steno bredanensis), Clymene
dolphin (Stenella clymene), spinner
dolphin (Stenella longirostris), hooded
seal (Cystophora cristata), and harp seal
(Pagophilus groenlandicus) have been
documented in the area, the temporal
and/or spatial occurrence of these
species is such that take is not expected
to occur and they are not analyzed
further.
In addition, the Florida manatee
(Trichechus manatus latirostris) may be
found in the coastal waters of the
project area. However, Florida manatees
are managed by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and are not considered
further in this document.
Below is a description of the species
that have the highest likelihood of
occurring in the project area and are,
thus, expected to potentially be taken by
the proposed activities as well as further
detail informing the baseline for select
species (i.e., information regarding
current Unusual Mortality Events
(UMEs) and important habitat areas).
North Atlantic Right Whale
The North Atlantic right whale ranges
from calving grounds in the
southeastern United States to feeding
grounds in New England waters and
into Canadian waters (Hayes et al.,
2021). Right whales have been observed
in or near southern New England during
all four seasons (Quintana-Rizzo et al.,
2021), and passive acoustic monitoring
indicates the year-round presence of
NARWs in the Gulf of Maine (Morano
et al., 2012; Bort et al., 2015). Surveys
have demonstrated the existence of
seven areas where NARWs congregate
seasonally: The coastal waters of the
southeastern U.S., the Great South
Channel, Jordan Basin, Georges Basin
along the northeastern edge of Georges
Bank, Cape Cod and Massachusetts
Bays, the Bay of Fundy, and the
Roseway Basin on the Scotian Shelf
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Aug 25, 2022
Jkt 256001
(Hayes et al., 2018). NOAA Fisheries
has designated two critical habitat areas
for the NARW under the ESA: The Gulf
of Maine/Georges Bank region, and the
southeast calving grounds from North
Carolina to Florida (81 FR 4837, January
27, 2016).
New England waters are a primary
feeding habitat for NARWs during late
winter through spring, with feeding
moving into deeper and more northerly
waters during summer and fall. Since
2010, NARWs have reduced their use of
habitats in the Great South Channel and
Bay of Fundy, while increasing their use
of habitat within Cape Cod Bay as well
as a region south of Martha’s Vineyard
and Nantucket Islands (Stone et al.,
2017; Mayo et al., 2018; Ganley et al.,
2019; Record et al., 2019; MeyerGutbrod et al., 2021). This shift is likely
due to changes in oceanographic
conditions and food supply as dense
patches of zooplankton are necessary for
efficient foraging (Mayo and Marx, 1990;
Record et al., 2019). NARW use of
habitats such as in the Gulf of St.
Lawrence, southern New England
waters, and the mid-Atlantic waters of
the United States have also increased
over time (Davis et al., 2017; Davis and
Brillant, 2019; Crowe et al., 2021;
Quintana-Rizzo et al., 2021). Simard et
al. (2019) documented the presence of
NARWs in the southern Gulf of St.
Lawrence from late April through midJanuary annually from 2010–2018 using
passive acoustics, with occurrences
peaking in the area from August through
November each year (Simard et al.,
2019). In addition, Pendleton et al.
(2022) found that peak use of NARW
habitat in Cape Cod Bay has shifted over
the past 20 years to later in the spring,
likely due to variations in seasonal
conditions.
In the late fall months (e.g., October),
right whales are generally thought to
depart from the feeding grounds in the
North Atlantic and move south to their
calving grounds off Georgia and Florida.
However, recent research indicates our
understanding of their movement
patterns remains incomplete and not all
of the population undergoes a consistent
annual migration (Davis et al., 2017).
Females may remain in the feeding
grounds during the winter in the years
preceding and following the birth of a
calf to increase their energy stores while
juvenile and adult males may move to
southern wintering grounds after years
of abundant prey in northern feeding
areas (Gowan et al., 2019). Within the
proposed project area, NARWs have
primarily been observed during the
winter and spring seasons through
visual surveys although are likely
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
present year-round (Kraus et al., 2016;
Quintana-Rizzo et al., 2021).
NARW movements within and
between habitats are extensive and the
area off the coasts of Rhode Island and
Massachusetts is an important migratory
corridor. The proposed project area
overlaps a portion of a NARW
Biologically Important Area (BIA) for
migration. This migratory corridor is
approximately 269,488 km2 in size,
comprises the waters of the continental
shelf offshore the east coast of the
United States, and extends from Florida
through Massachusetts (LaBrecque et
al., 2015). NARW movements may
include seasonal migrations between
northern feeding grounds and southern
breeding grounds as well as movements
between feeding habitats in Cape Cod
Bay and southern New England waters
(Quintana-Rizzo et al., 2021). Given that
Orsted’s proposed surveys would be
concentrated offshore of Massachusetts
and Rhode Island, many NARWs in the
vicinity would likely be migrating
through the area, however, foraging
activity may also take place as
Quintana-Rizzo et al. (2021) observed
NARWs foraging in southern New
England waters year-round.
Since 2010, the western North
Atlantic right whale population has
been in decline (Pace et al., 2017), with
a 40 percent decrease in calving rate
(Kraus et al., 2016). In 2018, no new
North Atlantic right whale calves were
documented in their calving grounds;
this represented the first time since
annual NOAA aerial surveys began in
1989 that no new right whale calves
were observed. Eighteen right whale
calves were documented in 2021. As of
July 14, 2022 and the writing of this
proposed Notice, 15 North Atlantic right
whale calves have been documented
during this calving season. Presently,
the best available peer-reviewed
population estimate for North Atlantic
right whales is 368 per the draft 2021
SARs (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/marine-mammal-protection/
marine-mammal-stock-assessments).
The draft 2022 SARs have yet to be
released; however, NMFS has updated
its species web page to recognize the
population estimate for NARWs is
below 350 animals (https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/northatlantic-right-whale).
NMFS regulations at 50 CFR part
224.105 designated nearshore waters of
the Mid-Atlantic Bight as Mid-Atlantic
U.S. Seasonal Management Areas (SMA)
for right whales in 2008. SMAs were
developed to reduce the threat of
collisions between ships and right
whales around their migratory route and
calving grounds. The Block Island SMA,
E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2022 / Notices
which occurs off the mouth of Long
Island Sound, overlaps spatially with
the proposed project area (https://appsnefsc.fisheries.noaa.gov/psb/surveys/
MapperiframeWithText.html). The SMA
is active from November 1 through April
30 of each year and may be used by
NARWs for feeding or migrating.
Right Whale Slow Zones are
established when NARWs are detected
both visually (i.e., Dynamic
Management Area) and acoustically
(i.e., Acoustic Slow Zone). These are
areas where mariners are encouraged to
avoid and/or reduce speeds to 10 kn (5.1
m/s) to avoid vessel collisions with
NARWs. Slow Zones typically persist
for 15 days. More information on these
right whale Slow Zones can be found on
NMFS’ website (https://www.fisheries.
noaa.gov/national/endangered-speciesconservation/reducing-vessel-strikesnorth-atlantic-right-whales).
Dynamic Management areas (DMAs)
are a type of NARW Slow Zones that
may be established when three or more
NARWs are visually sighted within a
discrete area. This criteria is based upon
findings by Clapham and Pace (2001)
that showed an aggregation of three or
more whales is likely to remain in the
area for several days, in contrast to an
aggregation of fewer whales. Acoustic
Slow Zones are another type of NARW
Slow Zone based upon acoustic
detections, and are established when
three or more upcall detections from an
acoustic system occur within an
evaluation period (e.g., 15 min). More
information, as well as the most up-todate DMA establishments, can be found
on NMFS’ website (https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
endangered-species-conservation/
reducing-vessel-strikes-north-atlanticright-whales).
Elevated North Atlantic right whale
mortalities have occurred since June 7,
2017 along the U.S. and Canadian
coasts. As of July 2022, a total of 34
confirmed dead stranded whales (21 in
Canada; 13 in the United States) have
been documented. This event has been
declared an Unusual Mortality Event
(UME), with human interactions,
including entanglement in fixed fishing
gear and vessel strikes, implicated in at
least 16 of the mortalities thus far. More
information is available online at:
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-life-distress/2017-2019-northatlantic-right-whale-unusual-mortalityevent.
Humpback Whale
Humpback whales are found
worldwide in all oceans. Humpback
whales were listed as endangered under
the Endangered Species Conservation
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Aug 25, 2022
Jkt 256001
Act (ESCA) in June 1970. In 1973, the
ESA replaced the ESCA, and
humpbacks continued to be listed as
endangered. On September 8, 2016,
NMFS divided the species into 14
distinct population segments (DPS),
removed the current species-level
listing, and in its place listed four DPSs
as endangered and one DPS as
threatened (81 FR 62259; September 8,
2016). The remaining nine DPSs were
not listed. The West Indies DPS, which
is not listed under the ESA, is the only
DPS of humpback whales that is
expected to occur in the project area.
Whales occurring in the project area are
not necessarily from the Gulf of Maine
feeding population managed as a stock
by NMFS. Bettridge et al. (2015)
estimated the size of the West Indies
DPS population at 12,312 (95 percent CI
8,688–15,954) whales in 2004–05,
which is consistent with previous
population estimates of approximately
10,000–11,000 whales (Stevick et al.,
2003; Smith et al., 1999) and the
increasing trend for the West Indies DPS
(Bettridge et al., 2015).
In New England waters, feeding is the
principal activity of humpback whales,
and their distribution in this region has
been largely correlated to abundance of
prey species (Payne et al., 1986, 1990).
Humpback whales are frequently
piscivorous when in New England
waters, feeding on herring (Clupea
harengus), sand lance (Ammodytes
spp.), and other small fishes, as well as
euphausiids in the northern Gulf of
Maine (Paquet et al., 1997). During
winter, the majority of humpback
whales from the North Atlantic feeding
area (including the Gulf of Maine) mate
and calve in the West Indies, where
spatial and genetic mixing among
feeding groups occurs (Katona and
Beard 1990; Clapham et al. 1993;
Palsb2014
16:59 Aug 25, 2022
Jkt 256001
waters. A sei whale BIA for feeding
occurs adjacent to the east of the
proposed project area. The occurrence
and abundance of sei whales on feeding
grounds may shift dramatically from
one year to the next. CETAP surveys
observed sei whales along the
continental shelf edge only during the
spring and summer (CETAP, 1982). In
the RI/MA WEA, sei whales were also
only observed during the spring (eight
sightings) and summer (13 sightings).
No sightings were reported in the WEA
during the fall and winter (Kraus et al.,
2016).
Sei whales are listed as endangered
under the ESA, and the Nova Scotia
stock is considered strategic and
depleted under the MMPA. The main
threats to this stock are interactions
with fisheries and vessel collisions.
Impacts from environmental
contaminants also present a concern as
well as potential spatial shifts in
distribution related to climate change
(Hayes et al., 2020; Sousa et al., 2019).
Minke Whale
Minke whales can be found in
temperate, tropical, and high-latitude
waters. The Canadian East Coast stock
can be found in the area from the
western half of the Davis Strait (45° W)
to the Gulf of Mexico (Hayes et al.,
2021). This species generally occupies
waters less than 100 m deep on the
continental shelf and has a common
occurrence in the proposed project area.
There appears to be a strong seasonal
component to minke whale distribution
in the survey areas, in which spring to
fall are times of relatively widespread
and common occurrence while during
winter the species appears to be largely
absent (Hayes et al., 2021; Risch et al.,
2013).
Little is known about their specific
migratory behavior compared to other
large whale species; however, acoustic
detections show that minke whales
migrate south in mid-October to early
November and return from wintering
grounds starting in March through early
April (Risch et al., 2014). Northward
migration appears to track the warmer
waters of the Gulf Stream along the
continental shelf, while southward
migration is made farther offshore
(Risch et al., 2014). Surveys conducted
in the RI/MA WEA, reported 103 minke
whale sightings within the area,
predominantly in the spring followed by
summer and fall (Kraus et al., 2016).
Since January 2017, elevated minke
whale mortalities have occurred along
the Atlantic coast from Maine through
South Carolina, with a total of 123
strandings (as of July 14, 2022). This
event has been declared a UME. Full or
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
partial necropsy examinations were
conducted on more than 60 percent of
the whales. Preliminary findings in
several of the whales have shown
evidence of human interactions or
infectious disease, but these findings are
not consistent across all of the whales
examined, so more research is needed.
More information is available at:
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-life-distress/2017-2021-minkewhale-unusual-mortality-event-alongatlantic-coast.
Sperm Whale
The distribution of the sperm whale
in the U.S. EEZ occurs on the
continental shelf edge, over the
continental slope, and into mid-ocean
regions (Hayes et al., 2020). The basic
social unit of the sperm whale appears
to be the mixed school of adult females
plus their calves and some juveniles of
both sexes, normally numbering 20–40
animals in all. There is evidence that
some social bonds persist for many
years (Christal et al., 1998). In summer,
the distribution of sperm whales
includes the area east and north of
Georges Bank and into the Northeast
Channel region, as well as the
continental shelf (inshore of the 100 m
isobath) south of New England. In the
fall, sperm whale occurrence south of
New England on the continental shelf is
at its highest level, and there remains a
continental shelf edge occurrence in the
Mid-Atlantic Bight. In winter, sperm
whales are concentrated east and
northeast of Cape Hatteras (Hayes et al.,
2020).
CETAP and NMFS Northeast
Fisheries Science Center sightings in
shelf-edge and off-shelf waters included
many social groups with calves/
juveniles (CETAP, 1982). Sperm whales
were usually seen at locations
corresponding to the tops of the
seamounts and rises and did not
generally occur over the slopes. Sperm
whales were recorded at the surface
over depths varying from 800 to 3,500
m. Kraus et al. (2016) reported sightings
of sperm whales in the RI–MA WEA
during the summer and fall months,
with five individuals in August, one in
September, and three in June. There
have also been occasional strandings in
Massachusetts and Long Island (Kenney
and Vigness-Raposa, 2010). Although
the likelihood of occurrence within the
proposed project area remains very low,
the sperm whale was included as an
affected species because of its high
seasonal densities east of the project
area.
Sperm whales are listed as
endangered under the ESA, and the
North Atlantic stock is considered
E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2022 / Notices
strategic under the MMPA. The greatest
threats to sperm whales include ship
strikes (McGillivary et al., 2009; Carrillo
and Ritter, 2010), anthropogenic sound
(Nowacek et al., 2015), and the potential
for climate change to influence
variations in spatial distribution and
abundance of prey (Hayes et al., 2020).
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Long-Finned Pilot Whale
Long-finned pilot whales are found
from North Carolina north to Iceland,
Greenland, and the Barents Sea
(Sergeant, 1962; Leatherwood et al.,
1976; Abend, 1993; Bloch et al., 1993;
Abend and Smith, 1999). In U.S.
Atlantic waters, the species is
distributed principally along the
continental shelf edge off the
northeastern U.S. coast in winter and
early spring (CETAP 1982; Payne and
Heinemann, 1993; Abend and Smith,
1999; Hamazaki, 2002). In late spring,
pilot whales move onto Georges Bank
and into the Gulf of Maine and more
northern waters and remain in these
areas through late autumn (CETAP
1982; Payne and Heinemann, 1993).
Long-finned pilot whales are highly
social and vocal and are typically
observed in groups of 10 to 20 surfaceactive individuals (NOAA 2022). Within
the RI–MA WEA, no sightings of pilot
whales were observed during the
summer, fall, or winter (Kraus et al.,
2016).
Striped Dolphin
Striped dolphins are widely
distributed in tropical and warm
temperate waters of the Western North
Atlantic ranging from Nova Scotia to the
Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico (Archer
and Perrin, 1997; Archer, 2002; Hayes et
al., 2020). In waters off the northeastern
U.S. coast, striped dolphins are
distributed along the continental shelf
edge from Cape Hatteras to the southern
margin of Georges Bank, and also occur
offshore over the continental slope and
rise in the mid-Atlantic region (CETAP,
1982; Mullin and Fulling, 2003). During
CETAP surveys, continental shelf edge
sightings were generally centered along
the 1,000 m depth contour in all seasons
(CETAP, 1982). Striped dolphins prefer
offshore waters from the continental
slope to the Gulf Stream (Hayes et al.,
2020; Leatherwood et al., 1976; Perrin et
al., 1994; Schmidly, 1981).
There are few reported occurrences of
striped dolphins in the project area. All
CETAP records reported striped
dolphins in waters greater than 900m;
although it was noted that the most
northern sightings aligned with warm
core rings of the Gulf Stream (Hayes et
al., 2020; Waring et al., 1992). Striped
dolphins would not typically be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Aug 25, 2022
Jkt 256001
associated with shelf waters off New
York and Massachusetts; however,
preliminary data from site investigation
surveys for offshore wind have a very
small number of probable striped
dolphin sightings; therefore, they have
been included in this assessment.
Between 2013 and 2017, strandings of
striped dolphins were reported from
New York (five); Massachusetts (two);
and New Jersey (seven) (Hayes et al.,
2020). None showed definitive signs of
human interaction (Hayes et al., 2020).
Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin
Atlantic white-sided dolphins
observed off the U.S. Atlantic coast are
part of the Western North Atlantic Stock
(Hayes et al., 2020) which inhabits
waters from central West Greenland to
North Carolina (about 35° N) and
primarily continental shelf waters to the
328 ft (100 m) depth contour (Doks#ter
et al., 2008). Sighting data indicate
seasonal shifts in distribution
(Northridge et al., 1997). From January
to May, low numbers of Atlantic whitesided dolphins are found from Georges
Bank to Jeffrey’s Ledge off New
Hampshire. From June through
September, large numbers of Atlantic
white-sided dolphins are found from
Georges Bank to the lower Bay of
Fundy. From October to December, they
occur at intermediate densities from
southern Georges Bank to the southern
Gulf of Maine (Payne and Heinemann,
1990). Sightings south of Georges Bank,
particularly around Hudson Canyon,
occur year-round, but at low densities
(Hayes et al., 2020).
Offshore Rhode Island, Atlantic
white-sided dolphins are common in
continental shelf waters, with a slight
tendency to occur in shallower waters
in the spring (Kenney and VignessRaposa, 2010). Aggregations of sightings
have occurred southeast of Montauk
Point during the spring and summer. In
the RI–MA WEA, Atlantic white-sided
dolphins were sighted primarily during
summer followed by fall (Kraus et al.,
2016).
Bottlenose Dolphin
There are two distinct bottlenose
dolphin ecotypes in the western North
Atlantic: The coastal and offshore forms
(Duffield et al., 1983; Mead and Potter,
1995; Rosel et al., 2009). The migratory
coastal ecotype resides in waters
typically less than 20 m deep, along the
inner continental shelf (within 7.5 km
(4.6 miles) of shore), around islands,
and is continuously distributed south of
Long Island, New York into the Gulf of
Mexico. Torres et al. (2003) found a
statistically significant break in the
distribution of the ecotypes at 34 km
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
52523
from shore based upon the genetic
analysis of tissue samples collected in
nearshore and offshore waters from New
York to central Florida. The offshore
ecotype was found exclusively seaward
of 34 km and in waters deeper than 34
m. This ecotype is primarily expected in
waters north of Long Island, New York
(Waring et al., 2017; Hayes et al., 2018).
The offshore form is distributed
primarily along the outer continental
shelf and continental slope in the
Northwest Atlantic Ocean from Georges
Bank to the Florida Keys and is the only
type that may be present in the project
area.
Common bottlenose dolphins were
observed in the RI/MA WEA in all
seasons with the highest seasonal
abundance estimates during the fall,
summer, and spring. The greatest
concentrations of bottlenose dolphins
were observed in the southernmost
portion of the RI/MA WEA (Kraus et al.,
2016). Further evidence for the presence
of the offshore stock in the study area
is supported by seasonal stranding
records which match the temporal
patterns of the offshore stock better than
the coastal stock (Kenney and VignessRaposa, 2010). Therefore, the northern
migratory coastal stock is not likely to
occur in the project area and will not be
discussed further.
Common Dolphin
Common dolphins within the U.S.
Atlantic EEZ belong to the Western
North Atlantic stock, generally
occurring from Cape Hatteras to the
Scotian Shelf (Hayes et al., 2021).
Common dolphins are a highly seasonal,
migratory species. Within the U.S.
Atlantic EEZ, this species is distributed
along the continental shelf and typically
associated with Gulf Stream features
(CETAP, 1982; Selzer and Payne, 1988;
Hamazaki, 2002; Hayes et al., 2021).
Common dolphins occur from Cape
Hatteras northeast to Georges Bank (35°
to 42° N) during mid-January to May
and move as far north as the Scotian
Shelf from mid-summer to fall (Selzer
and Payne, 1988). Migration onto the
Scotian Shelf and continental shelf off
Newfoundland occurs when water
temperatures exceed 51.8 ° Fahrenheit
(11° Celsius) (Sergeant et al., 1970,
Gowans and Whitehead 1995). Breeding
usually takes place between June and
September (Hayes et al., 2019). Kraus et
al. (2016) observed 3,896 individual
common dolphins within the RI–MA
WEA. Summer surveys included
observations of the most individuals
followed by fall, winter, then spring.
E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
52524
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2022 / Notices
Atlantic Spotted Dolphin
Atlantic spotted dolphins are found in
tropical and warm temperate waters
ranging from southern New England,
south to Gulf of Mexico and the
Caribbean to Venezuela (Hayes et al.,
2020). The Western North Atlantic stock
regularly occurs in continental shelf
waters south of Cape Hatteras and in
continental shelf edge and continental
slope waters north of this region (Hayes
et al., 2020). Atlantic spotted dolphins
occur in two forms, with the larger
ecotype inhabiting the continental shelf
and usually occurring inside or near the
200-m isobaths (Hayes et al., 2020).
There are few reported occurrences of
spotted dolphins (Stenella spp.) in the
proposed project area. CETAP reported
126 spotted dolphin sightings over the
course of the 3-year study, and 40
individuals south of Block Island in
1982 (CETAP, 1982). NMFS shipboard
surveys conducted during June–August
between central Virginia and the Lower
Bay of Fundy reported 542 to 860
individual sightings from two separate
visual teams (Palka et al., 2017).
Risso’s Dolphin
Risso’s dolphins occur worldwide in
both tropical and temperate waters
(Jefferson et al., 2008, Jefferson et al.,
2014). Risso’s dolphins within the U.S.
Atlantic EEZ are part of the Western
North Atlantic stock which inhabits
waters from Florida to eastern
Newfoundland (Leatherwood et al.,
1976; Baird and Stacey, 1991). During
spring, summer, and fall, Risso’s
dolphins are distributed along the
continental shelf edge from Cape
Hatteras north to Georges Bank (CETAP,
1982; Payne et al., 1984). During the
winter, the distribution extends outward
into oceanic waters (Payne et al., 1984)
within the Mid-Atlantic Bight. However,
little is known about their movement
and migration patterns, and they are
infrequently observed in shelf waters.
Offshore Rhode Island, Risso’s
dolphins have been observed yearround, with a peak abundance during
the summer. Primarily observed along
the continental shelf break, few
individuals are typically seen in waters
shallower than 100 m (Kenney and
Vigness-Raposa, 2010).
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Harbor Porpoise
The harbor porpoise occupies U.S.
and Canadian waters. During summer
(July to September), harbor porpoises
are generally concentrated along the
continental shelf within the northern
Gulf of Maine, southern Bay of Fundy
region, and around the southern tip of
Nova Scotia, generally in waters less
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Aug 25, 2022
Jkt 256001
than 150 m deep (Gaskin, 1977; Kraus
et al., 1983; Palka, 1995). During fall
(October to December) and spring (April
to June), they are more widely dispersed
from New Jersey to Maine with lower
densities farther north and south. In
winter (January to March), intermediate
densities of harbor porpoises can be
found in waters off New Jersey to North
Carolina with lower densities found in
waters off New York to New Brunswick,
Canada (Hayes et al., 2020).
There are four distinct populations of
harbor porpoise in the western Atlantic:
Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy, Gulf of St.
Lawrence, Newfoundland, and
Greenland (Gaskin, 1984, 1992; Hayes et
al., 2020). Harbor porpoises observed
within the U.S. Atlantic EEZ are
considered part of the Gulf of Maine/
Bay of Fundy stock.
The main threat to the species is
interactions with fisheries, with
documented take in the U.S. northeast
sink gillnet, mid-Atlantic gillnet, and
northeast bottom trawl fisheries and in
the Canadian herring weir fisheries
(Waring et al., 2020).
Harbor Seal
Harbor seals are found throughout
coastal waters of the Atlantic Ocean and
adjoining seas above 30° N (Burns, 2009;
Desportes et al., 2010; Hayes et al.,
2021). In the western North Atlantic,
harbor seals occur year-round in coastal
waters of eastern Canada and Maine
(Katona et al., 1993), yet they are
distributed seasonally along the coast
from southern New England to Virginia
from September through late May
(Schneider and Payne, 1983; Schroeder,
2000; Rees et al., 2016, Toth et al., 2018)
Harbor seals are year-round inhabitants
of the coastal waters of eastern Canada
and Maine (Richardson and Rough,
1993), and occur seasonally from
southern New England to New Jersey
between September and late May
(Schneider and Payne, 1983; Barlas,
1999; Schroeder, 2000). A general
southward movement from the Bay of
Fundy to southern New England occurs
in fall and early winter (Rosenfeld et al.,
1988, Whitman and Payne, 1990, Barlas
1999). A northward movement from
southern New England to Maine and
eastern Canada takes place prior to the
pupping season, which occurs from
mid-May through June along the Maine
coast (Richardson, 1976; Wilson, 1978;
Whitman and Payne, 1990; Kenney,
1994).
In addition to coastal waters, harbor
seals use terrestrial habitat as haul-out
sites throughout the year, but primarily
during the pupping and molting
periods, which occur from late spring to
late summer in the northern portion of
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
their range. No pupping areas have been
identified in southern New England, but
there are several haul-out sites on Block
Island and six haul-out sites have been
identified in Narragansett Bay (Barlas,
1999; Kenney and Vigness-Raposa,
2010).
From July 2018 through March 2020,
elevated numbers of harbor seal and
gray seal mortalities occurred across
Maine, New Hampshire and
Massachusetts. Additionally, stranded
seals showed clinical signs as far south
as Virginia, although not in elevated
numbers. This even was declared a
UME, and the UME investigation
encompassed all seal strandings from
Maine to Virginia. A total of 3,152
reported strandings (both harbor and
gray seals) occurred during the UME.
Full or partial necropsy examinations
have been conducted on some of the
seals and samples have been collected
for testing. Based on tests conducted as
of April 30, 2021, the main pathogen
found in the seals is phocine distemper
virus. NMFS is performing additional
testing to identify any other factors that
may be involved in this UME. This UME
was declared from 2018 through 2020,
and is currently pending closure to
become non-active. Therefore, this UME
will not be addressed further in this
document. Further information is
available at: https://www.fisheries.
noaa.gov/new-england-mid-atlantic/
marine-life-distress/2018-2020pinniped-unusual-mortality-eventalong.
Gray Seal
There are three major populations of
gray seals found in the world: eastern
Canada (western North Atlantic stock),
northwestern Europe and the Baltic Sea.
Gray seals in the project area belong to
the western North Atlantic stock. The
range for this stock is thought to be from
New Jersey to Labrador (Davies, 1957;
Mansfield, 1966; Katona et al., 1993);
however, stranding records as far south
as Cape Hatteras (Gilbert et al., 2005)
have been recorded. This species
inhabits temperate and sub-arctic waters
and lives on remote, exposed islands,
shoals, and sandbars (Jefferson et al.,
2008).
In U.S. waters, pupping sites are
located from Maine to Massachusetts
(Wood et al., 2019). Historically, gray
seals were relatively absent from Rhode
Island and nearby waters. However,
with the recent recovery of the
Massachusetts and Canadian
populations, their occurrence has
increased in southern New England
waters (Kenney and Vigness-Raposa,
2010). In New York, gray seals are
typically seen alongside harbor seal
E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2022 / Notices
haul-outs. Two frequent sighting
locations include Great Gull Island and
Fisher’s Island (Kenney and VignessRaposa, 2010). Two breeding and
pupping grounds have also been
identified in Nantucket Sound at
Monomoy and Muskeget Island (NMFS,
2021). Gray seals have been observed
using the historic pupping site on
Muskeget Island in Massachusetts since
1990.
Current population trends show that
gray seal abundance is likely increasing
in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ (Hayes et al.,
2021). Although the rate of increase is
unknown, surveys conducted since the
1980s indicate a steady increase in
abundance in both Maine and
Massachusetts (Hayes et al., 2021). It is
believed that recolonization by
Canadian gray seals is the source of the
U.S. population (Hayes et al., 2021). As
described above, elevated seal
mortalities, including gray seals, have
occurred from Maine to Virginia from
2018 through 2020. Phocine distemper
virus has been the main pathogen found
in stranded seals. More information is
available at: https://www.fisheries.
noaa.gov/new-england-mid-atlantic/
marine-life-distress/2018-2020pinniped-unusual-mortality-eventalong.
Marine Mammal Hearing
Hearing is the most important sensory
modality for marine mammals
underwater, and exposure to
anthropogenic sound can have
deleterious effects. To appropriately
assess the potential effects of exposure
to sound, it is necessary to understand
the frequency ranges marine mammals
are able to hear. Not all marine mammal
species have equal hearing capabilities
(e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok
and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings,
2008). To reflect this, Southall et al.
(2007, 2019) recommended that marine
52525
mammals be divided into hearing
groups based on directly measured
(behavioral or auditory evoked potential
techniques) or estimated hearing ranges
(behavioral response data, anatomical
modeling, etc.). Note that no direct
measurements of hearing ability have
been successfully completed for
mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency
cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018)
described generalized hearing ranges for
these marine mammal hearing groups.
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen
based on the approximately 65 decibel
(dB) threshold from the normalized
composite audiograms, with the
exception for lower limits for lowfrequency cetaceans where the lower
bound was deemed to be biologically
implausible and the lower bound from
Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine
mammal hearing groups and their
associated hearing ranges are provided
in Table 4.
TABLE 4—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS
[NMFS, 2018]
Hearing group
Generalized hearing
range *
Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen whales) .........................................................................................................................
Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans (dolphins, toothed whales, beaked whales, bottlenose whales) ..............................................
High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins, Cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus cruciger & L.
australis).
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true seals) .......................................................................................................................
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) (sea lions and fur seals) ..................................................................................................
7 Hz to 35 kHz.
150 Hz to 160 kHz.
275 Hz to 160 kHz.
50 Hz to 86 kHz.
60 Hz to 39 kHz.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual species’
hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized hearing range chosen based on ∼65 dB threshold from normalized composite audiogram,
with the exception for lower limits for LF cetaceans (Southall et al., 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation).
The pinniped functional hearing
group was modified from Southall et al.
(2007) on the basis of data indicating
that phocid species have consistently
demonstrated an extended frequency
range of hearing compared to otariids,
especially in the higher frequency range
(Hemila¨ et al., 2006; Kastelein et al.,
2009; Reichmuth and Holt, 2013).
For more detail concerning these
groups and associated frequency ranges,
please see NMFS (2018) for a review of
available information. Sixteen marine
mammal species (14 cetacean and 2
pinniped (both phocid) species) have
the reasonable potential to co-occur
with the proposed survey activities.
Please refer to Table 3. Of the cetacean
species that may be present, five are
classified as low-frequency cetaceans
(i.e., all mysticete species), eight are
classified as mid-frequency cetaceans
(i.e., all delphinid species and the sperm
whale), and one is classified as highfrequency cetaceans (i.e., harbor
porpoise and Kogia spp.).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Aug 25, 2022
Jkt 256001
Potential Effects of Specified Activities
on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat
This section includes a discussion of
the ways that Orsted’s specified activity
may impact marine mammals and their
habitat. Detailed descriptions of the
potential effects of similar specified
activities have been provided in other
recent Federal Register notices,
including for survey activities using the
same methodology, over a similar
amount of time, and occurring in the
northwest Atlantic region, including
waters offshore of Massachusetts and
Rhode Island (e.g., 85 FR 63508, October
8, 2020; 86 FR 40469, July 28, 2021; 87
FR 806, January 6, 2022; 87 FR 13975,
March 11, 2022). No significant new
information is available, and we refer
the reader to these documents rather
than repeating the details here. The
Estimated Take section later in this
document includes a quantitative
analysis of the number of individuals
that are expected to be taken by Orsted’s
activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
and Determination section considers the
content of this section, the Estimated
Take section, and the Proposed
Mitigation section, to draw conclusions
regarding the likely impacts of these
activities on the reproductive success or
survivorship of individuals and to draw
conclusions regarding the likely impacts
of these activities on the reproductive
success or survivorship of individuals
and whether those impacts are
reasonably expected to, or reasonably
likely to, adversely affect the species or
stock through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival.
Underwater sound from active
acoustic sources can include one or
more of the following: Temporary or
permanent hearing impairment, nonauditory physical or physiological
effects, behavioral disturbance, stress,
and masking. The degree of effect is
intrinsically related to the signal
characteristics, received level, distance
from the source, and duration of the
sound exposure. Marine mammals
exposed to high-intensity sound, or to
E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
52526
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2022 / Notices
lower-intensity sound for prolonged
periods, can experience hearing
threshold shift (TS), which is the loss of
hearing sensitivity at certain frequency
ranges (Finneran, 2015). TS can be
permanent (PTS), in which case the loss
of hearing sensitivity is not fully
recoverable, or temporary (TTS), in
which case the animal’s hearing
threshold would recover over time
(Southall et al., 2007).
Permanent Threshold Shift—Marine
mammals exposed to high-intensity
sound, or to lower-intensity sound for
prolonged periods, can experience
hearing threshold shift (TS), which is
the loss of hearing sensitivity at certain
frequency ranges (Finneran, 2015). TS
can be permanent (PTS), in which case
the loss of hearing sensitivity is not
fully recoverable, or temporary (TTS), in
which case the animal’s hearing
threshold would recover over time
(Southall et al., 2007). Repeated sound
exposure that leads to TTS could cause
PTS. In severe cases of PTS, there can
be total or partial deafness, while in
most cases the animal has an impaired
ability to hear sounds in specific
frequency ranges (Kryter, 1985).
Temporary Threshold Shift—TTS is
the mildest form of hearing impairment
that can occur during exposure to sound
(Kryter, 1985). While experiencing TTS,
the hearing threshold rises, and a sound
must be at a higher level in order to be
heard. In terrestrial and marine
mammals, TTS can last from minutes or
hours to days (in cases of strong TTS).
In many cases, hearing sensitivity
recovers rapidly after exposure to the
sound ends.
When PTS occurs, there is physical
damage to the sound receptors in the ear
(i.e., tissue damage), whereas TTS
represents primarily tissue fatigue and
is reversible (Southall et al., 2007). In
addition, other investigators have
suggested that TTS is within the normal
bounds of physiological variability and
tolerance and does not represent
physical injury (e.g., Ward, 1997).
Therefore, NMFS does not consider TTS
to constitute auditory injury.
Many studies have examined noiseinduced hearing loss in marine
mammals (see Finneran (2015) and
Southall et al. (2019) for summaries).
Animals in the vicinity of Orsted’s
proposed site characterization survey
activities are unlikely to incur even TTS
due to the characteristics of the sound
sources, which include relatively low
sound source levels (176 to 205 dB re
1 mPa-m) and generally very short pulses
and potential duration of exposure.
These characteristics mean that
instantaneous exposure is unlikely to
cause TTS, as it is unlikely that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Aug 25, 2022
Jkt 256001
exposure would occur close enough to
the vessel for received levels to exceed
peak pressure TTS criteria, and the
cumulative duration of exposure would
be insufficient to exceed cumulative
sound exposure level (SEL) criteria.
Regarding instantaneous exposure, highfrequency cetacean species (e.g., harbor
porpoises) have the greatest sensitivity
to potential TTS, and individuals would
have to make an approach within 5 m
of the vessel (the estimated isopleth
distance to the peak threshold).
Intermittent exposures—as would occur
due to the brief, transient signals
produced by these sources—require a
higher cumulative SEL to induce TTS
than would continuous exposures of the
same duration (i.e., intermittent
exposure results in lower levels of TTS).
Moreover, most marine mammals would
more likely avoid a loud sound source
rather than swim in such close
proximity as to result in TTS. Kremser
et al., (2005) noted that the probability
of a cetacean swimming through the
area of exposure when a sub-bottom
profiler emits a pulse is small—because
if the animal was in the area, it would
have to pass the transducer at close
range in order to be subjected to sound
levels that could cause TTS and would
likely exhibit avoidance behavior to the
area near the transducer rather than
swim though at such a close range.
Further, the restricted beam shape of
many of HRG survey devices planned
for use (Table 2) makes it unlikely that
an animal would be exposed more than
briefly during the passage of the vessel.
Behavioral Effects—Behavioral
disturbances may include a variety of
effects, including subtle changes in
behavior (e.g., minor or brief avoidance
of an area or changes in vocalizations),
more conspicuous changes in similar
behavioral activities, and more
sustained and/or potentially severe
reactions, such as displacement from or
abandonment of high-quality habitat.
Behavioral responses to sound are
highly variable and context-specific and
any reactions depend on numerous
intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g.,
species, state of maturity, experience,
current activity, reproductive state,
auditory sensitivity, time of day), as
well as the interplay between factors
(e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et
al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007; Weilgart,
2007; Archer et al., 2010; Southall et al.,
2021). Available studies show wide
variation in response to underwater
sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict
specifically how any given sound in a
particular instance might affect marine
mammals perceiving the signal.
The following subsections provide
examples of behavioral responses that
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
provide an idea of the variability in
behavioral responses that would be
expected given the differential
sensitivities of marine mammal species
to sound and the wide range of potential
acoustic sources to which a marine
mammal may be exposed. Behavioral
responses that could occur for a given
sound exposure should be determined
from the literature that is available for
each species, or extrapolated from
closely related species when no
information exists, along with
contextual factors. Available studies
show wide variation in response to
underwater sound; therefore, it is
difficult to predict specifically how any
given sound in a particular instance
might affect marine mammals
perceiving the signal. If a marine
mammal does react briefly to an
underwater sound by changing its
behavior or moving a small distance, the
impacts of the change are unlikely to be
significant to the individual, the stock,
or population. However, if a sound
source displaces marine mammals from
an important feeding or breeding area
for a prolonged period, impacts on
individuals and populations could be
significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder,
2007; Weilgart, 2007; NRC, 2003). There
are broad categories of potential
response, which we describe in greater
detail here, that include alteration of
dive behavior, alteration of foraging
behavior, effects to breathing,
interference with or alteration of
vocalization, avoidance, and flight.
Changes in dive behavior can vary
widely, and may consist of increased or
decreased dive times and surface
intervals as well as changes in the rates
of ascent and descent during a dive (e.g.,
Frankel and Clark, 2000; Costa et al.,
2003; Ng and Leung, 2003; Nowacek et
al., 2004; Goldbogen et al., 2013). Seals
exposed to non-impulsive sources with
a received sound pressure level within
the range of calculated exposures (142–
193 dB re 1 mPa (referenced to 1
micropascal), have been shown to
change their behavior by modifying
diving activity and avoidance of the
sound source (Go¨tz et al., 2010;
Kvadsheim et al., 2010). Variations in
dive behavior may reflect interruptions
in biologically significant activities (e.g.,
foraging) or they may be of little
biological significance. The impact of an
alteration to dive behavior resulting
from an acoustic exposure depends on
what the animal is doing at the time of
the exposure and the type and
magnitude of the response. Due to the
mobile nature of the proposed activities
and mobility of marine mammals, we
expect minimal effects on diving
E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2022 / Notices
behavior as animals would be able to
move away from the sound source.
Disruption of feeding behavior can be
difficult to correlate with anthropogenic
sound exposure, so it is usually inferred
by observed displacement from known
foraging areas, the appearance of
secondary indicators (e.g., bubble nets
or sediment plumes), or changes in dive
behavior. As for other types of
behavioral response, the frequency,
duration, and temporal pattern of signal
presentation, as well as differences in
species sensitivity, are likely
contributing factors to differences in
response in any given circumstance
(e.g., Croll et al., 2001; Nowacek et al.;
2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et
al., 2007; Melco´n et al., 2012). In
addition, the behavioral state of the
animal plays a role in the type and
severity of a behavioral response, such
as disruption to foraging (e.g., Silve et
al., 2016; Wensveen et al., 2017). As
mentioned earlier, the proposed project
area overlaps with a fin whale feeding
BIA. However, due to the mobile nature
of the proposed acoustic sources, as
well as fin whales and their prey, fin
whales would have alternate habitat
available for foraging during the brief
duration of acoustic activity. We,
therefore, expect minimal impacts to
foraging fin whales.
A determination of whether foraging
disruptions incur fitness consequences
would require information on or
estimates of the energetic requirements
of the affected individuals and the
relationship between prey availability,
foraging effort and success, and the life
history stage of the animal. Goldbogen
et al. (2013) indicate that disruption of
feeding and displacement could impact
individual fitness and health. However,
for this to be true, we would have to
assume that an individual could not
compensate for this lost feeding
opportunity by either immediately
feeding at another location, by feeding
shortly after cessation of acoustic
exposure, or by feeding at a later time.
There is no indication this is the case,
particularly since unconsumed prey
would likely still be available in the
environment in most cases following the
cessation of acoustic exposure.
Information on or estimates of the
energetic requirements of the
individuals and the relationship
between prey availability, foraging effort
and success, and the life history stage of
the animal will help better inform a
determination of whether foraging
disruptions incur fitness consequences.
Marine mammals vocalize for
different purposes and across multiple
modes, such as whistling, echolocation
click production, calling, and singing.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Aug 25, 2022
Jkt 256001
Changes in vocalization behavior in
response to anthropogenic noise can
occur for any of these modes and may
result from a need to compete with an
increase in background noise or may
reflect increased vigilance or a startle
response. For example, in the presence
of potentially masking signals,
humpback whales and killer whales
have been observed to increase the
length of their songs (Miller et al., 2000;
Fristrup et al., 2003; Foote et al., 2004),
while right whales have been observed
to shift the frequency content of their
calls upward while reducing the rate of
calling in areas of increased
anthropogenic noise (Parks et al., 2007;
Rolland et al., 2012). Killer whales off
the northwestern coast of the United
States have been observed to increase
the duration of primary calls once a
threshold in observing vessel density
(e.g., whale watching) was reached,
which has been suggested as a response
to increased masking noise produced by
the vessels (Foote et al., 2004; NOAA,
2014). In some cases, however, animals
may cease or alter sound production in
response to underwater sound (e.g.,
Bowles et al., 1994; Castellote et al.,
2012; Cerchio et al., 2014). Studies also
demonstrate that even low levels of
noise received far from the noise source
can induce changes in vocalization and/
or behavioral responses (Blackwell et
al., 2013, 2015). Due to the short-term
duration and mobile nature of the
proposed activities, we expect minimal
impacts to marine mammal
vocalization.
Avoidance is the displacement of an
individual from an area or migration
path as a result of the presence of a
sound or other stressors, and is one of
the most obvious manifestations of
disturbance in marine mammals
(Richardson et al., 1995). Avoidance is
qualitatively different from the flight
response, but also differs in the
magnitude of the response (i.e., directed
movement, rate of travel, etc.).
Avoidance is often temporary, and
animals return to the area once the noise
has ceased. Acute avoidance responses
have been observed in captive porpoises
and pinnipeds exposed to a number of
different sound sources (Kastelein et al.,
2001; Finneran et al., 2003; Kastelein et
al., 2006a, 2006b; 2015a, 2015b, 2018).
Short-term avoidance of seismic
surveys, low frequency emissions, and
acoustic deterrents have also been noted
in wild populations of odontocetes
(Bowles et al., 1994; Goold, 1996; Goold
and Fish, 1998; Stone et al., 2000;
Morton and Symonds, 2002; Hiley et al.,
2021) and to some extent in mysticetes
(Malme et al., 1984; McCauley et al.,
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
52527
2000; Gailey et al., 2007). Longer-term
displacement is possible, however,
which may lead to changes in
abundance or distribution patterns of
the affected species in the affected
region if habituation to the presence of
the sound does not occur (e.g.,
Blackwell et al., 2004; Bejder et al.,
2006; Teilmann et al., 2006). Avoidance
may occur for any marine mammals
exposed to the proposed sound sources,
however, alternate habitat is available
for any animals that are temporarily
displaced and mitigation measures, as
described further in the Proposed
Mitigation section, are expected to
reduce avoidance.
A flight response is a dramatic change
in normal movement to a directed and
rapid movement away from the
perceived location of a sound source.
The flight response differs from other
avoidance responses in the intensity of
the response (e.g., directed movement,
rate of travel). Relatively little
information on flight responses of
marine mammals to anthropogenic
signals exist, although observations of
flight responses to the presence of
predators have occurred (Connor and
Heithaus, 1996). The result of a flight
response could range from brief,
temporary exertion and displacement
from the area where the signal provokes
flight to, in extreme cases, marine
mammal strandings (Evans and
England, 2001). There are limited data
on flight response for marine mammals
in water; however, there are examples of
this response in species on land (e.g.,
Born et al., 1999; Ward et al., 1999; Frid,
2003). However, it should be noted that
response to a perceived predator does
not necessarily invoke flight (Ford and
Reeves, 2008), and whether individuals
are solitary or in groups may influence
the response. Due to proposed
mitigation measures, we do not expect
any marine mammals to exhibit flight
responses to the proposed activities.
In addition, sound can disrupt
behavior through masking, or interfering
with, an animal’s ability to detect,
recognize, or discriminate between
acoustic signals of interest (e.g., those
used for intraspecific communication
and social interactions, prey detection,
predator avoidance, navigation).
Masking occurs when the receipt of a
sound is interfered with by another
coincident sound at similar frequencies
and at similar or higher intensity, and
may occur whether the sound is natural
(e.g., snapping shrimp, wind, waves,
precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g.,
shipping, sonar, seismic exploration) in
origin. Marine mammal
communications would not likely be
masked appreciably by the acoustic
E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
52528
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2022 / Notices
signals given the directionality of the
signals for most HRG survey equipment
types planned for use (Table 2) and the
brief period when an individual
mammal is likely to be exposed.
Many animals perform vital functions,
such as feeding, resting, traveling, and
socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour
cycle). Disruption of such functions
resulting from reactions to stressors
such as sound exposure are more likely
to be significant if they last more than
one diel cycle or recur on subsequent
days (Southall et al., 2007).
Consequently, a behavioral response
lasting less than one day and not
recurring on subsequent days is not
considered particularly severe unless it
could directly affect reproduction or
survival (Southall et al., 2007). Note that
there is a difference between multi-day
substantive behavioral reactions and
multi-day anthropogenic activities. For
example, just because an activity lasts
for multiple days does not necessarily
mean that individual animals are either
exposed to activity-related stressors for
multiple days or, further, exposed in a
manner resulting in sustained multi-day
substantive behavioral responses. Due to
the short-term nature of the proposed
HRG activities, we expect minimal
disruption to any diel cycles of marine
mammals.
To assess the strength of behavioral
changes and responses to external
sounds and SPLs associated with
changes in behavior, Southall et al.,
(2007) developed and utilized a severity
scale, which is a 10 point scale ranging
from no effect (labeled 0), effects not
likely to influence vital rates (low;
labeled from 1 to 3), effects that could
affect vital rates (moderate; labeled 4 to
6), to effects that were thought likely to
influence vital rates (high; labeled 7 to
9). Southall et al., (2021) updated the
severity scale by integrating behavioral
context (i.e., survival, reproduction, and
foraging) into severity assessment. For
non-impulsive sounds (i.e., similar to
the sources used during the proposed
action), data suggest that exposures of
pinnipeds to sources between 90 and
140 dB re 1 mPa do not elicit strong
behavioral responses; no data were
available for exposures at higher
received levels for Southall et al., (2007)
to include in the severity scale analysis.
Reactions of harbor seals were the only
available data for which the responses
could be ranked on the severity scale.
For reactions that were recorded, the
majority (17 of 18 individuals/groups)
were ranked on the severity scale as a
4 (defined as moderate change in
movement, brief shift in group
distribution, or moderate change in
vocal behavior) or lower; the remaining
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Aug 25, 2022
Jkt 256001
response was ranked as a 6 (defined as
minor or moderate avoidance of the
sound source).
Habituation can occur when an
animal’s response to a stimulus wanes
with repeated exposure, usually in the
absence of unpleasant associated events
(Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most
likely to habituate to sounds that are
predictable and unvarying. It is
important to note that habituation is
appropriately considered as a
‘‘progressive reduction in response to
stimuli that are perceived as neither
aversive nor beneficial,’’ rather than as,
more generally, moderation in response
to human disturbance (Bejder et al.,
2009). The opposite process is
sensitization, when an unpleasant
experience leads to subsequent
responses, often in the form of
avoidance, at a lower level of exposure.
As noted, behavioral state may affect the
type of response. For example, animals
that are resting may show greater
behavioral change in response to
disturbing sound levels than animals
that are highly motivated to remain in
an area for feeding (Richardson et al.,
1995; NRC, 2003; Wartzok et al., 2003).
Controlled experiments with captive
marine mammals have shown
pronounced behavioral reactions,
including avoidance of loud sound
sources (Ridgway et al., 1997; Finneran
et al., 2003). Observed responses of wild
marine mammals to loud impulsive
sound sources (typically seismic airguns
or acoustic harassment devices) have
been varied but often consist of
avoidance behavior or other behavioral
changes suggesting discomfort (Morton
and Symonds, 2002; see also Richardson
et al., 1995; Nowacek et al., 2007).
Although habituation to the proposed
sound sources could occur, it is not
likely due to the short-term nature of the
HRG activities.
Stress responses—An animal’s
perception of a threat may be sufficient
to trigger stress responses consisting of
some combination of behavioral
responses, autonomic nervous system
responses, neuroendocrine responses, or
immune responses (e.g., Seyle, 1950;
Moberg, 2000). In many cases, an
animal’s first and sometimes most
economical (in terms of energetic costs)
response is behavioral avoidance of the
potential stressor. Autonomic nervous
system responses to stress typically
involve changes in heart rate, blood
pressure, and gastrointestinal activity.
These responses have a relatively short
duration and may or may not have a
significant long-term effect on an
animal’s fitness.
Neuroendocrine stress responses often
involve the hypothalamus-pituitary-
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
adrenal system. Virtually all
neuroendocrine functions that are
affected by stress—including immune
competence, reproduction, metabolism,
and behavior—are regulated by pituitary
hormones. Stress-induced changes in
the secretion of pituitary hormones have
been implicated in failed reproduction,
altered metabolism, reduced immune
competence, and behavioral disturbance
(e.g., Moberg, 1987; Blecha, 2000).
The primary distinction between
stress (which is adaptive and does not
normally place an animal at risk) and
‘‘distress’’ is the cost of the response.
During a stress response, an animal uses
glycogen stores that can be quickly
replenished once the stress is alleviated.
In such circumstances, the cost of the
stress response would not pose serious
fitness consequences. However, when
an animal does not have sufficient
energy reserves to satisfy the energetic
costs of a stress response, energy
resources must be diverted from other
functions. This state of distress will last
until the animal replenishes its
energetic reserves sufficient to restore
normal function. We expect minimal
stress responses to result from marine
mammals due to the short-term duration
of activities and proposed mitigation
measures.
Potential effects on prey—Sound may
affect marine mammals through impacts
on the abundance, behavior, or
distribution of prey species (e.g.,
crustaceans, cephalopods, fish,
zooplankton) (i.e., effects to marine
mammal habitat). Prey species exposed
to sound might move away from the
sound source, experience TTS,
experience masking of biologically
relevant sounds, or show no obvious
direct effects. The most likely impacts
(if any) for most prey species in a given
area would be temporary avoidance of
the area. Surveys using active acoustic
sound sources move through an area
relatively quickly, limiting exposure to
multiple pulses. In all cases, sound
levels would return to ambient once a
survey ends and the noise source is shut
down and, when exposure to sound
ends, behavioral and/or physiological
responses are expected to end relatively
quickly.
Marine Mammal Habitat
The HRG survey equipment will not
contact the seafloor and does not
represent a source of pollution. As the
HRG survey equipment introduces noise
to the marine environment, there is the
potential for it to result in avoidance of
the area around the HRG survey
activities on the part of marine mammal
prey. Any avoidance of the area on the
part of marine mammal prey would be
E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2022 / Notices
expected to be short term and
temporary.
Due to the temporary nature of the
disturbance, and the availability of
similar habitat and resources (e.g., prey
species) in the surrounding area, the
impacts to marine mammals and the
food sources that they utilize are
expected to be minimal and unlikely to
cause significant or long-term
consequences for individual marine
mammals or their populations.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Ship Strikes
Vessel collisions with marine
mammals, or ship strikes, can result in
death or serious injury of the animal.
These interactions are typically
associated with large whales, which are
less maneuverable than are smaller
cetaceans or pinnipeds in relation to
large vessels. Ship strikes generally
involve commercial shipping vessels,
which are generally larger (e.g., 40,000
ton container ship) and of which there
is much more traffic in the ocean than
geophysical survey vessels. Jensen and
Silber (2004) summarized ship strikes of
large whales worldwide from 1975–
2003 and found that most collisions
occurred in the open ocean and
involved large vessels (e.g., commercial
shipping). For vessels used in
geophysical survey activities, vessel
speed while towing gear is typically
approximately 4–5 kn (2.1–2.6 m/s) (as
is the speed of the vessel for Orsted’s
proposed HRG surveys). At these
speeds, both the possibility of striking a
marine mammal and the possibility of a
strike resulting in serious injury or
mortality are so low as to be
discountable. At average transit speed
for geophysical survey vessels, the
probability of serious injury or mortality
resulting from a strike is less than 50
percent. However, the likelihood of a
strike actually happening is again low
given the smaller size of these vessels
and generally slower speeds. Notably in
the Jensen and Silber study, no strike
incidents were reported for geophysical
survey vessels during that time period.
The potential effects of Orsted’s
specified survey activity are expected to
be limited to Level B behavioral
harassment. Temporary and minimal
impacts to marine mammal habitat,
including prey, may occur.
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of
the number of incidental takes proposed
for authorization through this IHA,
which will inform both NMFS’
consideration of ‘‘small numbers’’ and
the negligible impact determinations.
Harassment is the only type of take
expected to result from these activities.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Aug 25, 2022
Jkt 256001
Except with respect to certain activities
not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the
MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act
of pursuit, torment, or annoyance,
which (i) has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild (Level A harassment);
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a
marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild by causing disruption
of behavioral patterns, including, but
not limited to, migration, breathing,
nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering
(Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would be by Level B
harassment only, in the form of
disruption of behavioral patterns for
individual marine mammals resulting
from exposure to certain HRG sources.
Based on the nature of the activity and
the anticipated effectiveness of the
mitigation measures (i.e., shutdown
measures, vessel strike avoidance
procedures) discussed in detail below in
the Proposed Mitigation section, Level
A harassment is neither anticipated nor
proposed to be authorized.
As described previously, no serious
injury or mortality is anticipated or
proposed to be authorized for this
activity. Below we describe how the
proposed take numbers are estimated.
For acoustic impacts, generally
speaking, we estimate take by
considering: (1) acoustic thresholds
above which NMFS believes the best
available science indicates marine
mammals will be behaviorally harassed
or incur some degree of permanent
hearing impairment; (2) the area or
volume of water that will be ensonified
above these levels in a day; (3) the
density or occurrence of marine
mammals within these ensonified areas;
and, (4) the number of days of activities.
We note that while these factors can
contribute to a basic calculation to
provide an initial prediction of potential
takes, additional information that can
qualitatively inform take estimates is
also sometimes available (e.g., previous
monitoring results or average group
size). Below, we describe the factors
considered here in more detail and
present the proposed take estimates.
Acoustic Thresholds
NMFS recommends the use of
acoustic thresholds that identify the
received level of underwater sound
above which exposed marine mammals
would be reasonably expected to be
behaviorally harassed (equated to Level
B harassment) or to incur PTS of some
degree (equated to Level A harassment).
Level B Harassment—Though
significantly driven by received level,
the onset of behavioral disturbance from
anthropogenic noise exposure is also
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
52529
informed to varying degrees by other
factors related to the source or exposure
context (e.g., frequency, predictability,
duty cycle, duration of the exposure,
signal-to-noise ratio, distance to the
source), the environment (e.g.,
bathymetry, other noises in the area,
predators in the area), and the receiving
animals (hearing, motivation,
experience, demography, life stage,
depth) and can be difficult to predict
(e.g., Southall et al., 2007, 2021, Ellison
et al., 2012). Based on what the
available science indicates and the
practical need to use a threshold based
on a metric that is both predictable and
measurable for most activities, NMFS
typically uses a generalized acoustic
threshold based on received level to
estimate the onset of behavioral
harassment. NMFS generally predicts
that marine mammals are likely to be
behaviorally harassed in a manner
considered to be Level B harassment
when exposed to underwater
anthropogenic noise above root-meansquared pressure received levels (RMS
SPL) of 120 dB (re 1 mPa) for continuous
(e.g., vibratory pile-driving, drilling) and
above RMS SPL 160 dB re 1 mPa for nonexplosive impulsive (e.g., seismic
airguns) or intermittent (e.g., scientific
sonar) sources.
Level A Harassment—NMFS
Technical Guidance for Assessing the
Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on
Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0)
(Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies
dual criteria to assess auditory injury
(Level A harassment) to five different
marine mammal groups (based on
hearing sensitivity) as a result of
exposure to noise from two different
types of sources (impulsive or nonimpulsive).
These thresholds are provided in the
table below. The references, analysis,
and methodology used in the
development of the thresholds are
described in NMFS’ 2018 Technical
Guidance, which may be accessed at:
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.
Orsted’s proposed activity includes
the use of impulsive (i.e., boomers and
sparkers) and non-impulsive (i.e.,
CHIRP SBPs) sources. However, as
discussed above, NMFS has concluded
that Level A harassment is not a
reasonably likely outcome for marine
mammals exposed to noise from the
sources proposed for use here, and the
potential for Level A harassment is not
evaluated further in this document.
Please see Orsted’s application (Section
1.4) for a quantitative Level A exposure
analysis exercise. The results indicated
that maximum estimated distances to
E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
52530
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2022 / Notices
Level A harassment isopleths were less
than 3 m for all sources and hearing
groups, with the exception of an
estimated 18.9 m and 11.4 m distance to
the Level A harassment isopleth for
high-frequency cetaceans (i.e., harbor
porpoises) during use of the GeoPulse
5430 and TB CHIRP III, respectively (see
Table 2 for source characteristics).
Orsted did not request authorization of
take by Level A harassment and no take
by Level A harassment is proposed for
authorization by NMFS.
TABLE 5—THRESHOLDS IDENTIFYING THE ONSET OF PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT
PTS onset thresholds *
(received level)
Hearing group
Impulsive
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans .....................................
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans .....................................
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans ....................................
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater) .............................
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater) .............................
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
1:
3:
5:
7:
9:
Lp,0-pk,flat:
Lp,0-pk,flat:
Lp,0-pk,flat:
Lp,0-pk.flat:
Lp,0-pk,flat:
219
230
202
218
232
dB;
dB;
dB;
dB;
dB;
Non-impulsive
LE,p, LF,24h: 183 dB ...............
LE,p, MF,24h: 185 dB ..............
LE,p,HF,24h: 155 dB ................
LE,p,PW,24h: 185 dB ...............
LE,p,OW,24h: 203 dB ...............
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
2: LE,p, LF,24h: 199 dB.
4: LE,p, MF,24h: 198 dB.
6: LE,p, HF,24h: 173 dB.
8: LE,p,PW,24h: 201 dB.
10: LE,p,OW,24h: 219 dB.
* Dual metric thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS onset. If a non-impulsive sound
has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds are recommended
for consideration.
Note: Peak sound pressure level (Lp,0-pk) has a reference value of 1 μPa, and weighted cumulative sound exposure level (LE,p) has a reference value of 1μPa2s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to be more reflective of International Organization for Standardization standards (ISO 2017). The subscript ‘‘flat’’ is being included to indicate peak sound pressure are flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized
hearing range of marine mammals (i.e., 7 Hz to 160 kHz). The subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates
the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended
accumulation period is 24 hours. The weighted cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these
thresholds will be exceeded.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Ensonified Area
Here, we describe operational and
environmental parameters of the activity
that are used in estimating the area
ensonified above the acoustic
thresholds, including source levels and
transmission loss coefficient.
NMFS has developed a user-friendly
methodology for determining the rms
sound pressure level (SPLrms) at the 160dB isopleth for the purpose of
estimating the extent of Level B
harassment isopleths associated with
HRG survey equipment (NMFS, 2020).
This methodology incorporates
frequency and some directionality to
refine estimated ensonified zones.
Orsted used NMFS’s methodology,
using the source level and operation
mode of the equipment planned for use
during the proposed survey, to estimate
the maximum ensonified area over a 24hr period also referred to as the
harassment area (Table 6). Potential
takes by Level B harassment are
estimated within the ensonified area
(i.e., harassment area) as an SPL
exceeding 160 dB re 1 mPa for impulsive
sources (e.g., sparkers, boomers) within
an average day of activity.
The harassment zone, also known as
the Zone of Influence (ZOI), is a
representation of the maximum extent
of the ensonified area around a sound
source over a 24-hr period. The ZOI was
calculated for mobile sound sources per
the following formula:
ZOI = (Distance/day × 2r) + pr2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Aug 25, 2022
Jkt 256001
Where r is the linear distance from the
source to the isopleth for the Level B
harassment threshold.
The estimated potential daily active
survey distance of 70 km was used as
the estimated areal coverage over a 24hr period. This distance accounts for the
vessel traveling at roughly 4 kn (2.1
m/s) and only for periods during which
equipment <180 kHz is in operation. A
vessel traveling 4 kn (2.1 m/s) can cover
approximately 110 km per day;
however, based on data collected since
2017, survey coverage over a 24-hour
period is closer to 70 km per day as a
result of delays due to, e.g., weather,
equipment malfunction. For daylight
only vessels, the distance is reduced to
20 km per day; however, to maintain the
potential for 24-hr surveys, the
corresponding Level B harassment
zones provided in Table 6 were
calculated for each source based on the
Level B threshold distances within a 24hour (30 km) operational period.
NMFS considers the data provided by
Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) to
represent the best available information
on source levels associated with HRG
equipment and, therefore, recommends
that source levels provided by Crocker
and Fratantonio (2016) be incorporated
in the method described above to
estimate isopleth distances to
harassment thresholds. In cases, when
the source level for a specific type of
HRG equipment is not provided in
Crocker and Fratantonio (2016), NMFS
recommends that either the source
levels provided by the manufacturer be
used, or, in instances where source
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
levels provided by the manufacturer are
unavailable or unreliable, a proxy from
Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) be used
instead. Table 2 shows the HRG
equipment types that may be used
during the proposed surveys and the
source levels associated with those HRG
equipment types.
Based upon modeling results, of the
HRG survey equipment planned for use
by Orsted that has the potential to result
in Level B harassment of marine
mammals, the Applied Acoustics DuraSpark UHD and GeoMarine Geo-Source
sparkers would produce the largest
Level B harassment isopleth (141 m) or
ZOI. Estimated distances to Level B
harassment isopleths for all sources
evaluated here, including the sparkers,
are provided in Table 6. Although
Orsted does not expect to use sparker
sources on all planned survey days,
Orsted proposes to assume for purposes
of analysis that the sparker would be
used on all survey days. This is a
conservative approach, as the actual
sources used on individual survey days
may produce smaller harassment
distances.
E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
52531
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2022 / Notices
TABLE 6—DISTANCE TO LEVEL B HAR- from NMFS and other organizations and
ASSMENT THRESHOLDS (160 dB incorporate data from 8 physiographic
and 16 dynamic oceanographic and
RMS)
Distance to
level B
harassment
threshold
(m)
Source
Non-impulsive, non-parametric, shallow SBP
(CHIRPs)
ET 216 CHIRP ....................................
ET 424 CHIRP ....................................
ET 512i CHIRP ...................................
GeoPulse 5430 ...................................
TB CHIRP III .......................................
Pangeo SBI .........................................
12
4
6
29
54
22
Impulsive, medium SBP (Boomers and Sparkers)
AA Triple plate S-Boom (700/1,000 J)
AA, Dura-spark UHD Sparkers ...........
GeoMarine Sparkers ...........................
76
141
141
AA = Applied Acoustics; CHIRP = compressed
high-intensity radiated pulses; ET = edgetech; HF =
high-frequency; J = joules; LF = low-frequency; MF =
mid-frequency; PW = phocid pinnipeds in water; SBI
= sub-bottom imager; SBP = sub-bottom profiler; TB
= Teledyne benthos; UHD = ultra-high definition.
Marine Mammal Occurrence
In this section we provide information
about the occurrence of marine
mammals, including density or other
relevant information that will inform
the take calculations.
Habitat based density models
produced by the Duke University
Marine Geospatial Ecology Laboratory
(Roberts et al., 2016, 2022) represent the
best available information regarding
marine mammal densities in the project
area. The density data presented by
Roberts et al. (2016, 2022) incorporate
aerial and shipboard line-transect data
biological covariates, and control for the
influence of sea state, group size,
availability bias, and perception bias on
the probability of making a sighting.
These density models were originally
developed for all cetacean taxa in the
U.S. Atlantic (Roberts et al., 2016). In
subsequent years, certain models have
been updated based on additional data
as well as certain methodological
improvements. More information is
available online at https://seamap
.env.duke.edu/models/Duke/EC/.
Marine mammal density estimates in
the project area (animals/km2) were
obtained using the most recent model
results for all taxa (Roberts 2022). The
updated models incorporate sighting
data, including sightings from NOAA’s
Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for
Protected Species (AMAPPS) surveys.
For exposure analysis, density data
from Roberts (2022) were mapped using
a geographic information system (GIS).
Density grid cells that included any
portion of the proposed project area
were selected for all survey months (see
Figure 3 of Orsted’s application). Given
the variability in level of effort between
the Lease Areas and the ECR area,
densities were separated for the three
Lease Areas (OCS–A 0486, 0487, and
0500) and the ECR area. The densities
for each species as reported by Roberts
et al. (2022) for each of the Lease Areas
and ECR were averaged by month; those
values were then used to calculate the
mean annual density for each species
within the project area. Estimated mean
monthly and annual densities (animals
per km2) of all marine mammal species
that may be taken by the proposed
survey are shown in Tables 8–11 of
Orsted’s application. Please see Table 7
for density values used in the exposure
estimation process.
Given their size and behavior when in
the water, seals are difficult to identify
during shipboard visual surveys and
limited information is currently
available on their distribution.
Therefore, data used to establish the
density estimates from Roberts et al.
(2022) are based on information for all
seal species that may occur in the
Western North Atlantic (i.e., harbor,
gray, hooded, harp). However, only the
harbor seal and gray seal are reasonably
expected to occur in the project area,
and the densities were split evenly
between both species.
Long- and short-finned pilot whales
are also difficult to distinguish during
shipboard surveys so individual habitat
models were not able to be developed
for these species. As only long-finned
pilot whales are expected to occur
within the study area, pilot whale
densities within the study area were
attributed to this species.
For bottlenose dolphin densities,
Roberts (2022) does not differentiate by
stock. As previously discussed, only the
Western North Atlantic offshore stock is
expected to occur in the proposed
project area. Thus, all bottlenose
dolphin density estimates within the
project area were attributed to the
offshore stock.
TABLE 7—AVERAGE ANNUAL MARINE MAMMAL DENSITY ESTIMATES ACROSS SURVEY SITES
Average annual density (km 2)
Species
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
OCS–A 0486
Low-frequency Cetaceans:
Fin whale ..................................................................................................
Sei whale ..................................................................................................
Minke whale ..............................................................................................
Humpback whale ......................................................................................
North Atlantic right whale .........................................................................
Mid-frequency Cetaceans:
Sperm whale .............................................................................................
Atlantic white sided dolphin ......................................................................
Atlantic spotted dolphin ............................................................................
Common bottlenose dolphin .....................................................................
Long-finned pilot whale ............................................................................
Risso’s dolphin .........................................................................................
Common dolphin ......................................................................................
Striped dolphin ..........................................................................................
High-frequency Cetaceans:
Harbor porpoise ........................................................................................
Pinnipeds in-water: 1
Gray seal ..................................................................................................
Harbor seal ...............................................................................................
OCS–A 0487
OCS–A 0500
ECR
0.0013
0.0000
0.0005
0.0012
0.0040
0.0021
0.0001
0.0008
0.0013
0.0020
0.0023
0.0001
0.0009
0.0015
0.0034
0.0015
0.0000
0.0005
0.0006
0.0008
0.0001
0.0092
0.0001
0.0151
0.0020
0
0.0457
0.0000
0.0001
0.0234
0.0003
0.0078
0.0074
0.0001
0.0924
0.0000
0.0001
0.0367
0.0004
0.0097
0.0090
0.0001
0.0945
0.0000
0.0001
0.0163
0.0003
0.0266
0.0043
0.0001
0.0562
0.0000
0.0335
0.0399
0.0384
0.0337
0.0104
0.0104
0.0110
0.0110
0.0124
0.0124
0.0182
0.0182
1 Seal species are not separated in the Roberts (2022) data therefore densities were evenly split between the two species expected to occur in
the project area.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:26 Aug 25, 2022
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
52532
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2022 / Notices
Take Estimation
Here we describe how the information
provided above is synthesized to
produce a quantitative estimate of the
take that is reasonably likely to occur
and proposed for authorization.
Level B exposures were estimated by
multiplying the average annual density
of each species within the project area
(Table 7) by the largest ZOI that was
estimated to be ensonified to an SPL
exceeding 160 dB re 1 mPa (141m; Table
6). That result was then multiplied by
the number of survey days in that Lease
Area or ECR (Table 1), and rounded to
the nearest whole number to arrive at
estimated take. This final number equals
the instances of take for the entire
operational period. It was assumed the
sparker systems were operating all 400
survey days as it is the sound source
expected to produce the largest
harassment zone. A summary of this
method is illustrated in the following
formula with the resulting proposed
take of marine mammals is shown
below in Table 8:
Estimated take = species density ×
ZOI × # of survey days
TABLE 8—TOTAL ESTIMATED AND REQUESTED TAKE NUMBERS
[By level B harassment only]
Species
Abundance
Estimated
level B takes
Requested
level B takes
Max percent
population
Low-frequency Cetaceans
Fin whale .........................................................................................................
Sei whale .........................................................................................................
Minke whale .....................................................................................................
Humpback whale .............................................................................................
North Atlantic right whale ................................................................................
6,802
6,292
21,968
1,396
368
14
0
6
8
17
14
3
13
34
17
0.21
0.05
0.06
2.44
4.62
4,349
93,233
39,921
62,851
39,215
35,215
172,974
67,036
0
210
3
139
17
1
601
0
2
210
29
139
17
30
6,000
20
0.05
0.23
0.07
0.22
0.13
0.09
3.47
0.03
95,543
287
287
0.30
27,300
61,336
118
118
118
118
0.43
0.19
Mid-frequency Cetaceans
Sperm whale ....................................................................................................
Atlantic white-sided dolphin .............................................................................
Atlantic spotted dolphin ...................................................................................
Common bottlenose dolphin ............................................................................
Pilot whale .......................................................................................................
Risso’s dolphin .................................................................................................
Common dolphin ..............................................................................................
Striped dolphin .................................................................................................
High-frequency Cetaceans
Harbor porpoise ...............................................................................................
Pinnipeds
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Seals:.
Gray seal ..................................................................................................
Harbor seal ...............................................................................................
Additional data regarding average
group sizes from survey effort in the
region was considered to ensure
adequate take estimates are evaluated.
Take estimates for several species were
adjusted based upon observed group
sizes in the area. The adjusted take
estimates for these species are indicated
in bold in Table 8. These calculated take
estimates were adjusted for these
species as follows:
• Sei whale: Although no takes were
estimated, prior Protected Species
Observer (PSO) monitoring documented
the presence of sei whales in the area.
One take was requested based on the
most common group size reported in
Kenney and Vigness-Raposa (2010);
• Minke and humpback whales:
Requested takes were increased to the
number recorded within 500 m of an
active source based on draft PSO data
(see Table 13 in the application);
• Sperm whale: No takes were
estimated but based on their occurrence
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Aug 25, 2022
Jkt 256001
in PSO data, 1 group of 2 (Barkaszi and
Kelly, 2019) was added to the requested
takes;
• Atlantic spotted dolphin: Requested
takes were increased to the average
number of dolphins in a group reported
in Palka et al. (2017, 2021);
• Risso’s dolphin: Only one take was
estimated but based on their occurrence
in PSO data, 1 group of 30 (Kenney and
Vigness-Raposa, 2010) was added to the
requested takes.
• Common dolphin: Requested takes
were increased to 6,000. This is based
on the average group size of 15 from the
PSO data (calculated by dividing the
total number of individuals [14,250] by
the total number of detections [927] in
Table 13 of the application) multiplied
by the planned number of survey days
(400) in Table 1.
• Striped dolphin: No takes were
estimated but based on their occurrence
in PSO data, one group of 20 dolphins
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(Kenney and Vigness-Raposa, 2010) was
added to the requested takes.
PSO data for adjusting take estimates
of minke whales, humpback whales,
common bottlenose dolphins, and
common dolphins was derived from
draft PSO observer reports from surveys
conducted in the project lease areas and
ECR from 2020–2021, as shown in Table
13 of Orsted’s application.
Proposed Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under section
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must
set forth the permissible methods of
taking pursuant to the activity, and
other means of effecting the least
practicable impact on the species or
stock and its habitat, paying particular
attention to rookeries, mating grounds,
and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of the species or stock
for taking for certain subsistence uses
(latter not applicable for this action).
NMFS regulations require applicants for
E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2022 / Notices
incidental take authorizations to include
information about the availability and
feasibility (economic and technological)
of equipment, methods, and manner of
conducting the activity or other means
of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact upon the affected species or
stocks, and their habitat (50 CFR
216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or
may not be appropriate to ensure the
least practicable adverse impact on
species or stocks and their habitat, as
well as subsistence uses where
applicable, NMFS considers two
primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the
degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure(s) is
expected to reduce impacts to marine
mammals, marine mammal species or
stocks, and their habitat. This considers
the nature of the potential adverse
impact being mitigated (likelihood,
scope, range). It further considers the
likelihood that the measure will be
effective if implemented (probability of
accomplishing the mitigating result if
implemented as planned), the
likelihood of effective implementation
(probability implemented as planned),
and;
(2) The practicability of the measures
for applicant implementation, which
may consider such things as cost and
impact on operations.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Mitigation for Marine Mammals and
Their Habitat
NMFS proposes the following
mitigation measures be implemented
during Orsted’s proposed marine site
characterization surveys. Pursuant to
section 7 of the ESA, NEETMA would
also be required to adhere to relevant
Project Design Criteria (PDC) of the
NMFS’ Greater Atlantic Regional
Fisheries Office (GARFO) programmatic
consultation (specifically PDCs 4, 5, and
7) regarding geophysical surveys along
the U.S. Atlantic coast (https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-englandmid-atlantic/consultations/section-7take-reporting-programmatics-greateratlantic#offshore-wind-site-assessmentand-site-characterization-activitiesprogrammatic-consultation).
Marine Mammal Shutdown Zones
Marine mammal shutdown zones
would be established around impulsive
HRG survey equipment (<180 kHz; e.g.,
sparkers and boomers) for all marine
mammals, and around impulsive HRG
survey equipment and non-impulsive,
non-parametric sub-bottom profilers
(e.g., CHIRPs) for North Atlantic right
whales. Shutdown zones would be
monitored by protected species
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Aug 25, 2022
Jkt 256001
observers (PSOs) based upon the radial
distance from the acoustic source rather
than being based around the vessel
itself. An immediate shutdown of
impulsive HRG survey equipment will
be required if a whale is sighted at or
within the corresponding marine
mammal shutdown zones to minimize
noise impacts on the animals. If a
shutdown is required, a PSO will notify
the survey crew immediately. Vessel
operators and crews will comply
immediately with any call for
shutdown. The shutdown zone may or
may not encompass the Level B
harassment zone. Shutdown zone
distances are as follows:
• A 500-meter (m) Shutdown Zone
for North Atlantic right whales for use
of impulsive acoustic sources (e.g.,
boomers and/or sparkers) and nonimpulsive, non-parametric sub-bottom
profilers; and
• A 100-m shutdown zone for use of
impulsive acoustic sources for all other
marine mammals, with the exception of
delphinids belonging to the Family
Delphinidae and one of the following
genera: Delphinus, Lagenorhynchus,
Stenella, or Tursiops, and pinnipeds.
Shutdown will remain in effect until
the minimum separation distances
(detailed above) between the animal and
noise source are re-established. If a
marine mammal enters the respective
shutdown zone during a shutdown
period, the equipment may not restart
until that animal is confirmed outside
the clearance zone as stated previously
in the pre-start clearance procedures.
These stated requirements will be
included in the site-specific training to
be provided to the survey team.
Pre-Start Clearance
Marine mammal clearance zones
would be established at the following
distances around the HRG survey
equipment and monitored by PSOs:
• 500 m for all ESA-listed marine
mammals;
• 100 m for all other whales; and
• 50 m for dolphins and porpoises.
Orsted would implement a 30-minute
pre-start clearance period prior to the
initiation of ramp-up of specified HRG
equipment. During this period,
clearance zones will be monitored by
PSOs, using the appropriate visual
technology. Ramp-up may not be
initiated if any marine mammal(s) is
within its respective clearance zone. If
a marine mammal is observed within a
clearance zone during the pre-start
clearance period, ramp-up may not
begin until the animal(s) has been
observed exiting its respective exclusion
zone or until an additional time period
has elapsed with no further sighting
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
52533
(i.e., 15 minutes for small odontocetes
and seals, and 30 minutes for all other
species). Monitoring would be
conducted throughout all pre-clearance
and shutdown zones as well as all
visible waters surrounding the sound
sources and the vessel. All marine
mammals detected will be recorded as
described in the Proposed Monitoring
and Reporting section.
Ramp-Up of Survey Equipment
A ramp-up procedure, involving a
gradual increase in source level output,
is required at all times as part of the
activation of the acoustic source when
technically feasible. The ramp-up
procedure would be used at the
beginning of HRG survey activities in
order to provide additional protection to
marine mammals near the project area
by allowing them to vacate the area
prior to the commencement of survey
equipment operation at full power.
Operators should ramp-up sources to
half power for 5 minutes and then
proceed to full power.
The ramp-up procedure will not be
initiated (i.e., equipment will not be
started) during periods of inclement
conditions when the marine mammal
pre-start clearance zone cannot be
adequately monitored by the PSOs for a
30 minute period using the appropriate
visual technology. If any marine
mammal enters the clearance zone,
ramp-up will not be initiated until the
animal is confirmed outside the marine
mammal clearance zone, or until the
appropriate time (30 minutes for
whales, 15 minutes for dolphins,
porpoises, and seals) has elapsed since
the last sighting of the animal in the
clearance zone.
Shutdown, pre-start clearance, and
ramp-up procedures are not required
during HRG survey operations using
only non-impulsive sources (e.g.,
echosounders) other than nonparametric sub-bottom profilers (e.g.,
CHIRPs).
Vessel Strike Avoidance
Orsted must adhere to the following
measures except in the case where
compliance would create an imminent
and serious threat to a person or vessel
or to the extent that a vessel is restricted
in its ability to maneuver and, because
of the restriction, cannot comply.
• Vessel operators and crews must
maintain a vigilant watch for all
protected species and slow down, stop
their vessel, or alter course, as
appropriate and regardless of vessel
size, to avoid striking any protected
species. A visual observer aboard the
vessel must monitor a vessel strike
avoidance zone based on the
E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
52534
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2022 / Notices
appropriate separation distance around
the vessel (distances stated below).
Visual observers monitoring the vessel
strike avoidance zone may be thirdparty observers (i.e., PSOs) or crew
members, but crew members
responsible for these duties must be
provided sufficient training to (1)
distinguish protected species from other
phenomena, and (2) broadly identify a
marine mammal as a right whale, other
whale (defined in this context as sperm
whales or baleen whales other than right
whales), or other marine mammal;
a. All survey vessels, regardless of
size, must observe a 10-knot speed
restriction in specified areas designated
by NMFS for the protection of North
Atlantic right whales from vessel strikes
including seasonal management areas
(SMAs) and dynamic management areas
(DMAs) when in effect;
b. Members of the monitoring team
will consult NMFS North Atlantic right
whale reporting system and Whale
Alert, as able, for the presence of North
Atlantic right whales throughout survey
operations, and for the establishment of
a DMA. If NMFS should establish a
DMA in the project area during the
survey, the vessels will abide by speed
restrictions in the DMA;
c. All vessels greater than or equal to
19.8 m in overall length operating from
November 1 through April 30 will
operate at speeds of 10 kn (5.1 m/s) or
less at all times;
d. All vessels must reduce their speed
to 10 kn (5.1 m/s) or less when mother/
calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages of
any species of cetaceans is observed
near a vessel;
e. All vessels must maintain a
minimum separation distance of 500 m
from right whales and other ESA-listed
large whales;
f. If a whale is observed but cannot be
confirmed as a species other than a right
whale or other ESA-listed large whale,
the vessel operator must assume that it
is a right whale and take appropriate
action;
g. All vessels must maintain a
minimum separation distance of 100 m
from non-ESA listed whales;
• All vessels must, to the maximum
extent practicable, attempt to maintain a
minimum separation distance of 50 m
from all other marine mammals, with an
understanding that at times this may not
be possible (e.g., for animals that
approach the vessel);
• When marine mammals are sighted
while a vessel is underway, the vessel
shall take action as necessary to avoid
violating the relevant separation
distance (e.g., attempt to remain parallel
to the animal’s course, avoid excessive
speed or abrupt changes in direction
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Aug 25, 2022
Jkt 256001
until the animal has left the area). If
marine mammals are sighted within the
relevant separation distance, the vessel
must reduce speed and shift the engine
to neutral, not engaging the engines
until animals are clear of the area. This
does not apply to any vessel towing gear
or any vessel that is navigationally
constrained.
Project-specific training will be
conducted for all vessel crew prior to
the start of a survey and during any
changes in crew such that all survey
personnel are fully aware and
understand the mitigation, monitoring,
and reporting requirements. Prior to
implementation with vessel crews, the
training program will be provided to
NMFS for review and approval.
Confirmation of the training and
understanding of the requirements will
be documented on a training course log
sheet. Signing the log sheet will certify
that the crew member understands and
will comply with the necessary
requirements throughout the survey
activities.
Based on our evaluation of the
applicant’s proposed measures, NMFS
has preliminarily determined that the
proposed mitigation measures provide
the means of effecting the least
practicable impact on the affected
species or stocks and their habitat,
paying particular attention to rookeries,
mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance.
Proposed Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an IHA for an
activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the
MMPA states that NMFS must set forth
requirements pertaining to the
monitoring and reporting of such taking.
The MMPA implementing regulations at
50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that
requests for authorizations must include
the suggested means of accomplishing
the necessary monitoring and reporting
that will result in increased knowledge
of the species and of the level of taking
or impacts on populations of marine
mammals that are expected to be
present while conducting the activities.
Effective reporting is critical both to
compliance as well as ensuring that the
most value is obtained from the required
monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting
requirements prescribed by NMFS
should contribute to improved
understanding of one or more of the
following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal
species or stocks in the area in which
take is anticipated (e.g., presence,
abundance, distribution, density);
• Nature, scope, or context of likely
marine mammal exposure to potential
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
stressors/impacts (individual or
cumulative, acute or chronic), through
better understanding of: (1) action or
environment (e.g., source
characterization, propagation, ambient
noise); (2) affected species (e.g., life
history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence
of marine mammal species with the
action; or (4) biological or behavioral
context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or
feeding areas);
• Individual marine mammal
responses (behavioral or physiological)
to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or
cumulative), other stressors, or
cumulative impacts from multiple
stressors;
• How anticipated responses to
stressors impact either: (1) long-term
fitness and survival of individual
marine mammals; or (2) populations,
species, or stocks;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat
(e.g., marine mammal prey species,
acoustic habitat, or other important
physical components of marine
mammal habitat); and,
• Mitigation and monitoring
effectiveness.
Proposed Monitoring Measures
Visual monitoring will be performed
by qualified, NMFS-approved PSOs, the
resumes of whom will be provided to
NMFS for review and approval prior to
the start of survey activities. Orsted
would employ independent, dedicated,
trained PSOs, meaning that the PSOs
must (1) be employed by a third-party
observer provider, (2) have no tasks
other than to conduct observational
effort, collect data, and communicate
with and instruct relevant vessel crew
with regard to the presence of marine
mammals and mitigation requirements
(including brief alerts regarding
maritime hazards), and (3) have
successfully completed an approved
PSO training course appropriate for
their designated task. On a case-by-case
basis, non-independent observers may
be approved by NMFS for limited,
specified duties in support of approved,
independent PSOs on smaller vessels
with limited crew operating in
nearshore waters.
The PSOs will be responsible for
monitoring the waters surrounding each
survey vessel to the farthest extent
permitted by sighting conditions,
including shutdown and pre-clearance
zones, during all HRG survey
operations. PSOs will visually monitor
and identify marine mammals,
including those approaching or entering
the established shutdown and preclearance zones during survey activities.
It will be the responsibility of the Lead
PSO on duty to communicate the
E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2022 / Notices
presence of marine mammals as well as
to communicate the action(s) that are
necessary to ensure mitigation and
monitoring requirements are
implemented as appropriate.
During all HRG survey operations
(e.g., any day on which use of an HRG
source is planned to occur), a minimum
of one PSO must be on duty during
daylight operations on each survey
vessel, conducting visual observations
at all times on all active survey vessels
during daylight hours (i.e., from 30
minutes prior to sunrise through 30
minutes following sunset). Two PSOs
will be on watch during nighttime
operations. The PSO(s) would ensure
360 degree visual coverage around the
vessel from the most appropriate
observation posts and would conduct
visual observations using binoculars
and/or night vision goggles and the
naked eye while free from distractions
and in a consistent, systematic, and
diligent manner. PSOs may be on watch
for a maximum of 4 consecutive hours
followed by a break of at least 2 hours
between watches and may conduct a
maximum of 12 hours of observations
per 24-hr period. In cases where
multiple vessels are surveying
concurrently, any observations of
marine mammals would be
communicated to PSOs on all nearby
survey vessels.
PSOs must be equipped with
binoculars and have the ability to
estimate distance and bearing to detect
marine mammals, particularly in
proximity to exclusion zones.
Reticulated binoculars must also be
available to PSOs for use as appropriate
based on conditions and visibility to
support the sighting and monitoring of
marine mammals. During nighttime
operations, night-vision goggles with
thermal clip-ons and infrared
technology would be used. Position data
would be recorded using hand-held or
vessel GPS units for each sighting.
During good conditions (e.g., daylight
hours; Beaufort sea state (BSS) 3 or less),
to the maximum extent practicable,
PSOs would also conduct observations
when the acoustic source is not
operating for comparison of sighting
rates and behavior with and without use
of the active acoustic sources. Any
observations of marine mammals by
crew members aboard any vessel
associated with the survey would be
relayed to the PSO team. Data on all
PSO observations would be recorded
based on standard PSO collection
requirements. This would include dates,
times, and locations of survey
operations; dates and times of
observations, location and weather,
details of marine mammal sightings
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Aug 25, 2022
Jkt 256001
(e.g., species, numbers, behaviors); and
details of any observed marine mammal
behavior that occurs (e.g., notes
behavioral disturbances). For more
detail on the proposed monitoring
requirements, see Condition 5 of the
draft IHA.
Proposed Reporting Measures
Within 90 days after completion of
survey activities or expiration of this
IHA, whichever comes sooner, a draft
comprehensive report will be provided
to NMFS that fully documents the
methods and monitoring protocols,
summarizes the data recorded during
monitoring, summarizes the number of
marine mammals observed during
survey activities (by species, when
known), summarizes the mitigation
actions taken during surveys including
what type of mitigation and the species
and number of animals that prompted
the mitigation action, when known),
and provides an interpretation of the
results and effectiveness of all
mitigation and monitoring. Any
recommendations made by NMFS must
be addressed in the final report prior to
acceptance by NMFS. A final report
must be submitted within 30 days
following any comments on the draft
report. All draft and final marine
mammal and acoustic monitoring
reports must be submitted to
PR.ITP.MonitoringReports@noaa.gov
and ITP.Taylor@noaa.gov. The report
must contain at minimum, the
following:
a. PSO names and affiliations;
a. Dates of departures and returns to
port with port names;
b. Dates and times (Greenwich Mean
Time) of survey effort and times
corresponding with PSO effort;
c. Vessel location (latitude/longitude)
when survey effort begins and ends;
vessel location at beginning and end of
visual PSO duty shifts;
d. Vessel heading and speed at
beginning and end of visual PSO duty
shifts and upon any line change;
e. Environmental conditions while on
visual survey (at beginning and end of
PSO shift and whenever conditions
change significantly), including wind
speed and direction, Beaufort sea state,
Beaufort wind force, swell height,
weather conditions, cloud cover, sun
glare, and overall visibility to the
horizon;
• Factors that may be contributing to
impaired observations during each PSO
shift change or as needed as
environmental conditions change (e.g.,
vessel traffic, equipment malfunctions);
and
• Survey activity information, such as
type of survey equipment in operation,
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
52535
acoustic source power output while in
operation, and any other notes of
significance (i.e., pre-clearance survey,
ramp-up, shutdown, end of operations,
etc.).
If a marine mammal is sighted, the
following information should be
recorded:
a. Watch status (sighting made by PSO
on/off effort, opportunistic, crew,
alternate vessel/platform);
b. PSO who sighted the animal;
c. Time of sighting;
d. Vessel location at time of sighting;
e. Water depth;
f. Direction of vessel’s travel (compass
direction);
g. Direction of animal’s travel relative
to the vessel;
h. Pace of the animal;
i. Estimated distance to the animal
and its heading relative to vessel at
initial sighting;
• Identification of the animal (e.g.,
genus/species, lowest possible
taxonomic level, or unidentified); also
note the composition of the group if
there is a mix of species;
a. Estimated number of animals (high/
low/best);
b. Estimated number of animals by
cohort (adults, yearlings, juveniles,
calves, group composition, etc.);
c. Description (as many distinguishing
features as possible of each individual
seen, including length, shape, color,
pattern, scars or markings, shape and
size of dorsal fin, shape of head, and
blow characteristics);
• Detailed behavior observations (e.g.,
number of blows, number of surfaces,
breaching, spyhopping, diving, feeding,
traveling; as explicit and detailed as
possible; note any observed changes in
behavior);
a. Animal’s closest point of approach
and/or closest distance from the center
point of the acoustic source;
• Platform activity at time of sighting
(e.g., deploying, recovering, testing, data
acquisition, other); and
• Description of any actions
implemented in response to the sighting
(e.g., delays, shutdown, ramp-up, speed
or course alteration, etc.) and time and
location of the action.
If a North Atlantic right whale is
observed at any time by PSOs or
personnel on any project vessels, during
surveys or during vessel transit, Orsted
must immediately report sighting
information to the NMFS North Atlantic
Right Whale Sighting Advisory System:
(866) 755–6622. North Atlantic right
whale sightings in any location may also
be reported to the U.S. Coast Guard via
channel 16.
In the event that Orsted personnel
discover an injured or dead marine
E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
52536
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2022 / Notices
mammal, Orsted will report the incident
to the NMFS Office of Protected
Resources (OPR) and the NMFS New
England/Mid-Atlantic Stranding
Coordinator as soon as feasible. The
report would include the following
information:
Time, date, and location (latitude/
longitude) of the first discovery (and
updated location information if known
and applicable);
a. Species identification (if known) or
description of the animal(s) involved;
b. Condition of the animal(s)
(including carcass condition if the
animal is dead);
c. Observed behaviors of the
animal(s), if alive;
d. If available, photographs or video
footage of the animal(s); and
e. General circumstances under which
the animal was discovered.
In the unanticipated event of a ship
strike of a marine mammal by any vessel
involved in this activities covered by
the IHA, Orsted would report the
incident to NMFS OPR and the NMFS
New/England/Mid-Atlantic Stranding
Coordinator as soon as feasible. The
report would include the following
information:
a. Time, date, and location (latitude/
longitude) of the incident;
b. Species identification (if known) or
description of the animal(s) involved;
c. Vessel’s speed during and leading
up to the incident;
d. Vessel’s course/heading and what
operations were being conducted (if
applicable);
e. Status of all sound sources in use;
f. Description of avoidance measures/
requirements that were in place at the
time of the strike and what additional
measures were taken, if any, to avoid
strike;
g. Environmental conditions (e.g.,
wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea
state, cloud cover, visibility)
immediately preceding the strike;
h. Estimated size and length of animal
that was struck;
i. Description of the behavior of the
marine mammal immediately preceding
and following the strike;
j. If available, description of the
presence and behavior of any other
marine mammals immediately
preceding the strike;
k. Estimated fate of the animal (e.g.,
dead, injured but alive, injured and
moving, blood or tissue observed in the
water, status unknown, disappeared);
and
l. To the extent practicable,
photographs or video footage of the
animal(s).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Aug 25, 2022
Jkt 256001
Negligible Impact Analysis and
Determination
NMFS has defined negligible impact
as an impact resulting from the
specified activity that cannot be
reasonably expected to, and is not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the
species or stock through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival
(50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact
finding is based on the lack of likely
adverse effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival (i.e., populationlevel effects). An estimate of the number
of takes alone is not enough information
on which to base an impact
determination. In addition to
considering estimates of the number of
marine mammals that might be ‘‘taken’’
through harassment, NMFS considers
other factors, such as the likely nature
of any impacts or responses (e.g.,
intensity, duration), the context of any
impacts or responses (e.g., critical
reproductive time or location, foraging
impacts affecting energetics), as well as
effects on habitat, and the likely
effectiveness of the mitigation. We also
assess the number, intensity, and
context of estimated takes by evaluating
this information relative to population
status. Consistent with the 1989
preamble for NMFS’ implementing
regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29,
1989), the impacts from other past and
ongoing anthropogenic activities are
incorporated into this analysis via their
impacts on the baseline (e.g., as
reflected in the regulatory status of the
species, population size and growth rate
where known, ongoing sources of
human-caused mortality, or ambient
noise levels).
To avoid repetition, the discussion of
our analysis applies to all the species
listed in Table 3, given that the
anticipated effects of this activity on
these different marine mammal stocks
are expected to be similar. Where there
are meaningful differences between
species or stocks—as is the case of the
North Atlantic right whale—they are
included as separate subsections below.
NMFS does not anticipate that serious
injury or mortality would occur as a
result from HRG surveys, even in the
absence of mitigation, and no serious
injury or mortality is proposed to be
authorized. As discussed in the
Potential Effects of Specified Activities
on Marine Mammals and their Habitat
section, non-auditory physical effects
and vessel strike are not expected to
occur. NMFS expects that all potential
takes would be in the form of Level B
behavioral harassment in the form of
temporary avoidance of the area or
decreased foraging (if such activity was
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
occurring), reactions that are considered
to be of low severity and with no lasting
biological consequences (e.g., Southall
et al., 2007, 2021). Even repeated Level
B harassment of some small subset of an
overall stock is unlikely to result in any
significant realized decrease in viability
for the affected individuals, and thus
would not result in any adverse impact
to the stock as a whole. As described
above, Level A harassment is not
expected to occur given the nature of
the operations and the estimated small
size of the Level A harassment zones.
In addition to being temporary, the
maximum expected harassment zone
around the survey vessel is 141 m.
Therefore, the ensonified area
surrounding each vessel is relatively
small compared to the overall
distribution of the animals in the area
and their use of the habitat. Feeding
behavior is not likely to be significantly
impacted as prey species are mobile and
are broadly distributed throughout the
project area; therefore, marine mammals
that may be temporarily displaced
during survey activities are expected to
be able to resume foraging once they
have moved away from areas with
disturbing levels of underwater noise.
Because of the temporary nature of the
disturbance and the availability of
similar habitat and resources in the
surrounding area, the impacts to marine
mammals and the food sources that they
utilize are not expected to cause
significant or long-term consequences
for individual marine mammals or their
populations.
There are no rookeries, mating or
calving grounds known to be
biologically important to marine
mammals within the proposed project
area. Several harbor and gray seal haul
out sites have been identified on Block
Island, Great Gull Island, and Fishers
Island as wells as along Narragansett
and Nantucket Sounds. As the acoustic
footprint of the proposed HRG activities
is relatively small, hauled seals are not
expected to be impacted by these
activities. In addition, cable landfall
sites have yet to be determined and may
not be in the vicinity of haul out sites.
The proposed ECR area encompasses a
feeding BIA for fin whales east of
Montauk Point, NY that is active from
March through October (LaBrecque et
al., 2015). The fin whale feeding BIA is
extensive and sufficiently large (2,933
km2), and the acoustic footprint of the
proposed survey is sufficiently small
(project area) that feeding opportunities
for fin whales would not be reduced
appreciably. Given the relatively small
size of the ensonified area, it is unlikely
that prey availability would be
adversely affected by HRG survey
E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2022 / Notices
operations. In addition, feeding success
is not likely to be significantly affected
as minimal impacts to prey species are
expected, for reasons as described above
in the Potential Effects of Specified
Activities on Marine Mammals and their
Habitat section.
activities would impact annual rates of
recruitment or survival. Thus, any takes
that occur would not result in
population level impacts.
North Atlantic Right Whale
The status of the North Atlantic right
whale (NARW) population is of
heightened concern and therefore,
merits additional analysis. As noted
previously, elevated NARW mortalities
began in June 2017 and there is an
active UME. Overall, preliminary
findings support human interactions,
specifically vessel strikes and
entanglements, as the cause of death for
the majority of right whales. The
proposed project area overlaps with a
migratory corridor BIA for North
Atlantic right whales (effective March–
April; November–December) that
extends from Massachusetts to Florida
and, off the coast of NY and RI, from the
coast to beyond the shelf break
(LaBrecque et al., 2015). Right whale
migration is not expected to be
impacted by the proposed survey due to
the very small size of the project area
relative to the spatial extent of the
available migratory habitat in the BIA.
The proposed project area also overlaps
with the Block Island seasonal
management area (SMA), active from
November 1 to April 30. NARWs may be
feeding or migrating within the SMA.
Required vessel strike avoidance
measures and following the speed
restrictions of the SMA will decrease
the risk of ship strike during NARW
migration; no ship strike is expected to
occur during Orsted’s proposed
activities. For reasons as described
above, minimal impacts are expected to
prey availability and feeding success.
Additionally, HRG survey operations
are required to maintain a 500 distance
and shutdown if a NARW is sighted at
or within 500 m. The 500 m shutdown
zone for right whales is conservative,
considering the Level B harassment
isopleth for the most impactful sources
(i.e., GeoMarine Sparkers, AA Duraspark UHD Sparkers, AA Triple plate SBoom) is estimated to be 141 m, and
thereby minimizes the potential for
behavioral harassment of this species.
Therefore only very limited take by
Level B harassment of NARW has been
requested and is being proposed for
authorization by NMFS. As noted
previously, Level A harassment is not
expected, nor authorized, due to the
small PTS zones associated with HRG
equipment types proposed for use.
NMFS does not anticipate NARW takes
that result from the proposed survey
As noted previously, there are several
active UMEs occurring in the vicinity of
Orsted’s proposed project area. Elevated
humpback whale mortalities have
occurred along the Atlantic coast from
Maine through Florida since January
2016. Of the cases examined,
approximately half had evidence of
human interaction (ship strike or
entanglement). The UME does not yet
provide cause for concern regarding
population-level impacts. Despite the
UME, the relevant population of
humpback whales (the West Indies
breeding population, or DPS) remains
stable at approximately 12,000
individuals.
Beginning in January 2017, elevated
minke whale strandings have occurred
along the Atlantic coast from Maine
through South Carolina, with highest
numbers in Massachusetts, Maine, and
New York. This event does not provide
cause for concern regarding population
level impacts, as the likely population
abundance is greater than 20,000
whales.
The required mitigation measures are
expected to reduce the number and/or
severity of proposed takes for all species
listed in Table 3, including those with
active UMEs, to the level of least
practicable adverse impact. In
particular, they would provide animals
the opportunity to move away from the
sound source before HRG survey
equipment reaches full energy, thus
preventing them from being exposed to
more severe Level B harassment. No
Level A harassment is anticipated, even
in the absence of mitigation measures,
or proposed for authorization.
NMFS expects that takes would be in
the form of short-term Level B
behavioral harassment by way of brief
startling reactions and/or temporary
vacating of the area, or decreased
foraging in the area (if such activity was
occurring)—reactions that (at the scale
and intensity anticipated here) are
considered to be of low severity, with
no lasting biological consequences.
Since both the sources and marine
mammals are mobile, animals would
only be exposed briefly to a small
ensonified area that might result in take.
Required mitigation measures, such as
shutdown zones and ramp up, would
further reduce exposure to sound that
could result in more severe behavioral
harassment.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Aug 25, 2022
Jkt 256001
Other Marine Mammals With Active
UMEs
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
52537
In summary and as described above,
the following factors primarily support
our preliminary determination that the
impacts resulting from this activity are
not expected to adversely affect any of
the species or stocks through effects on
annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No serious injury or mortality is
anticipated or authorized;
• No Level A harassment (PTS) is
anticipated, even in the absence of
mitigation measures, or proposed for
authorization;
• Foraging success is not likely to be
significantly impacted as effects on
species that serve as prey species for
marine mammals from the survey are
expected to be minimal;
• The availability of alternate areas of
similar habitat value for marine
mammals to temporarily vacate the
ensonified area during the planned
surveys to avoid exposure to sounds
from the activity;
• Take is anticipated to be of Level B
behavioral harassment only consisting
of brief startling reactions and/or
temporary avoidance of the ensonified
area;
• While the project area is within
areas noted as a migratory BIA and SMA
for North Atlantic right whales, the
activities would occur in such a
comparatively small area such that any
avoidance of the ensonified area due to
activities would not affect migration. In
addition, mitigation measures require
shutdown at 500 m (almost four times
the size of the Level B harassment
isopleth (141 m), which minimizes the
effects of the take on the species; and
• The proposed mitigation measures,
including visual monitoring and
shutdowns, are expected to minimize
potential impacts to marine mammals.
Based on the analysis contained
herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals
and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the
proposed monitoring and mitigation
measures, NMFS preliminarily finds
that the total marine mammal take from
the proposed activity will have a
negligible impact on all affected marine
mammal species or stocks.
Small Numbers
As noted above, only small numbers
of incidental take may be authorized
under sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of
the MMPA for specified activities other
than military readiness activities. The
MMPA does not define small numbers
and so, in practice, where estimated
numbers are available, NMFS compares
the number of individuals taken to the
most appropriate estimation of
abundance of the relevant species or
E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
52538
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2022 / Notices
stock in our determination of whether
an authorization is limited to small
numbers of marine mammals. When the
predicted number of individuals to be
taken is fewer than one-third of the
species or stock abundance, the take is
considered to be of small numbers.
Additionally, other qualitative factors
may be considered in the analysis, such
as the temporal or spatial scale of the
activities.
The amount of take NMFS proposes to
authorize is below one third of the
estimated stock abundance for all
species (in fact, take of individuals is
less than 6 percent of the abundance of
the affected stocks for these species, see
Table 8). The figures presented in Table
8 are likely conservative estimates as
they assume all takes are of different
individual animals which is likely not
to be the case. Some individuals may
return multiple times in a day, but PSOs
would count them as separate takes if
they cannot be individually identified.
Based on the analysis contained
herein of the proposed activity
(including the proposed mitigation and
monitoring measures) and the
anticipated take of marine mammals,
NMFS preliminarily finds that small
numbers of marine mammals would be
taken relative to the population size of
the affected species or stocks.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis
and Determination
There are no relevant subsistence uses
of the affected marine mammal stocks or
species implicated by this action.
Therefore, NMFS has determined that
the total taking of affected species or
stocks would not have an unmitigable
adverse impact on the availability of
such species or stocks for taking for
subsistence purposes.
Endangered Species Act
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal
agency insure that any action it
authorizes, funds, or carries out is not
likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any endangered or
threatened species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
designated critical habitat. To ensure
ESA compliance for the issuance of
IHAs, NMFS Office of Protected
Resources (OPR) consults internally
whenever we propose to authorize take
for endangered or threatened species.
NMFS OPR is proposing to authorize
the incidental take of four species of
marine mammals which are listed under
the ESA, including the North Atlantic
right, fin, sei, and sperm whale, and has
determined that these activities fall
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Aug 25, 2022
Jkt 256001
within the scope of activities analyzed
107 in GARFO’s programmatic
consultation regarding geophysical
surveys along the U.S. Atlantic coast in
the three Atlantic Renewable Energy
Regions (completed June 29, 2021;
revised September 2021).
Proposed Authorization
As a result of these preliminary
determinations, NMFS proposes to issue
an IHA to Orsted for conducting site
characterization surveys off the coast of
New York and Rhode Island from
September 25, 2022 through September
24, 2023, provided the previously
mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting requirements are incorporated.
A draft of the proposed IHA can be
found at: https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/incidentaltake-authorizations-other-energyactivities-renewable.
Request for Public Comments
We request comment on our analyses,
the proposed authorization, and any
other aspect of this notice of proposed
IHA for the proposed HRG surveys. We
also request comment on the potential
renewal of this proposed IHA as
described in the paragraph below.
Please include with your comments any
supporting data or literature citations to
help inform decisions on the request for
this IHA or a subsequent renewal IHA.
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may
issue a one-time, one-year renewal IHA
following notice to the public providing
an additional 15 days for public
comments when (1) up to another year
of identical or nearly identical activities
as described in the Description of
Proposed Activities section of this
notice is planned or (2) the activities as
described in the Description of
Proposed Activities section of this
notice would not be completed by the
time the IHA expires and a renewal
would allow for completion of the
activities beyond that described in the
Dates and Duration section of this
notice, provided all of the following
conditions are met:
• A request for renewal is received no
later than 60 days prior to the needed
renewal IHA effective date (recognizing
that the renewal IHA expiration date
cannot extend beyond one year from
expiration of the initial IHA).
• The request for renewal must
include the following:
(1) An explanation that the activities
to be conducted under the requested
renewal IHA are identical to the
activities analyzed under the initial
IHA, are a subset of the activities, or
include changes so minor (e.g.,
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
reduction in pile size) that the changes
do not affect the previous analyses,
mitigation and monitoring
requirements, or take estimates (with
the exception of reducing the type or
amount of take).
(2) A preliminary monitoring report
showing the results of the required
monitoring to date and an explanation
showing that the monitoring results do
not indicate impacts of a scale or nature
not previously analyzed or authorized.
Upon review of the request for
renewal, the status of the affected
species or stocks, and any other
pertinent information, NMFS
determines that there are no more than
minor changes in the activities, the
mitigation and monitoring measures
will remain the same and appropriate,
and the findings in the initial IHA
remain valid.
Dated: August 23, 2022.
Kimberly Damon-Randall,
Director, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2022–18454 Filed 8–25–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Telecommunications and
Information Administration
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Submission to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
Review and Approval; Comment
Request; Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act—Application for Broadband
Grant Programs
National Telecommunications
and Information Administration (NTIA),
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of information collection,
request for comment.
AGENCY:
The Department of
Commerce, in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), invites the general public and
other Federal agencies to comment on
proposed, and continuing information
collections, which helps us assess the
impact of our information collection
requirements and minimize the public’s
reporting burden. The purpose of this
notice is to allow for 60 days of public
comment preceding submission of the
collection to OMB.
DATES: To ensure consideration,
comments regarding this proposed
information collection must be received
on or before October 25, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
invited to submit written comments by
mail to Teri Caswell, Broadband
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 165 (Friday, August 26, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52515-52538]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18454]
[[Page 52515]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[RTID 0648-XC136]
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Marine Site Characterization
Surveys in the Area of Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for
Renewable Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lease
Areas OCS-A 0486, 0487, and 0500
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request
for comments on proposed authorization and possible renewal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from Orsted Wind Power North
America LLC (Orsted) for authorization to take marine mammals
incidental to high resolution geophysical (HRG) site characterization
surveys in coastal waters from New York to Massachusetts in the areas
of Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development
on the Outer Continental Shelf Lease Areas OCS-A 0486, 0487, 0500, and
along potential export cable routes (ECR) to landfall locations between
Raritan Bay (part of the New York Bight) and Falmouth, MA. Pursuant to
the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on
its proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to
incidentally take marine mammals during the specified activities. NMFS
is also requesting comments on a possible one-time, one-year renewal
that could be issued under certain circumstances and if all
requirements are met, as described in Request for Public Comments at
the end of this notice. NMFS will consider public comments prior to
making any final decision on the issuance of the requested MMPA
authorization and agency responses will be summarized in the final
notice of our decision.
DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than
September 26, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief,
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service and should be submitted via email to
[email protected].
Instructions: NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the
end of the comment period. Comments, including all attachments, must
not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. All comments received are a part of
the public record and will generally be posted online at
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by the
commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential
business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Taylor, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application
and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in
this document, may be obtained online at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act-other-energy-activities-renewable. In case of problems accessing
these documents, please call the contact listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The MMPA prohibits the ``take'' of marine mammals, with certain
exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to
allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of
small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a
specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations
are proposed or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a
proposed IHA is provided to the public for review.
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses
(where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods
of taking and other ``means of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact'' on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying
particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for
taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as
``mitigation''); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation,
monitoring and reporting of the takings are set forth. The definitions
of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the
relevant sections below.
National Environmental Policy Act
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA;
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A,
NMFS must review our proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an IHA)
with respect to potential impacts on the human environment.
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified
in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or
mortality) of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-
6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for
significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for
which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would
preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has
preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHA
qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice
prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the
IHA request.
Summary of Request
On April 19, 2022, NMFS received a request from Orsted for an IHA
to take small numbers of marine mammals incidental to marine site
characterization surveys in federal waters located OCS Commercial Lease
Areas off the coasts from Rhode Island to Massachusetts, and along
potential ECRs to landfall locations between Raritan Bay (part of the
New York Bight) and Falmouth, Massachusetts. Following NMFS' review of
the draft application, a revised version was submitted on July 8, 2022.
The application was deemed adequate and complete on August 3, 2022.
Orsted's request is for take of 16 species of marine mammals
(consisting of 16 stocks) by Level B harassment only. Neither Orsted
nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from this
activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
NMFS previously issued IHAs and a renewal IHA to Orsted for marine
site characterization HRG surveys in the OCS-A 0486, 0487, and 0500
Lease Areas (84 FR 52464, October 2, 2019; 85
[[Page 52516]]
FR 63508, October 8, 2020; 87 FR 13975, March 11, 2022). Orsted
complied with all the requirements (e.g., mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting) of the previous IHA and information regarding their
monitoring results may be found in the Effects of the Specified
Activity on Marine Mammals and their Habitat section.
On August 1, 2022, NMFS announced proposed changes to the existing
North Atlantic right whale vessel speed regulations to further reduce
the likelihood of mortalities and serious injuries to endangered right
whales from vessel collisions, which are a leading cause of the
species' decline and a primary factor in an ongoing Unusual Mortality
Event (87 FR 46921). Should a final vessel speed rule be issued and
become effective during the effective period of this IHA (or any other
MMPA incidental take authorization), the authorization holder would be
required to comply with any and all applicable requirements contained
within the final rule. Specifically, where measures in any final vessel
speed rule are more protective or restrictive than those in this or any
other MMPA authorization, authorization holders would be required to
comply with the requirements of the rule. Alternatively, where measures
in this or any other MMPA authorization are more restrictive or
protective than those in any final vessel speed rule, the measures in
the MMPA authorization would remain in place. These changes would
become effective immediately upon the effective date of any final
vessel speed rule and would not require any further action on NMFS's
part.
Description of Proposed Activity
Overview
Orsted proposes to conduct HRG surveys in the Lease Areas OCS-A
0486, 0487, 0500 and ECR Area in federal waters from New York to
Massachusetts to support the characterization of the existing seabed
and subsurface geological conditions, which is necessary for the
development of an offshore electric transmission system. The proposed
project will use active HRG sources operating at frequencies lower than
180 kHz, which may result in the incidental take of marine mammals by
Level B harassment. This take of marine mammals is anticipated to be in
the form of behavioral harassment and no serious injury or mortality is
anticipated, nor is any proposed. In-water work will include
approximately 400 survey days using multiple vessels lasting from
September 25, 2022 to September 24, 2023.
Dates and Duration
As described above, HRG surveys are expected to commence on
September 25, 2022 and last through September 24, 2023 for up to
approximately 400 survey days (Table 1). Orsted is proposing to conduct
continuous HRG survey operations 12-hours per day and 24-hours per day
using multiple vessels. A survey day is defined as a 24-hour activity
day in which an assumed number of line km are surveyed. The number of
anticipated survey days was calculated as the number of days needed to
reach the overall level of effort required to meet survey objectives
assuming any single vessel covers, on average 70 line kilometer (km)
per 24-hour operations. A survey day accounts for multiple vessels such
that two vessels operating within one 24-hour period equates to two
survey days. A maximum of three vessels would work concurrently in the
project area in any combination of 24-hour and 12-hour vessels. To be
conservative, our exposure analysis assumes daily 24-hour operations.
Although vessels may complete 20-80 km/day of actual source operations,
we anticipate that vessels will average 70 line km of active IHA-
regulated sources per day. As shown by Table 1, the estimated number of
survey days varies by Lease Area and ECR.
Table 1--Proposed Number of Survey Days for Each Lease Area and ECR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total number
Area of survey days
\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OCS-A-0486.............................................. 10
OCA-A-0487.............................................. 10
OCS-A-0500.............................................. 200
ECR..................................................... 180
---------------
Total................................................. 400
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Up to three total survey vessels may be operating within both of the
survey areas concurrently.
Specific Geographic Region
Orsted's survey activities would occur in the Lease Areas located
approximately 14 miles (22.5 km) south of Martha's Vineyard,
Massachusetts at its closest point to land, as well as along potential
export cable route (ECR) corridors off the coast of New York,
Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts to landfall locations
between Raritan Bay and Falmouth, MA, as shown in Figure 1. Water
depths in the project area extend out from shoreline to approximately
90 m in depth.
[[Page 52517]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26AU22.000
Detailed Description of Specific Activity
Orsted proposes to conduct HRG survey operations, including
multibeam depth sounding, seafloor imaging, and shallow and medium
penetration sub-bottom profiling. The HRG surveys will include the use
of seafloor mapping equipment with operating frequencies above 180
kilohertz (kHz) (e.g., side-scan sonar (SSS), multibeam echosounders
(MBES)); magnetometers and gradiometers that have no acoustic output;
and shallow- to medium-penetration sub-bottom profiling (SBP) equipment
(e.g., parametric sonars, compressed high-intensity radiated pulses
(CHIRPs), boomers, sparkers) with operating frequencies below 180
kilohertz (kHz). No deep-penetration SBP surveys (e.g., airgun or
bubble gun surveys) will be conducted. HRG equipment will either be
deployed from remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) or mounted to or towed
behind the survey vessel at a typical survey speed of approximately 4.0
knots (7.4 km) during the site characterization activities within the
Lease areas and ECR area. Equipment deployed on the ROVs would be
identical to that deployed on the vessel; however, the sparker systems
are not normally deployed from an ROV due to the power supply required.
The extent of ROV usage in this project is unknown at this time,
however NMFS expects the use of ROVs to have de minimis impacts
relative to the use of vessels given the smaller sources and inherent
nature of utilizing an ROV (e.g., much smaller size of an ROV relative
to a vessel and less acoustic exposure given location of their use in
the water column). For these reasons, our analysis focuses on the
acoustic sources themselves and the use of vessels to deploy such
sources, rather than the specific use of ROVs to deploy the survey
equipment. Therefore, ROVs are not further analyzed in this notice.
Acoustic sources planned for use during HRG survey activities
proposed by Orsted for which sounds levels have the potential to result
in Level B harassment of marine mammals include the following:
Shallow penetration, non-impulsive, intermittent, mobile,
non-parametric SBPs (i.e., CHIRP SBPs) are used to map the near-surface
stratigraphy (top 0 to 10 m) of sediment below seabed. A CHIRP system
emits sonar pulses that increase in frequency from approximately 2 to
20 kHz over time. The frequency range can be adjusted to meet project
variables. These sources are typically mounted on a pole, either over
the side of the vessel or through a moon pool in the bottom of the
hull. The operational configuration and relatively narrow beamwidth of
these sources reduce the likelihood that an animal would be exposed to
the signal;
Medium penetration SBPs (boomers) are used to map deeper
subsurface stratigraphy as needed. A boomer is a broad-band sound
source operating in the 3.5 Hz to 10 kHz frequency range. This system
is commonly mounted on a sled and towed behind the vessel. Boomers are
impulsive and mobile sources; and
Medium penetration SBPs (sparkers) are used to map deeper
subsurface stratigraphy as needed. Sparkers create acoustic pulses from
50 Hz to 4 kHz omnidirectionally from the source, and are considered to
be impulsive and mobile sources. Sparkers are typically towed behind
the vessel with adjacent hydrophone arrays to receive the return
signals.
Operation of the following survey equipment types is not reasonably
expected to result in take of marine mammals and will not be discussed
further beyond the brief summaries provided below:
Parametric SBPs, also commonly referred to as sediment
echosounders, are used to provide high data density in sub-bottom
profiles that are typically required for cable routes, very shallow
water, and archaeological surveys. Parametric SPBs are typically
mounted
[[Page 52518]]
on a pole, either over the side of the vessel or through a moon pool in
the bottom of the hull. Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) does not provide
relevant measurements or source data for parametric SBPs, however, some
source information is provided by the manufacturer. For the proposed
project, the SBP used would generate short, very narrow-beam (1[deg] to
3.5[deg]) sound pulses at relatively high frequencies (generally around
85 to 100 kHz). The narrow beam width significantly reduces the
potential for exposure while the high frequencies of the source are
rapidly attenuated in seawater. Given the narrow beam width and
relatively high frequency. NMFS does not reasonably expect there to be
potential for marine mammals to be exposed to the signal;
Acoustic cores are seabed-mounted sources with three
distinct sound sources: A high-frequency parametric source, a high-
frequency CHIRP sonar, and a low-frequency CHIRP sonar. The beam width
is narrow (3.5[deg] to 8[deg]) and the source is operated roughly 3.5 m
above the seabed from a seabed mount, with the transducer pointed
directly downward;
Ultra-short baseline (USBL) positioning systems are used
to provide high accuracy ranges by measuring the time between the
acoustic pulses transmitted by vessel transceiver and a transponder (or
beacon) necessary to produce the acoustic profile. It is a two-
component system with a moon pool- or side pole mounted transceiver and
one or several transponders mounted on other survey equipment. USBLs
are expected to produce extremely small acoustic propagation distances
in their typical operating configuration;
Multibeam echosounders (MBES) are used to determine water
depths and general bottom topography. MBES sonar systems project sonar
pulses in several angled beams from a transducer mounted to a ship's
hull. The beams radiate out from the transducer in a fan-shaped pattern
orthogonally to the ship's direction. All of the proposed MBESs have
operating frequencies >180 kHz and, therefore, are outside the general
hearing range of marine mammals; and
Side scan sonars (SSS) are used for seabed sediment
classification purposes and to identify natural and man-made acoustic
targets on the seafloor. The sonar device emits conical or fan-shaped
pulses down toward the seafloor in multiple beams at a wide angle,
perpendicular to the path of the sensor through the water column. All
of the proposed SSS have operating frequencies >180 kHZ and, therefore,
are outside the general hearing range of marine mammals.
Table 2 identifies representative survey equipment with the
expected potential to result in exposure of marine mammals and thus
potentially result in take. The make and model of the listed
geophysical equipment may vary depending on availability and the final
equipment choices will vary depending upon the final survey design,
vessel availability, and survey contractor selection.
Table 2--Summary of Representative HRG Survey Equipment \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Pulse Pulse
Representative frequency SL (SPL dB re 1 SL (SEL dB re 1 SL (PK dB re 1 Beamwidth duration repetition
HRG survey equipment equipment ranges [micro]Pa m) [micro]Pa2 m2 [micro]Pa m) ranges (width) rate
(kHz) s) (degrees) (millisecond) (Hz)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHIRPs (non-impulsive, non- ET 216 (2000DS 2-16 195 178 ............... 24............. 20 6
parametric). or 3200 top 2-8
unit).
ET 424 3200-XS. 4-24 176 152 ............... 71............. 3.4 2
ET 512i........ 0.7-12 179 158 ............... 80............. 9 8
GeoPulse 5430A. 2-17 196 183 ............... 55............. 50 10
Teledyne 2-7 197 185 ............... 100............ 60 15
Benthos Chirp
III--TTV 170.
Pangeo SBI..... 4.5-12.5 188.2 165 ............... 120............ 4.5 45
Sparker (impulsive)......... AA, Dura-spark 0.3-1.2 203 174 211 Omni........... 1.1 4
UHD Sparker
(400 tips, 500
J) \2\.
Sparkers and Boomers AA, Dura-spark 0.3-1.2 203 174 211 Omni........... 1.1 4
(impulsive). UHD Sparker
Model 400 x
400 \2\.
GeoMarine, Dual 0.4-5 203 174 211 Omni........... 1.1 2
400 Sparker,
Model Geo-
Source 800 \2\
\3\.
GeoMarine 0.3-1.2 203 174 211 Omni........... 1.1 4
Sparker, Model
Geo-Source 200-
400 \2\ \3\.
GeoMarine 0.3-1.2 203 174 211 Omni........... 1.1 4
Sparker, Model
Geo-Source 200
Lightweight
\2\ \3\.
AA, triple 0.1-5 205 172 211 80............. 0.6 4
plate S-Boom
(700-1,000 J)
\4\.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[micro]Pa = micropascal; AA = Applied Acoustics; CF = Crocker and Fratantonio (2016); CHIRP = compressed high-intensity radiated pulses; dB = decibel;
EM = equipment mounted; ET = edgetech; J = joule; Omni = omnidirectional source; re = referenced to; PK = zero-to-peak sound pressure level; PM = pole
mounted; SBI = sub-bottom imager; SL = source level; SPL = root-mean-square sound pressure level; T = towed; TB = Teledyne benthos; UHD = ultra-high
definition; WFA = weighting factor adjustment.
\1\ Operational parameters listed here differ from those listed in the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Biological Assessment published in February
2021 (Baker and Howson, 2021).
\2\ The Dura-spark measurements and specifications provided in Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) were used for all sparker systems proposed for the survey.
The data provided in Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) represent the most applicable data for similar sparker systems with comparable operating methods
and settings when manufacturer or other reliable measurements are not available.
\3\ The AA Dura-spark (500 J, 400tips) was used as a proxy source.
\4\ Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) provide S-Boom measurements using two different power sources (CSP-D700 and CSP-N). The CSP-D700 power source was
used in the 700 J measurements but not in the 1,000 J measurements. The CSP-N source was measured for both 700 J and 1,000 J operations but resulted
in a lower SL; therefore, the single maximum SL value was used for both operational levels of the S-Boom.
The deployment of certain types of HRG survey equipment, including
some of the equipment planned for use during Orsted's proposed
activity, produces sound in the marine environment that has the
potential to result in harassment of marine mammals. Proposed
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in detail
later in
[[Page 52519]]
this document (please see Proposed Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring
and Reporting).
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities
Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information
regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and
behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. NMFS
fully considered all of this information, and we refer the reader to
these descriptions, incorporated here by reference, instead of
reprinting the information. Additional information regarding population
trends and threats may be found in NMFS Stock Assessment Reports (SARs;
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments) and more general information about these species
(e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS
website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
Table 3 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and
proposed to be authorized for these activities, and summarizes
information related to the population or stock, including regulatory
status under the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential
biological removal (PBR), where known. PBR is defined by the MMPA as
the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that
may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to
reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in
NMFS' SARs). While no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or
authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from
anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the
status of the species and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or
the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area.
NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total
estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that
comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend
beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in
NMFS U.S. draft 2021 U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico SARs. All values
presented in Table 3 are the most recent available at the time of
publication and are available in the 2020 SARs (Hayes et al., 2021) and
draft 2021 SARs (available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports).
Table 3--Species Likely Impacted by the Specified Activities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stock abundance (CV,
Common name Scientific name Stock ESA/MMPA status; Nmin, most recent PBR Annual M/
strategic (Y/N) \1\ abundance survey) \2\ SI \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Atlantic right whale.......... Eubalaena glacialis.... Western Atlantic...... E/D, Y 368 (0; 364; \5\ 2019) 0.7 7.7
Humpback whale...................... Megaptera novaeangliae. Gulf of Maine......... -/-, Y 1,396 (0; 1,380; 2016) 22 12.15
Fin whale........................... Balaenoptera physalus.. Western North Atlantic E/D, Y 6,802 (0.24; 5,573; 11 1.8
2016).
Sei whale........................... Balaenoptera borealis.. Nova Scotia........... E/D, Y 6,292 (1.02; 3,098; 6.2 0.8
2016).
Minke whale......................... Balaenoptera Canadian East Coastal. -/-, N 21,968 (0.31; 17,002; 170 10.6
acutorostrata. 2016).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sperm whale......................... Physeter macrocephalus. North Atlantic........ E/D, Y 4,349 (0.28; 3,451; 3.9 0
2016).
Long-finned pilot whale............. Globicephala melas..... Western North Atlantic -/-, N 39,215 (0.3; 30,627; 306 29
2016).
Striped dolphin..................... Stenella coeruleoalba.. Western North Atlantic -, -, N 67,036 (0.29, 52,939, 529 0
2016).
Atlantic white-sided dolphin........ Lagenorhynchus acutus.. Western North Atlantic -/-, N 93,233 (0.71; 54,443; 544 27
2016).
Bottlenose dolphin.................. Tursiops truncatus..... Western North Atlantic -/-, N 62,851 (0.23; 51,914; 519 28
Offshore. 2016).
Short-beaked Common dolphin......... Delphinus delphis...... Western North Atlantic -/-, N 172,974(0.21, 145,216, 1,452 390
2016).
Atlantic spotted dolphin............ Stenella frontalis..... Western North Atlantic -/-, N 39,921 (0.27; 32,032; 320 0
2016).
Risso's dolphin..................... Grampus griseus........ Western North Atlantic -/-, N 35,215 (0.19; 30,051; 301 34
Sock. 2016).
Harbor porpoise..................... Phocoena phocoena...... Gulf of Maine/Bay of -/-, N 95,543 (0.31; 74,034; 851 164
Fundy. 2016).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal......................... Phoca vitulina......... Western North Atlantic -/-, N 61,336 (0.08; 57,637; 1,729 339
2018).
Gray seal \4\....................... Halichoerus grypus..... Western North Atlantic -/-, N 27,300 (0.22; 22,785; 1,389 4,453
2018).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ESA status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or
designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or
which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is
automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\2\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments. CV
is the coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable.
\3\ These values, found in NMFS' SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial
fisheries, ship strike).
\4\ NMFS' stock abundance estimate (and associated PBR value) applies to U.S. population only. Total stock abundance (including animals in Canada) is
approximately 451,431. The annual M/SI value given is for the total stock.
\5\ The draft 2022 SARs have yet to be released; however, NMFS has updated its species web page to recognize the population estimate for NARWs is now
below 350 animals (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/north-atlantic-right-whale).
As indicated above, all 16 species (with 16 managed stocks) in
Table 3 temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the
degree that take is reasonably likely to occur. All species that could
potentially occur in the
[[Page 52520]]
proposed survey areas are included in Table 6 of the IHA application.
While the blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), Cuvier's beaked whale
(Ziphius cavirostris), four species of Mesoplodont beaked whale
(Mesoplodon spp.), dwarf and pygmy sperm whale (Kogia sima and Kogia
breviceps), short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus),
northern bottlenose whale (Hyperoodon ampullatus), killer whale
(Orcinus orca), pygmy killer whale (Feresa attenuata), false killer
whale (Pseudorca crassidens), melon-headed whale (Peponocephala
electra), white-beaked dolphin (Lagenorhynchus albirostris),
pantropical spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuata), Fraser's dolphin
(Lagenodelphis hosei), rough-toothed dolphin (Steno bredanensis),
Clymene dolphin (Stenella clymene), spinner dolphin (Stenella
longirostris), hooded seal (Cystophora cristata), and harp seal
(Pagophilus groenlandicus) have been documented in the area, the
temporal and/or spatial occurrence of these species is such that take
is not expected to occur and they are not analyzed further.
In addition, the Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris)
may be found in the coastal waters of the project area. However,
Florida manatees are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
are not considered further in this document.
Below is a description of the species that have the highest
likelihood of occurring in the project area and are, thus, expected to
potentially be taken by the proposed activities as well as further
detail informing the baseline for select species (i.e., information
regarding current Unusual Mortality Events (UMEs) and important habitat
areas).
North Atlantic Right Whale
The North Atlantic right whale ranges from calving grounds in the
southeastern United States to feeding grounds in New England waters and
into Canadian waters (Hayes et al., 2021). Right whales have been
observed in or near southern New England during all four seasons
(Quintana-Rizzo et al., 2021), and passive acoustic monitoring
indicates the year-round presence of NARWs in the Gulf of Maine (Morano
et al., 2012; Bort et al., 2015). Surveys have demonstrated the
existence of seven areas where NARWs congregate seasonally: The coastal
waters of the southeastern U.S., the Great South Channel, Jordan Basin,
Georges Basin along the northeastern edge of Georges Bank, Cape Cod and
Massachusetts Bays, the Bay of Fundy, and the Roseway Basin on the
Scotian Shelf (Hayes et al., 2018). NOAA Fisheries has designated two
critical habitat areas for the NARW under the ESA: The Gulf of Maine/
Georges Bank region, and the southeast calving grounds from North
Carolina to Florida (81 FR 4837, January 27, 2016).
New England waters are a primary feeding habitat for NARWs during
late winter through spring, with feeding moving into deeper and more
northerly waters during summer and fall. Since 2010, NARWs have reduced
their use of habitats in the Great South Channel and Bay of Fundy,
while increasing their use of habitat within Cape Cod Bay as well as a
region south of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Islands (Stone et al.,
2017; Mayo et al., 2018; Ganley et al., 2019; Record et al., 2019;
Meyer-Gutbrod et al., 2021). This shift is likely due to changes in
oceanographic conditions and food supply as dense patches of
zooplankton are necessary for efficient foraging (Mayo and Marx, 1990;
Record et al., 2019). NARW use of habitats such as in the Gulf of St.
Lawrence, southern New England waters, and the mid-Atlantic waters of
the United States have also increased over time (Davis et al., 2017;
Davis and Brillant, 2019; Crowe et al., 2021; Quintana-Rizzo et al.,
2021). Simard et al. (2019) documented the presence of NARWs in the
southern Gulf of St. Lawrence from late April through mid-January
annually from 2010-2018 using passive acoustics, with occurrences
peaking in the area from August through November each year (Simard et
al., 2019). In addition, Pendleton et al. (2022) found that peak use of
NARW habitat in Cape Cod Bay has shifted over the past 20 years to
later in the spring, likely due to variations in seasonal conditions.
In the late fall months (e.g., October), right whales are generally
thought to depart from the feeding grounds in the North Atlantic and
move south to their calving grounds off Georgia and Florida. However,
recent research indicates our understanding of their movement patterns
remains incomplete and not all of the population undergoes a consistent
annual migration (Davis et al., 2017). Females may remain in the
feeding grounds during the winter in the years preceding and following
the birth of a calf to increase their energy stores while juvenile and
adult males may move to southern wintering grounds after years of
abundant prey in northern feeding areas (Gowan et al., 2019). Within
the proposed project area, NARWs have primarily been observed during
the winter and spring seasons through visual surveys although are
likely present year-round (Kraus et al., 2016; Quintana-Rizzo et al.,
2021).
NARW movements within and between habitats are extensive and the
area off the coasts of Rhode Island and Massachusetts is an important
migratory corridor. The proposed project area overlaps a portion of a
NARW Biologically Important Area (BIA) for migration. This migratory
corridor is approximately 269,488 km\2\ in size, comprises the waters
of the continental shelf offshore the east coast of the United States,
and extends from Florida through Massachusetts (LaBrecque et al.,
2015). NARW movements may include seasonal migrations between northern
feeding grounds and southern breeding grounds as well as movements
between feeding habitats in Cape Cod Bay and southern New England
waters (Quintana-Rizzo et al., 2021). Given that Orsted's proposed
surveys would be concentrated offshore of Massachusetts and Rhode
Island, many NARWs in the vicinity would likely be migrating through
the area, however, foraging activity may also take place as Quintana-
Rizzo et al. (2021) observed NARWs foraging in southern New England
waters year-round.
Since 2010, the western North Atlantic right whale population has
been in decline (Pace et al., 2017), with a 40 percent decrease in
calving rate (Kraus et al., 2016). In 2018, no new North Atlantic right
whale calves were documented in their calving grounds; this represented
the first time since annual NOAA aerial surveys began in 1989 that no
new right whale calves were observed. Eighteen right whale calves were
documented in 2021. As of July 14, 2022 and the writing of this
proposed Notice, 15 North Atlantic right whale calves have been
documented during this calving season. Presently, the best available
peer-reviewed population estimate for North Atlantic right whales is
368 per the draft 2021 SARs (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments). The draft
2022 SARs have yet to be released; however, NMFS has updated its
species web page to recognize the population estimate for NARWs is
below 350 animals (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/north-atlantic-right-whale).
NMFS regulations at 50 CFR part 224.105 designated nearshore waters
of the Mid-Atlantic Bight as Mid-Atlantic U.S. Seasonal Management
Areas (SMA) for right whales in 2008. SMAs were developed to reduce the
threat of collisions between ships and right whales around their
migratory route and calving grounds. The Block Island SMA,
[[Page 52521]]
which occurs off the mouth of Long Island Sound, overlaps spatially
with the proposed project area (https://apps-nefsc.fisheries.noaa.gov/psb/surveys/MapperiframeWithText.html). The SMA is active from November
1 through April 30 of each year and may be used by NARWs for feeding or
migrating.
Right Whale Slow Zones are established when NARWs are detected both
visually (i.e., Dynamic Management Area) and acoustically (i.e.,
Acoustic Slow Zone). These are areas where mariners are encouraged to
avoid and/or reduce speeds to 10 kn (5.1 m/s) to avoid vessel
collisions with NARWs. Slow Zones typically persist for 15 days. More
information on these right whale Slow Zones can be found on NMFS'
website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/reducing-vessel-strikes-north-atlantic-right-whales).
Dynamic Management areas (DMAs) are a type of NARW Slow Zones that
may be established when three or more NARWs are visually sighted within
a discrete area. This criteria is based upon findings by Clapham and
Pace (2001) that showed an aggregation of three or more whales is
likely to remain in the area for several days, in contrast to an
aggregation of fewer whales. Acoustic Slow Zones are another type of
NARW Slow Zone based upon acoustic detections, and are established when
three or more upcall detections from an acoustic system occur within an
evaluation period (e.g., 15 min). More information, as well as the most
up-to-date DMA establishments, can be found on NMFS' website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/reducing-vessel-strikes-north-atlantic-right-whales).
Elevated North Atlantic right whale mortalities have occurred since
June 7, 2017 along the U.S. and Canadian coasts. As of July 2022, a
total of 34 confirmed dead stranded whales (21 in Canada; 13 in the
United States) have been documented. This event has been declared an
Unusual Mortality Event (UME), with human interactions, including
entanglement in fixed fishing gear and vessel strikes, implicated in at
least 16 of the mortalities thus far. More information is available
online at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2017-2019-north-atlantic-right-whale-unusual-mortality-event.
Humpback Whale
Humpback whales are found worldwide in all oceans. Humpback whales
were listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Conservation Act
(ESCA) in June 1970. In 1973, the ESA replaced the ESCA, and humpbacks
continued to be listed as endangered. On September 8, 2016, NMFS
divided the species into 14 distinct population segments (DPS), removed
the current species-level listing, and in its place listed four DPSs as
endangered and one DPS as threatened (81 FR 62259; September 8, 2016).
The remaining nine DPSs were not listed. The West Indies DPS, which is
not listed under the ESA, is the only DPS of humpback whales that is
expected to occur in the project area. Whales occurring in the project
area are not necessarily from the Gulf of Maine feeding population
managed as a stock by NMFS. Bettridge et al. (2015) estimated the size
of the West Indies DPS population at 12,312 (95 percent CI 8,688-
15,954) whales in 2004-05, which is consistent with previous population
estimates of approximately 10,000-11,000 whales (Stevick et al., 2003;
Smith et al., 1999) and the increasing trend for the West Indies DPS
(Bettridge et al., 2015).
In New England waters, feeding is the principal activity of
humpback whales, and their distribution in this region has been largely
correlated to abundance of prey species (Payne et al., 1986, 1990).
Humpback whales are frequently piscivorous when in New England waters,
feeding on herring (Clupea harengus), sand lance (Ammodytes spp.), and
other small fishes, as well as euphausiids in the northern Gulf of
Maine (Paquet et al., 1997). During winter, the majority of humpback
whales from the North Atlantic feeding area (including the Gulf of
Maine) mate and calve in the West Indies, where spatial and genetic
mixing among feeding groups occurs (Katona and Beard 1990; Clapham et
al. 1993; Palsb[oslash]ll et al., 1997; Stevick et al., 1998; Kennedy
et al., 2014), though significant numbers of animals are found in mid-
and high-latitude regions at this time (Clapham et al., 1993; Swingle
et al., 1993). Some individuals have been sighted repeatedly within the
same winter season (Clapham et al., 1993; Robbins, 2007), indicating
that not all humpback whales migrate south every winter (Waring et al.,
2017).
Kraus et al. (2016) observed humpbacks in the Rhode Island/
Massachusetts (RI/MA) & MA Wind Energy Areas (WEAs) and surrounding
areas during all seasons. Humpback whales were observed most often
during spring and summer months, with a peak from April to June. Kraus
et al. (2016) also observed calves and one instance of courtship
behavior among adults. Acoustic data indicate that this species may be
present within the MA WEA year-round, with the highest rates of
acoustic detections in the winter and spring (Kraus et al., 2016).
Stocks of sand lance appear to correlate with the years in which the
most abundant whales are observed, suggesting that humpback whale
distribution and occurrences could largely be influenced by prey
availability (Kenney and Vigness-Raposa, 2010). Other sightings of note
include 46 sightings of humpback whales in the New York-New Jersey
Harbor Estuary documented from 2011-2016 (Brown et al., 2017) and
multiple humpbacks observed feeding off Long Island during July 2016
(Hayes et al., 2020). Pendleton et al. (2022) documented a recent shift
in humpback whale peak habitat use of Cape Cod Bay, in which maximum
occupancy occurred later in the spring during May rather than April.
The most significant anthropogenic causes of mortality of humpback
whales include incidental fishery entanglements, responsible for
roughly eight whale mortalities, and vessel collisions, responsible for
four mortalities both on average annually from 2013 to 2017 (Hayes et
al., 2020).
Since January 2016, elevated humpback whale mortalities have
occurred along the Atlantic coast from Maine to Florida. This event has
been declared a UME. Partial or full necropsy examinations have been
conducted on approximately half of the 161 known cases (as of July 14,
2022). Of the whales examined, approximately 50 percent had evidence of
human interaction, either ship strike or entanglement. While a portion
of the whales have shown evidence of pre-mortem vessel strike, this
finding is not consistent across all whales examined and more research
is needed. Three previous UMEs involving humpback whales have occurred
since 2000, in 2003, 2005, and 2006. More information is available at:
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2016-2021-humpback-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-atlantic-coast.
Fin Whale
Fin whales have a common occurrence in waters of the U.S. Atlantic
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), principally from Cape Hatteras northward
with a distribution in both continental shelf and deep water habitats
(Hayes et al., 2021). Fin whales are present north of 35-degree
latitude in every season and are broadly distributed throughout the
western North Atlantic for most of the year although densities vary
seasonally (Edwards et al., 2015; Hayes et al.,
[[Page 52522]]
2021). They are typically found in small groups of up to five
individuals (Brueggeman et al., 1987).
New England and Gulf of St. Lawrence waters represent major feeding
grounds for fin whales (Hayes et al., 2021). Two well-known feeding
grounds for fin whales are present near the proposed project area in
the Great South Channel and Jeffrey's Ledge and in waters directly east
of Montauk, New York (Hayes et al., 2019; Kenney and Vigness-Raposa,
2010). The highest occurrences are identified south of Montauk Point to
south of Nantucket (Kenney and Vigness-Raposa, 2010). Cape Cod Bay,
just north of the proposed project area, also represents seasonal
feeding habitat for fin whales (Clapham and Seipt, 1991). Surveys
conducted in the RI/MA WEA indicate fin whales may be present year-
round, but sightings were the highest during the spring and summer
(Kraus et al., 2016). The northwest corner of the ECR Area overlaps
with a fin whale BIA for feeding (LaBrecque et al., 2015). The BIA is
located east of Montauk Point between the 15-m and 50-m contours.
Feeding is known to occur from March through October (LaBrecque et al.,
2015).
The fin whale is federally listed under the ESA as an endangered
marine mammal and are designated as a strategic stock under the MMPA
due to their endangered status under the ESA, uncertain human-caused
mortality, and incomplete survey coverage of the stock's defined range.
The main threats to fin whales are fishery interactions and vessel
collisions (Hayes et al., 2021).
Sei Whale
The Nova Scotia stock of sei whales can be found in deeper waters
of the continental shelf edge waters of the northeastern U.S. and
northeastward to south of Newfoundland (Hayes et al., 2021). Sei whales
have a regular occurrence in the proposed project area. The southern
portion of the stock's range during spring and summer includes the Gulf
of Maine and Georges Bank. Spring is the period of greatest abundance
in U.S. waters, with sightings concentrated along the eastern margin of
Georges Bank and into the Northeast Channel area, and along the
southwestern edge of Georges Bank in the area of Hydrographer Canyon
(CETAP, 1982; Kraus et al., 2016, Roberts et al., 2016; Palka et al,.
2017; Cholewiak et al., 2018).
Sei whales are most common in deeper waters along the continental
shelf edge (NMFS, 2021) but will forage occasionally in shallower,
inshore waters. A sei whale BIA for feeding occurs adjacent to the east
of the proposed project area. The occurrence and abundance of sei
whales on feeding grounds may shift dramatically from one year to the
next. CETAP surveys observed sei whales along the continental shelf
edge only during the spring and summer (CETAP, 1982). In the RI/MA WEA,
sei whales were also only observed during the spring (eight sightings)
and summer (13 sightings). No sightings were reported in the WEA during
the fall and winter (Kraus et al., 2016).
Sei whales are listed as endangered under the ESA, and the Nova
Scotia stock is considered strategic and depleted under the MMPA. The
main threats to this stock are interactions with fisheries and vessel
collisions. Impacts from environmental contaminants also present a
concern as well as potential spatial shifts in distribution related to
climate change (Hayes et al., 2020; Sousa et al., 2019).
Minke Whale
Minke whales can be found in temperate, tropical, and high-latitude
waters. The Canadian East Coast stock can be found in the area from the
western half of the Davis Strait (45[deg] W) to the Gulf of Mexico
(Hayes et al., 2021). This species generally occupies waters less than
100 m deep on the continental shelf and has a common occurrence in the
proposed project area. There appears to be a strong seasonal component
to minke whale distribution in the survey areas, in which spring to
fall are times of relatively widespread and common occurrence while
during winter the species appears to be largely absent (Hayes et al.,
2021; Risch et al., 2013).
Little is known about their specific migratory behavior compared to
other large whale species; however, acoustic detections show that minke
whales migrate south in mid-October to early November and return from
wintering grounds starting in March through early April (Risch et al.,
2014). Northward migration appears to track the warmer waters of the
Gulf Stream along the continental shelf, while southward migration is
made farther offshore (Risch et al., 2014). Surveys conducted in the
RI/MA WEA, reported 103 minke whale sightings within the area,
predominantly in the spring followed by summer and fall (Kraus et al.,
2016).
Since January 2017, elevated minke whale mortalities have occurred
along the Atlantic coast from Maine through South Carolina, with a
total of 123 strandings (as of July 14, 2022). This event has been
declared a UME. Full or partial necropsy examinations were conducted on
more than 60 percent of the whales. Preliminary findings in several of
the whales have shown evidence of human interactions or infectious
disease, but these findings are not consistent across all of the whales
examined, so more research is needed. More information is available at:
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2017-2021-minke-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-atlantic-coast.
Sperm Whale
The distribution of the sperm whale in the U.S. EEZ occurs on the
continental shelf edge, over the continental slope, and into mid-ocean
regions (Hayes et al., 2020). The basic social unit of the sperm whale
appears to be the mixed school of adult females plus their calves and
some juveniles of both sexes, normally numbering 20-40 animals in all.
There is evidence that some social bonds persist for many years
(Christal et al., 1998). In summer, the distribution of sperm whales
includes the area east and north of Georges Bank and into the Northeast
Channel region, as well as the continental shelf (inshore of the 100 m
isobath) south of New England. In the fall, sperm whale occurrence
south of New England on the continental shelf is at its highest level,
and there remains a continental shelf edge occurrence in the Mid-
Atlantic Bight. In winter, sperm whales are concentrated east and
northeast of Cape Hatteras (Hayes et al., 2020).
CETAP and NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center sightings in
shelf-edge and off-shelf waters included many social groups with
calves/juveniles (CETAP, 1982). Sperm whales were usually seen at
locations corresponding to the tops of the seamounts and rises and did
not generally occur over the slopes. Sperm whales were recorded at the
surface over depths varying from 800 to 3,500 m. Kraus et al. (2016)
reported sightings of sperm whales in the RI-MA WEA during the summer
and fall months, with five individuals in August, one in September, and
three in June. There have also been occasional strandings in
Massachusetts and Long Island (Kenney and Vigness-Raposa, 2010).
Although the likelihood of occurrence within the proposed project area
remains very low, the sperm whale was included as an affected species
because of its high seasonal densities east of the project area.
Sperm whales are listed as endangered under the ESA, and the North
Atlantic stock is considered
[[Page 52523]]
strategic under the MMPA. The greatest threats to sperm whales include
ship strikes (McGillivary et al., 2009; Carrillo and Ritter, 2010),
anthropogenic sound (Nowacek et al., 2015), and the potential for
climate change to influence variations in spatial distribution and
abundance of prey (Hayes et al., 2020).
Long-Finned Pilot Whale
Long-finned pilot whales are found from North Carolina north to
Iceland, Greenland, and the Barents Sea (Sergeant, 1962; Leatherwood et
al., 1976; Abend, 1993; Bloch et al., 1993; Abend and Smith, 1999). In
U.S. Atlantic waters, the species is distributed principally along the
continental shelf edge off the northeastern U.S. coast in winter and
early spring (CETAP 1982; Payne and Heinemann, 1993; Abend and Smith,
1999; Hamazaki, 2002). In late spring, pilot whales move onto Georges
Bank and into the Gulf of Maine and more northern waters and remain in
these areas through late autumn (CETAP 1982; Payne and Heinemann,
1993). Long-finned pilot whales are highly social and vocal and are
typically observed in groups of 10 to 20 surface-active individuals
(NOAA 2022). Within the RI-MA WEA, no sightings of pilot whales were
observed during the summer, fall, or winter (Kraus et al., 2016).
Striped Dolphin
Striped dolphins are widely distributed in tropical and warm
temperate waters of the Western North Atlantic ranging from Nova Scotia
to the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico (Archer and Perrin, 1997; Archer,
2002; Hayes et al., 2020). In waters off the northeastern U.S. coast,
striped dolphins are distributed along the continental shelf edge from
Cape Hatteras to the southern margin of Georges Bank, and also occur
offshore over the continental slope and rise in the mid-Atlantic region
(CETAP, 1982; Mullin and Fulling, 2003). During CETAP surveys,
continental shelf edge sightings were generally centered along the
1,000 m depth contour in all seasons (CETAP, 1982). Striped dolphins
prefer offshore waters from the continental slope to the Gulf Stream
(Hayes et al., 2020; Leatherwood et al., 1976; Perrin et al., 1994;
Schmidly, 1981).
There are few reported occurrences of striped dolphins in the
project area. All CETAP records reported striped dolphins in waters
greater than 900m; although it was noted that the most northern
sightings aligned with warm core rings of the Gulf Stream (Hayes et
al., 2020; Waring et al., 1992). Striped dolphins would not typically
be associated with shelf waters off New York and Massachusetts;
however, preliminary data from site investigation surveys for offshore
wind have a very small number of probable striped dolphin sightings;
therefore, they have been included in this assessment. Between 2013 and
2017, strandings of striped dolphins were reported from New York
(five); Massachusetts (two); and New Jersey (seven) (Hayes et al.,
2020). None showed definitive signs of human interaction (Hayes et al.,
2020).
Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin
Atlantic white-sided dolphins observed off the U.S. Atlantic coast
are part of the Western North Atlantic Stock (Hayes et al., 2020) which
inhabits waters from central West Greenland to North Carolina (about
35[deg] N) and primarily continental shelf waters to the 328 ft (100 m)
depth contour (Doks[aelig]ter et al., 2008). Sighting data indicate
seasonal shifts in distribution (Northridge et al., 1997). From January
to May, low numbers of Atlantic white-sided dolphins are found from
Georges Bank to Jeffrey's Ledge off New Hampshire. From June through
September, large numbers of Atlantic white-sided dolphins are found
from Georges Bank to the lower Bay of Fundy. From October to December,
they occur at intermediate densities from southern Georges Bank to the
southern Gulf of Maine (Payne and Heinemann, 1990). Sightings south of
Georges Bank, particularly around Hudson Canyon, occur year-round, but
at low densities (Hayes et al., 2020).
Offshore Rhode Island, Atlantic white-sided dolphins are common in
continental shelf waters, with a slight tendency to occur in shallower
waters in the spring (Kenney and Vigness-Raposa, 2010). Aggregations of
sightings have occurred southeast of Montauk Point during the spring
and summer. In the RI-MA WEA, Atlantic white-sided dolphins were
sighted primarily during summer followed by fall (Kraus et al., 2016).
Bottlenose Dolphin
There are two distinct bottlenose dolphin ecotypes in the western
North Atlantic: The coastal and offshore forms (Duffield et al., 1983;
Mead and Potter, 1995; Rosel et al., 2009). The migratory coastal
ecotype resides in waters typically less than 20 m deep, along the
inner continental shelf (within 7.5 km (4.6 miles) of shore), around
islands, and is continuously distributed south of Long Island, New York
into the Gulf of Mexico. Torres et al. (2003) found a statistically
significant break in the distribution of the ecotypes at 34 km from
shore based upon the genetic analysis of tissue samples collected in
nearshore and offshore waters from New York to central Florida. The
offshore ecotype was found exclusively seaward of 34 km and in waters
deeper than 34 m. This ecotype is primarily expected in waters north of
Long Island, New York (Waring et al., 2017; Hayes et al., 2018). The
offshore form is distributed primarily along the outer continental
shelf and continental slope in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean from
Georges Bank to the Florida Keys and is the only type that may be
present in the project area.
Common bottlenose dolphins were observed in the RI/MA WEA in all
seasons with the highest seasonal abundance estimates during the fall,
summer, and spring. The greatest concentrations of bottlenose dolphins
were observed in the southernmost portion of the RI/MA WEA (Kraus et
al., 2016). Further evidence for the presence of the offshore stock in
the study area is supported by seasonal stranding records which match
the temporal patterns of the offshore stock better than the coastal
stock (Kenney and Vigness-Raposa, 2010). Therefore, the northern
migratory coastal stock is not likely to occur in the project area and
will not be discussed further.
Common Dolphin
Common dolphins within the U.S. Atlantic EEZ belong to the Western
North Atlantic stock, generally occurring from Cape Hatteras to the
Scotian Shelf (Hayes et al., 2021). Common dolphins are a highly
seasonal, migratory species. Within the U.S. Atlantic EEZ, this species
is distributed along the continental shelf and typically associated
with Gulf Stream features (CETAP, 1982; Selzer and Payne, 1988;
Hamazaki, 2002; Hayes et al., 2021). Common dolphins occur from Cape
Hatteras northeast to Georges Bank (35[deg] to 42[deg] N) during mid-
January to May and move as far north as the Scotian Shelf from mid-
summer to fall (Selzer and Payne, 1988). Migration onto the Scotian
Shelf and continental shelf off Newfoundland occurs when water
temperatures exceed 51.8 [deg] Fahrenheit (11[deg] Celsius) (Sergeant
et al., 1970, Gowans and Whitehead 1995). Breeding usually takes place
between June and September (Hayes et al., 2019). Kraus et al. (2016)
observed 3,896 individual common dolphins within the RI-MA WEA. Summer
surveys included observations of the most individuals followed by fall,
winter, then spring.
[[Page 52524]]
Atlantic Spotted Dolphin
Atlantic spotted dolphins are found in tropical and warm temperate
waters ranging from southern New England, south to Gulf of Mexico and
the Caribbean to Venezuela (Hayes et al., 2020). The Western North
Atlantic stock regularly occurs in continental shelf waters south of
Cape Hatteras and in continental shelf edge and continental slope
waters north of this region (Hayes et al., 2020). Atlantic spotted
dolphins occur in two forms, with the larger ecotype inhabiting the
continental shelf and usually occurring inside or near the 200-m
isobaths (Hayes et al., 2020).
There are few reported occurrences of spotted dolphins (Stenella
spp.) in the proposed project area. CETAP reported 126 spotted dolphin
sightings over the course of the 3-year study, and 40 individuals south
of Block Island in 1982 (CETAP, 1982). NMFS shipboard surveys conducted
during June-August between central Virginia and the Lower Bay of Fundy
reported 542 to 860 individual sightings from two separate visual teams
(Palka et al., 2017).
Risso's Dolphin
Risso's dolphins occur worldwide in both tropical and temperate
waters (Jefferson et al., 2008, Jefferson et al., 2014). Risso's
dolphins within the U.S. Atlantic EEZ are part of the Western North
Atlantic stock which inhabits waters from Florida to eastern
Newfoundland (Leatherwood et al., 1976; Baird and Stacey, 1991). During
spring, summer, and fall, Risso's dolphins are distributed along the
continental shelf edge from Cape Hatteras north to Georges Bank (CETAP,
1982; Payne et al., 1984). During the winter, the distribution extends
outward into oceanic waters (Payne et al., 1984) within the Mid-
Atlantic Bight. However, little is known about their movement and
migration patterns, and they are infrequently observed in shelf waters.
Offshore Rhode Island, Risso's dolphins have been observed year-
round, with a peak abundance during the summer. Primarily observed
along the continental shelf break, few individuals are typically seen
in waters shallower than 100 m (Kenney and Vigness-Raposa, 2010).
Harbor Porpoise
The harbor porpoise occupies U.S. and Canadian waters. During
summer (July to September), harbor porpoises are generally concentrated
along the continental shelf within the northern Gulf of Maine, southern
Bay of Fundy region, and around the southern tip of Nova Scotia,
generally in waters less than 150 m deep (Gaskin, 1977; Kraus et al.,
1983; Palka, 1995). During fall (October to December) and spring (April
to June), they are more widely dispersed from New Jersey to Maine with
lower densities farther north and south. In winter (January to March),
intermediate densities of harbor porpoises can be found in waters off
New Jersey to North Carolina with lower densities found in waters off
New York to New Brunswick, Canada (Hayes et al., 2020).
There are four distinct populations of harbor porpoise in the
western Atlantic: Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy, Gulf of St. Lawrence,
Newfoundland, and Greenland (Gaskin, 1984, 1992; Hayes et al., 2020).
Harbor porpoises observed within the U.S. Atlantic EEZ are considered
part of the Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy stock.
The main threat to the species is interactions with fisheries, with
documented take in the U.S. northeast sink gillnet, mid-Atlantic
gillnet, and northeast bottom trawl fisheries and in the Canadian
herring weir fisheries (Waring et al., 2020).
Harbor Seal
Harbor seals are found throughout coastal waters of the Atlantic
Ocean and adjoining seas above 30[deg] N (Burns, 2009; Desportes et
al., 2010; Hayes et al., 2021). In the western North Atlantic, harbor
seals occur year-round in coastal waters of eastern Canada and Maine
(Katona et al., 1993), yet they are distributed seasonally along the
coast from southern New England to Virginia from September through late
May (Schneider and Payne, 1983; Schroeder, 2000; Rees et al., 2016,
Toth et al., 2018) Harbor seals are year-round inhabitants of the
coastal waters of eastern Canada and Maine (Richardson and Rough,
1993), and occur seasonally from southern New England to New Jersey
between September and late May (Schneider and Payne, 1983; Barlas,
1999; Schroeder, 2000). A general southward movement from the Bay of
Fundy to southern New England occurs in fall and early winter
(Rosenfeld et al., 1988, Whitman and Payne, 1990, Barlas 1999). A
northward movement from southern New England to Maine and eastern
Canada takes place prior to the pupping season, which occurs from mid-
May through June along the Maine coast (Richardson, 1976; Wilson, 1978;
Whitman and Payne, 1990; Kenney, 1994).
In addition to coastal waters, harbor seals use terrestrial habitat
as haul-out sites throughout the year, but primarily during the pupping
and molting periods, which occur from late spring to late summer in the
northern portion of their range. No pupping areas have been identified
in southern New England, but there are several haul-out sites on Block
Island and six haul-out sites have been identified in Narragansett Bay
(Barlas, 1999; Kenney and Vigness-Raposa, 2010).
From July 2018 through March 2020, elevated numbers of harbor seal
and gray seal mortalities occurred across Maine, New Hampshire and
Massachusetts. Additionally, stranded seals showed clinical signs as
far south as Virginia, although not in elevated numbers. This even was
declared a UME, and the UME investigation encompassed all seal
strandings from Maine to Virginia. A total of 3,152 reported strandings
(both harbor and gray seals) occurred during the UME. Full or partial
necropsy examinations have been conducted on some of the seals and
samples have been collected for testing. Based on tests conducted as of
April 30, 2021, the main pathogen found in the seals is phocine
distemper virus. NMFS is performing additional testing to identify any
other factors that may be involved in this UME. This UME was declared
from 2018 through 2020, and is currently pending closure to become non-
active. Therefore, this UME will not be addressed further in this
document. Further information is available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-england-mid-atlantic/marine-life-distress/2018-2020-pinniped-unusual-mortality-event-along.
Gray Seal
There are three major populations of gray seals found in the world:
eastern Canada (western North Atlantic stock), northwestern Europe and
the Baltic Sea. Gray seals in the project area belong to the western
North Atlantic stock. The range for this stock is thought to be from
New Jersey to Labrador (Davies, 1957; Mansfield, 1966; Katona et al.,
1993); however, stranding records as far south as Cape Hatteras
(Gilbert et al., 2005) have been recorded. This species inhabits
temperate and sub-arctic waters and lives on remote, exposed islands,
shoals, and sandbars (Jefferson et al., 2008).
In U.S. waters, pupping sites are located from Maine to
Massachusetts (Wood et al., 2019). Historically, gray seals were
relatively absent from Rhode Island and nearby waters. However, with
the recent recovery of the Massachusetts and Canadian populations,
their occurrence has increased in southern New England waters (Kenney
and Vigness-Raposa, 2010). In New York, gray seals are typically seen
alongside harbor seal
[[Page 52525]]
haul-outs. Two frequent sighting locations include Great Gull Island
and Fisher's Island (Kenney and Vigness-Raposa, 2010). Two breeding and
pupping grounds have also been identified in Nantucket Sound at Monomoy
and Muskeget Island (NMFS, 2021). Gray seals have been observed using
the historic pupping site on Muskeget Island in Massachusetts since
1990.
Current population trends show that gray seal abundance is likely
increasing in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ (Hayes et al., 2021). Although the
rate of increase is unknown, surveys conducted since the 1980s indicate
a steady increase in abundance in both Maine and Massachusetts (Hayes
et al., 2021). It is believed that recolonization by Canadian gray
seals is the source of the U.S. population (Hayes et al., 2021). As
described above, elevated seal mortalities, including gray seals, have
occurred from Maine to Virginia from 2018 through 2020. Phocine
distemper virus has been the main pathogen found in stranded seals.
More information is available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-england-mid-atlantic/marine-life-distress/2018-2020-pinniped-unusual-mortality-event-along.
Marine Mammal Hearing
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals
underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious
effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to
sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine
mammals are able to hear. Not all marine mammal species have equal
hearing capabilities (e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and
Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect this, Southall et al.
(2007, 2019) recommended that marine mammals be divided into hearing
groups based on directly measured (behavioral or auditory evoked
potential techniques) or estimated hearing ranges (behavioral response
data, anatomical modeling, etc.). Note that no direct measurements of
hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes (i.e.,
low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) described
generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups.
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65
decibel (dB) threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with
the exception for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the
lower bound was deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower
bound from Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine mammal hearing
groups and their associated hearing ranges are provided in Table 4.
Table 4--Marine Mammal Hearing Groups
[NMFS, 2018]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing group Generalized hearing range *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen 7 Hz to 35 kHz.
whales).
Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans 150 Hz to 160 kHz.
(dolphins, toothed whales, beaked
whales, bottlenose whales).
High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true 275 Hz to 160 kHz.
porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins,
Cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus
cruciger & L. australis).
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) 50 Hz to 86 kHz.
(true seals).
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) 60 Hz to 39 kHz.
(sea lions and fur seals).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a
composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual
species' hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized
hearing range chosen based on ~65 dB threshold from normalized
composite audiogram, with the exception for lower limits for LF
cetaceans (Southall et al., 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation).
The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et
al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have
consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing
compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range
(Hemil[auml] et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth and Holt,
2013).
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency
ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information.
Sixteen marine mammal species (14 cetacean and 2 pinniped (both phocid)
species) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with the proposed
survey activities. Please refer to Table 3. Of the cetacean species
that may be present, five are classified as low-frequency cetaceans
(i.e., all mysticete species), eight are classified as mid-frequency
cetaceans (i.e., all delphinid species and the sperm whale), and one is
classified as high-frequency cetaceans (i.e., harbor porpoise and Kogia
spp.).
Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
This section includes a discussion of the ways that Orsted's
specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat.
Detailed descriptions of the potential effects of similar specified
activities have been provided in other recent Federal Register notices,
including for survey activities using the same methodology, over a
similar amount of time, and occurring in the northwest Atlantic region,
including waters offshore of Massachusetts and Rhode Island (e.g., 85
FR 63508, October 8, 2020; 86 FR 40469, July 28, 2021; 87 FR 806,
January 6, 2022; 87 FR 13975, March 11, 2022). No significant new
information is available, and we refer the reader to these documents
rather than repeating the details here. The Estimated Take section
later in this document includes a quantitative analysis of the number
of individuals that are expected to be taken by Orsted's activity. The
Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section considers the
content of this section, the Estimated Take section, and the Proposed
Mitigation section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of
these activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of
individuals and to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of
these activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of
individuals and whether those impacts are reasonably expected to, or
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
Underwater sound from active acoustic sources can include one or
more of the following: Temporary or permanent hearing impairment, non-
auditory physical or physiological effects, behavioral disturbance,
stress, and masking. The degree of effect is intrinsically related to
the signal characteristics, received level, distance from the source,
and duration of the sound exposure. Marine mammals exposed to high-
intensity sound, or to
[[Page 52526]]
lower-intensity sound for prolonged periods, can experience hearing
threshold shift (TS), which is the loss of hearing sensitivity at
certain frequency ranges (Finneran, 2015). TS can be permanent (PTS),
in which case the loss of hearing sensitivity is not fully recoverable,
or temporary (TTS), in which case the animal's hearing threshold would
recover over time (Southall et al., 2007).
Permanent Threshold Shift--Marine mammals exposed to high-intensity
sound, or to lower-intensity sound for prolonged periods, can
experience hearing threshold shift (TS), which is the loss of hearing
sensitivity at certain frequency ranges (Finneran, 2015). TS can be
permanent (PTS), in which case the loss of hearing sensitivity is not
fully recoverable, or temporary (TTS), in which case the animal's
hearing threshold would recover over time (Southall et al., 2007).
Repeated sound exposure that leads to TTS could cause PTS. In severe
cases of PTS, there can be total or partial deafness, while in most
cases the animal has an impaired ability to hear sounds in specific
frequency ranges (Kryter, 1985).
Temporary Threshold Shift--TTS is the mildest form of hearing
impairment that can occur during exposure to sound (Kryter, 1985).
While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises, and a sound must
be at a higher level in order to be heard. In terrestrial and marine
mammals, TTS can last from minutes or hours to days (in cases of strong
TTS). In many cases, hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly after
exposure to the sound ends.
When PTS occurs, there is physical damage to the sound receptors in
the ear (i.e., tissue damage), whereas TTS represents primarily tissue
fatigue and is reversible (Southall et al., 2007). In addition, other
investigators have suggested that TTS is within the normal bounds of
physiological variability and tolerance and does not represent physical
injury (e.g., Ward, 1997). Therefore, NMFS does not consider TTS to
constitute auditory injury.
Many studies have examined noise-induced hearing loss in marine
mammals (see Finneran (2015) and Southall et al. (2019) for summaries).
Animals in the vicinity of Orsted's proposed site characterization
survey activities are unlikely to incur even TTS due to the
characteristics of the sound sources, which include relatively low
sound source levels (176 to 205 dB re 1 [mu]Pa-m) and generally very
short pulses and potential duration of exposure. These characteristics
mean that instantaneous exposure is unlikely to cause TTS, as it is
unlikely that exposure would occur close enough to the vessel for
received levels to exceed peak pressure TTS criteria, and the
cumulative duration of exposure would be insufficient to exceed
cumulative sound exposure level (SEL) criteria. Regarding instantaneous
exposure, high-frequency cetacean species (e.g., harbor porpoises) have
the greatest sensitivity to potential TTS, and individuals would have
to make an approach within 5 m of the vessel (the estimated isopleth
distance to the peak threshold). Intermittent exposures--as would occur
due to the brief, transient signals produced by these sources--require
a higher cumulative SEL to induce TTS than would continuous exposures
of the same duration (i.e., intermittent exposure results in lower
levels of TTS). Moreover, most marine mammals would more likely avoid a
loud sound source rather than swim in such close proximity as to result
in TTS. Kremser et al., (2005) noted that the probability of a cetacean
swimming through the area of exposure when a sub-bottom profiler emits
a pulse is small--because if the animal was in the area, it would have
to pass the transducer at close range in order to be subjected to sound
levels that could cause TTS and would likely exhibit avoidance behavior
to the area near the transducer rather than swim though at such a close
range. Further, the restricted beam shape of many of HRG survey devices
planned for use (Table 2) makes it unlikely that an animal would be
exposed more than briefly during the passage of the vessel.
Behavioral Effects--Behavioral disturbances may include a variety
of effects, including subtle changes in behavior (e.g., minor or brief
avoidance of an area or changes in vocalizations), more conspicuous
changes in similar behavioral activities, and more sustained and/or
potentially severe reactions, such as displacement from or abandonment
of high-quality habitat. Behavioral responses to sound are highly
variable and context-specific and any reactions depend on numerous
intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., species, state of maturity,
experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity,
time of day), as well as the interplay between factors (e.g.,
Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007;
Weilgart, 2007; Archer et al., 2010; Southall et al., 2021). Available
studies show wide variation in response to underwater sound; therefore,
it is difficult to predict specifically how any given sound in a
particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving the signal.
The following subsections provide examples of behavioral responses
that provide an idea of the variability in behavioral responses that
would be expected given the differential sensitivities of marine mammal
species to sound and the wide range of potential acoustic sources to
which a marine mammal may be exposed. Behavioral responses that could
occur for a given sound exposure should be determined from the
literature that is available for each species, or extrapolated from
closely related species when no information exists, along with
contextual factors. Available studies show wide variation in response
to underwater sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically
how any given sound in a particular instance might affect marine
mammals perceiving the signal. If a marine mammal does react briefly to
an underwater sound by changing its behavior or moving a small
distance, the impacts of the change are unlikely to be significant to
the individual, the stock, or population. However, if a sound source
displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for
a prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations could be
significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007; NRC,
2003). There are broad categories of potential response, which we
describe in greater detail here, that include alteration of dive
behavior, alteration of foraging behavior, effects to breathing,
interference with or alteration of vocalization, avoidance, and flight.
Changes in dive behavior can vary widely, and may consist of
increased or decreased dive times and surface intervals as well as
changes in the rates of ascent and descent during a dive (e.g., Frankel
and Clark, 2000; Costa et al., 2003; Ng and Leung, 2003; Nowacek et
al., 2004; Goldbogen et al., 2013). Seals exposed to non-impulsive
sources with a received sound pressure level within the range of
calculated exposures (142-193 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (referenced to 1
micropascal), have been shown to change their behavior by modifying
diving activity and avoidance of the sound source (G[ouml]tz et al.,
2010; Kvadsheim et al., 2010). Variations in dive behavior may reflect
interruptions in biologically significant activities (e.g., foraging)
or they may be of little biological significance. The impact of an
alteration to dive behavior resulting from an acoustic exposure depends
on what the animal is doing at the time of the exposure and the type
and magnitude of the response. Due to the mobile nature of the proposed
activities and mobility of marine mammals, we expect minimal effects on
diving
[[Page 52527]]
behavior as animals would be able to move away from the sound source.
Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with
anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed
displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary
indicators (e.g., bubble nets or sediment plumes), or changes in dive
behavior. As for other types of behavioral response, the frequency,
duration, and temporal pattern of signal presentation, as well as
differences in species sensitivity, are likely contributing factors to
differences in response in any given circumstance (e.g., Croll et al.,
2001; Nowacek et al.; 2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et al., 2007;
Melc[oacute]n et al., 2012). In addition, the behavioral state of the
animal plays a role in the type and severity of a behavioral response,
such as disruption to foraging (e.g., Silve et al., 2016; Wensveen et
al., 2017). As mentioned earlier, the proposed project area overlaps
with a fin whale feeding BIA. However, due to the mobile nature of the
proposed acoustic sources, as well as fin whales and their prey, fin
whales would have alternate habitat available for foraging during the
brief duration of acoustic activity. We, therefore, expect minimal
impacts to foraging fin whales.
A determination of whether foraging disruptions incur fitness
consequences would require information on or estimates of the energetic
requirements of the affected individuals and the relationship between
prey availability, foraging effort and success, and the life history
stage of the animal. Goldbogen et al. (2013) indicate that disruption
of feeding and displacement could impact individual fitness and health.
However, for this to be true, we would have to assume that an
individual could not compensate for this lost feeding opportunity by
either immediately feeding at another location, by feeding shortly
after cessation of acoustic exposure, or by feeding at a later time.
There is no indication this is the case, particularly since unconsumed
prey would likely still be available in the environment in most cases
following the cessation of acoustic exposure. Information on or
estimates of the energetic requirements of the individuals and the
relationship between prey availability, foraging effort and success,
and the life history stage of the animal will help better inform a
determination of whether foraging disruptions incur fitness
consequences.
Marine mammals vocalize for different purposes and across multiple
modes, such as whistling, echolocation click production, calling, and
singing. Changes in vocalization behavior in response to anthropogenic
noise can occur for any of these modes and may result from a need to
compete with an increase in background noise or may reflect increased
vigilance or a startle response. For example, in the presence of
potentially masking signals, humpback whales and killer whales have
been observed to increase the length of their songs (Miller et al.,
2000; Fristrup et al., 2003; Foote et al., 2004), while right whales
have been observed to shift the frequency content of their calls upward
while reducing the rate of calling in areas of increased anthropogenic
noise (Parks et al., 2007; Rolland et al., 2012). Killer whales off the
northwestern coast of the United States have been observed to increase
the duration of primary calls once a threshold in observing vessel
density (e.g., whale watching) was reached, which has been suggested as
a response to increased masking noise produced by the vessels (Foote et
al., 2004; NOAA, 2014). In some cases, however, animals may cease or
alter sound production in response to underwater sound (e.g., Bowles et
al., 1994; Castellote et al., 2012; Cerchio et al., 2014). Studies also
demonstrate that even low levels of noise received far from the noise
source can induce changes in vocalization and/or behavioral responses
(Blackwell et al., 2013, 2015). Due to the short-term duration and
mobile nature of the proposed activities, we expect minimal impacts to
marine mammal vocalization.
Avoidance is the displacement of an individual from an area or
migration path as a result of the presence of a sound or other
stressors, and is one of the most obvious manifestations of disturbance
in marine mammals (Richardson et al., 1995). Avoidance is qualitatively
different from the flight response, but also differs in the magnitude
of the response (i.e., directed movement, rate of travel, etc.).
Avoidance is often temporary, and animals return to the area once the
noise has ceased. Acute avoidance responses have been observed in
captive porpoises and pinnipeds exposed to a number of different sound
sources (Kastelein et al., 2001; Finneran et al., 2003; Kastelein et
al., 2006a, 2006b; 2015a, 2015b, 2018). Short-term avoidance of seismic
surveys, low frequency emissions, and acoustic deterrents have also
been noted in wild populations of odontocetes (Bowles et al., 1994;
Goold, 1996; Goold and Fish, 1998; Stone et al., 2000; Morton and
Symonds, 2002; Hiley et al., 2021) and to some extent in mysticetes
(Malme et al., 1984; McCauley et al., 2000; Gailey et al., 2007).
Longer-term displacement is possible, however, which may lead to
changes in abundance or distribution patterns of the affected species
in the affected region if habituation to the presence of the sound does
not occur (e.g., Blackwell et al., 2004; Bejder et al., 2006; Teilmann
et al., 2006). Avoidance may occur for any marine mammals exposed to
the proposed sound sources, however, alternate habitat is available for
any animals that are temporarily displaced and mitigation measures, as
described further in the Proposed Mitigation section, are expected to
reduce avoidance.
A flight response is a dramatic change in normal movement to a
directed and rapid movement away from the perceived location of a sound
source. The flight response differs from other avoidance responses in
the intensity of the response (e.g., directed movement, rate of
travel). Relatively little information on flight responses of marine
mammals to anthropogenic signals exist, although observations of flight
responses to the presence of predators have occurred (Connor and
Heithaus, 1996). The result of a flight response could range from
brief, temporary exertion and displacement from the area where the
signal provokes flight to, in extreme cases, marine mammal strandings
(Evans and England, 2001). There are limited data on flight response
for marine mammals in water; however, there are examples of this
response in species on land (e.g., Born et al., 1999; Ward et al.,
1999; Frid, 2003). However, it should be noted that response to a
perceived predator does not necessarily invoke flight (Ford and Reeves,
2008), and whether individuals are solitary or in groups may influence
the response. Due to proposed mitigation measures, we do not expect any
marine mammals to exhibit flight responses to the proposed activities.
In addition, sound can disrupt behavior through masking, or
interfering with, an animal's ability to detect, recognize, or
discriminate between acoustic signals of interest (e.g., those used for
intraspecific communication and social interactions, prey detection,
predator avoidance, navigation). Masking occurs when the receipt of a
sound is interfered with by another coincident sound at similar
frequencies and at similar or higher intensity, and may occur whether
the sound is natural (e.g., snapping shrimp, wind, waves,
precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g., shipping, sonar, seismic
exploration) in origin. Marine mammal communications would not likely
be masked appreciably by the acoustic
[[Page 52528]]
signals given the directionality of the signals for most HRG survey
equipment types planned for use (Table 2) and the brief period when an
individual mammal is likely to be exposed.
Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting,
traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour cycle). Disruption
of such functions resulting from reactions to stressors such as sound
exposure are more likely to be significant if they last more than one
diel cycle or recur on subsequent days (Southall et al., 2007).
Consequently, a behavioral response lasting less than one day and not
recurring on subsequent days is not considered particularly severe
unless it could directly affect reproduction or survival (Southall et
al., 2007). Note that there is a difference between multi-day
substantive behavioral reactions and multi-day anthropogenic
activities. For example, just because an activity lasts for multiple
days does not necessarily mean that individual animals are either
exposed to activity-related stressors for multiple days or, further,
exposed in a manner resulting in sustained multi-day substantive
behavioral responses. Due to the short-term nature of the proposed HRG
activities, we expect minimal disruption to any diel cycles of marine
mammals.
To assess the strength of behavioral changes and responses to
external sounds and SPLs associated with changes in behavior, Southall
et al., (2007) developed and utilized a severity scale, which is a 10
point scale ranging from no effect (labeled 0), effects not likely to
influence vital rates (low; labeled from 1 to 3), effects that could
affect vital rates (moderate; labeled 4 to 6), to effects that were
thought likely to influence vital rates (high; labeled 7 to 9).
Southall et al., (2021) updated the severity scale by integrating
behavioral context (i.e., survival, reproduction, and foraging) into
severity assessment. For non-impulsive sounds (i.e., similar to the
sources used during the proposed action), data suggest that exposures
of pinnipeds to sources between 90 and 140 dB re 1 [mu]Pa do not elicit
strong behavioral responses; no data were available for exposures at
higher received levels for Southall et al., (2007) to include in the
severity scale analysis. Reactions of harbor seals were the only
available data for which the responses could be ranked on the severity
scale. For reactions that were recorded, the majority (17 of 18
individuals/groups) were ranked on the severity scale as a 4 (defined
as moderate change in movement, brief shift in group distribution, or
moderate change in vocal behavior) or lower; the remaining response was
ranked as a 6 (defined as minor or moderate avoidance of the sound
source).
Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes
with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated
events (Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most likely to habituate to
sounds that are predictable and unvarying. It is important to note that
habituation is appropriately considered as a ``progressive reduction in
response to stimuli that are perceived as neither aversive nor
beneficial,'' rather than as, more generally, moderation in response to
human disturbance (Bejder et al., 2009). The opposite process is
sensitization, when an unpleasant experience leads to subsequent
responses, often in the form of avoidance, at a lower level of
exposure. As noted, behavioral state may affect the type of response.
For example, animals that are resting may show greater behavioral
change in response to disturbing sound levels than animals that are
highly motivated to remain in an area for feeding (Richardson et al.,
1995; NRC, 2003; Wartzok et al., 2003). Controlled experiments with
captive marine mammals have shown pronounced behavioral reactions,
including avoidance of loud sound sources (Ridgway et al., 1997;
Finneran et al., 2003). Observed responses of wild marine mammals to
loud impulsive sound sources (typically seismic airguns or acoustic
harassment devices) have been varied but often consist of avoidance
behavior or other behavioral changes suggesting discomfort (Morton and
Symonds, 2002; see also Richardson et al., 1995; Nowacek et al., 2007).
Although habituation to the proposed sound sources could occur, it is
not likely due to the short-term nature of the HRG activities.
Stress responses--An animal's perception of a threat may be
sufficient to trigger stress responses consisting of some combination
of behavioral responses, autonomic nervous system responses,
neuroendocrine responses, or immune responses (e.g., Seyle, 1950;
Moberg, 2000). In many cases, an animal's first and sometimes most
economical (in terms of energetic costs) response is behavioral
avoidance of the potential stressor. Autonomic nervous system responses
to stress typically involve changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and
gastrointestinal activity. These responses have a relatively short
duration and may or may not have a significant long-term effect on an
animal's fitness.
Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-
pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that
are affected by stress--including immune competence, reproduction,
metabolism, and behavior--are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-
induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been
implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism, reduced immune
competence, and behavioral disturbance (e.g., Moberg, 1987; Blecha,
2000).
The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does
not normally place an animal at risk) and ``distress'' is the cost of
the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores
that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such
circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose serious
fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have sufficient
energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response,
energy resources must be diverted from other functions. This state of
distress will last until the animal replenishes its energetic reserves
sufficient to restore normal function. We expect minimal stress
responses to result from marine mammals due to the short-term duration
of activities and proposed mitigation measures.
Potential effects on prey--Sound may affect marine mammals through
impacts on the abundance, behavior, or distribution of prey species
(e.g., crustaceans, cephalopods, fish, zooplankton) (i.e., effects to
marine mammal habitat). Prey species exposed to sound might move away
from the sound source, experience TTS, experience masking of
biologically relevant sounds, or show no obvious direct effects. The
most likely impacts (if any) for most prey species in a given area
would be temporary avoidance of the area. Surveys using active acoustic
sound sources move through an area relatively quickly, limiting
exposure to multiple pulses. In all cases, sound levels would return to
ambient once a survey ends and the noise source is shut down and, when
exposure to sound ends, behavioral and/or physiological responses are
expected to end relatively quickly.
Marine Mammal Habitat
The HRG survey equipment will not contact the seafloor and does not
represent a source of pollution. As the HRG survey equipment introduces
noise to the marine environment, there is the potential for it to
result in avoidance of the area around the HRG survey activities on the
part of marine mammal prey. Any avoidance of the area on the part of
marine mammal prey would be
[[Page 52529]]
expected to be short term and temporary.
Due to the temporary nature of the disturbance, and the
availability of similar habitat and resources (e.g., prey species) in
the surrounding area, the impacts to marine mammals and the food
sources that they utilize are expected to be minimal and unlikely to
cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine
mammals or their populations.
Ship Strikes
Vessel collisions with marine mammals, or ship strikes, can result
in death or serious injury of the animal. These interactions are
typically associated with large whales, which are less maneuverable
than are smaller cetaceans or pinnipeds in relation to large vessels.
Ship strikes generally involve commercial shipping vessels, which are
generally larger (e.g., 40,000 ton container ship) and of which there
is much more traffic in the ocean than geophysical survey vessels.
Jensen and Silber (2004) summarized ship strikes of large whales
worldwide from 1975-2003 and found that most collisions occurred in the
open ocean and involved large vessels (e.g., commercial shipping). For
vessels used in geophysical survey activities, vessel speed while
towing gear is typically approximately 4-5 kn (2.1-2.6 m/s) (as is the
speed of the vessel for Orsted's proposed HRG surveys). At these
speeds, both the possibility of striking a marine mammal and the
possibility of a strike resulting in serious injury or mortality are so
low as to be discountable. At average transit speed for geophysical
survey vessels, the probability of serious injury or mortality
resulting from a strike is less than 50 percent. However, the
likelihood of a strike actually happening is again low given the
smaller size of these vessels and generally slower speeds. Notably in
the Jensen and Silber study, no strike incidents were reported for
geophysical survey vessels during that time period.
The potential effects of Orsted's specified survey activity are
expected to be limited to Level B behavioral harassment. Temporary and
minimal impacts to marine mammal habitat, including prey, may occur.
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes
proposed for authorization through this IHA, which will inform both
NMFS' consideration of ``small numbers'' and the negligible impact
determinations.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these
activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent
here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment);
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns,
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment only, in the form
of disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals
resulting from exposure to certain HRG sources. Based on the nature of
the activity and the anticipated effectiveness of the mitigation
measures (i.e., shutdown measures, vessel strike avoidance procedures)
discussed in detail below in the Proposed Mitigation section, Level A
harassment is neither anticipated nor proposed to be authorized.
As described previously, no serious injury or mortality is
anticipated or proposed to be authorized for this activity. Below we
describe how the proposed take numbers are estimated.
For acoustic impacts, generally speaking, we estimate take by
considering: (1) acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best
available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally
harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the
area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a
day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these
ensonified areas; and, (4) the number of days of activities. We note
that while these factors can contribute to a basic calculation to
provide an initial prediction of potential takes, additional
information that can qualitatively inform take estimates is also
sometimes available (e.g., previous monitoring results or average group
size). Below, we describe the factors considered here in more detail
and present the proposed take estimates.
Acoustic Thresholds
NMFS recommends the use of acoustic thresholds that identify the
received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals
would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to
Level B harassment) or to incur PTS of some degree (equated to Level A
harassment).
Level B Harassment--Though significantly driven by received level,
the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure
is also informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the
source or exposure context (e.g., frequency, predictability, duty
cycle, duration of the exposure, signal-to-noise ratio, distance to the
source), the environment (e.g., bathymetry, other noises in the area,
predators in the area), and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation,
experience, demography, life stage, depth) and can be difficult to
predict (e.g., Southall et al., 2007, 2021, Ellison et al., 2012).
Based on what the available science indicates and the practical need to
use a threshold based on a metric that is both predictable and
measurable for most activities, NMFS typically uses a generalized
acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the onset of
behavioral harassment. NMFS generally predicts that marine mammals are
likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner considered to be Level B
harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above root-
mean-squared pressure received levels (RMS SPL) of 120 dB (re 1 [mu]Pa)
for continuous (e.g., vibratory pile-driving, drilling) and above RMS
SPL 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa for non-explosive impulsive (e.g., seismic
airguns) or intermittent (e.g., scientific sonar) sources.
Level A Harassment--NMFS Technical Guidance for Assessing the
Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0)
(Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies dual criteria to assess auditory
injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine mammal groups
(based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from
two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive).
These thresholds are provided in the table below. The references,
analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are
described in NMFS' 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at:
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.
Orsted's proposed activity includes the use of impulsive (i.e.,
boomers and sparkers) and non-impulsive (i.e., CHIRP SBPs) sources.
However, as discussed above, NMFS has concluded that Level A harassment
is not a reasonably likely outcome for marine mammals exposed to noise
from the sources proposed for use here, and the potential for Level A
harassment is not evaluated further in this document. Please see
Orsted's application (Section 1.4) for a quantitative Level A exposure
analysis exercise. The results indicated that maximum estimated
distances to
[[Page 52530]]
Level A harassment isopleths were less than 3 m for all sources and
hearing groups, with the exception of an estimated 18.9 m and 11.4 m
distance to the Level A harassment isopleth for high-frequency
cetaceans (i.e., harbor porpoises) during use of the GeoPulse 5430 and
TB CHIRP III, respectively (see Table 2 for source characteristics).
Orsted did not request authorization of take by Level A harassment and
no take by Level A harassment is proposed for authorization by NMFS.
Table 5--Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Permanent Threshold Shift
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS onset thresholds * (received level)
Hearing group -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impulsive Non-impulsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans.......... Cell 1: L0-pk,flat: 219 Cell 2: LE, LF,24h: 199 dB.
dB; LE, LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans.......... Cell 3: L0-pk,flat: 230 Cell 4: LE, MF,24h: 198 dB.
dB; LE, MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans......... Cell 5: L0-pk,flat: 202 Cell 6: LE, HF,24h: 173 dB.
dB; LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater).... Cell 7: L0-pk.flat: 218 Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
dB; LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater)... Cell 9: L0-pk,flat: 232 Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
dB; LE,OW,24h: 203 dB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dual metric thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS
onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds
associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds are recommended for consideration.
Note: Peak sound pressure level (L0-pk) has a reference value of 1 [mu]Pa, and weighted cumulative sound
exposure level (LE,) has a reference value of 1[mu]Pa\2\s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to be
more reflective of International Organization for Standardization standards (ISO 2017). The subscript ``flat''
is being included to indicate peak sound pressure are flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized
hearing range of marine mammals (i.e., 7 Hz to 160 kHz). The subscript associated with cumulative sound
exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF
cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The weighted
cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure
levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for action proponents to indicate the
conditions under which these thresholds will be exceeded.
Ensonified Area
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the
activity that are used in estimating the area ensonified above the
acoustic thresholds, including source levels and transmission loss
coefficient.
NMFS has developed a user-friendly methodology for determining the
rms sound pressure level (SPLrms) at the 160-dB isopleth for
the purpose of estimating the extent of Level B harassment isopleths
associated with HRG survey equipment (NMFS, 2020). This methodology
incorporates frequency and some directionality to refine estimated
ensonified zones. Orsted used NMFS's methodology, using the source
level and operation mode of the equipment planned for use during the
proposed survey, to estimate the maximum ensonified area over a 24-hr
period also referred to as the harassment area (Table 6). Potential
takes by Level B harassment are estimated within the ensonified area
(i.e., harassment area) as an SPL exceeding 160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa for
impulsive sources (e.g., sparkers, boomers) within an average day of
activity.
The harassment zone, also known as the Zone of Influence (ZOI), is
a representation of the maximum extent of the ensonified area around a
sound source over a 24-hr period. The ZOI was calculated for mobile
sound sources per the following formula:
ZOI = (Distance/day x 2r) + [pi]r\2\
Where r is the linear distance from the source to the isopleth for
the Level B harassment threshold.
The estimated potential daily active survey distance of 70 km was
used as the estimated areal coverage over a 24-hr period. This distance
accounts for the vessel traveling at roughly 4 kn (2.1 m/s) and only
for periods during which equipment <180 kHz is in operation. A vessel
traveling 4 kn (2.1 m/s) can cover approximately 110 km per day;
however, based on data collected since 2017, survey coverage over a 24-
hour period is closer to 70 km per day as a result of delays due to,
e.g., weather, equipment malfunction. For daylight only vessels, the
distance is reduced to 20 km per day; however, to maintain the
potential for 24-hr surveys, the corresponding Level B harassment zones
provided in Table 6 were calculated for each source based on the Level
B threshold distances within a 24-hour (30 km) operational period.
NMFS considers the data provided by Crocker and Fratantonio (2016)
to represent the best available information on source levels associated
with HRG equipment and, therefore, recommends that source levels
provided by Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) be incorporated in the
method described above to estimate isopleth distances to harassment
thresholds. In cases, when the source level for a specific type of HRG
equipment is not provided in Crocker and Fratantonio (2016), NMFS
recommends that either the source levels provided by the manufacturer
be used, or, in instances where source levels provided by the
manufacturer are unavailable or unreliable, a proxy from Crocker and
Fratantonio (2016) be used instead. Table 2 shows the HRG equipment
types that may be used during the proposed surveys and the source
levels associated with those HRG equipment types.
Based upon modeling results, of the HRG survey equipment planned
for use by Orsted that has the potential to result in Level B
harassment of marine mammals, the Applied Acoustics Dura-Spark UHD and
GeoMarine Geo-Source sparkers would produce the largest Level B
harassment isopleth (141 m) or ZOI. Estimated distances to Level B
harassment isopleths for all sources evaluated here, including the
sparkers, are provided in Table 6. Although Orsted does not expect to
use sparker sources on all planned survey days, Orsted proposes to
assume for purposes of analysis that the sparker would be used on all
survey days. This is a conservative approach, as the actual sources
used on individual survey days may produce smaller harassment
distances.
[[Page 52531]]
Table 6--Distance to Level B Harassment Thresholds (160 dB rms)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance to
level B
Source harassment
threshold
(m)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-impulsive, non-parametric, shallow SBP (CHIRPs)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ET 216 CHIRP............................................... 12
ET 424 CHIRP............................................... 4
ET 512i CHIRP.............................................. 6
GeoPulse 5430.............................................. 29
TB CHIRP III............................................... 54
Pangeo SBI................................................. 22
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impulsive, medium SBP (Boomers and Sparkers)............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AA Triple plate S-Boom (700/1,000 J)....................... 76
AA, Dura-spark UHD Sparkers................................ 141
GeoMarine Sparkers......................................... 141
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AA = Applied Acoustics; CHIRP = compressed high-intensity radiated
pulses; ET = edgetech; HF = high-frequency; J = joules; LF = low-
frequency; MF = mid-frequency; PW = phocid pinnipeds in water; SBI =
sub-bottom imager; SBP = sub-bottom profiler; TB = Teledyne benthos;
UHD = ultra-high definition.
Marine Mammal Occurrence
In this section we provide information about the occurrence of
marine mammals, including density or other relevant information that
will inform the take calculations.
Habitat based density models produced by the Duke University Marine
Geospatial Ecology Laboratory (Roberts et al., 2016, 2022) represent
the best available information regarding marine mammal densities in the
project area. The density data presented by Roberts et al. (2016, 2022)
incorporate aerial and shipboard line-transect data from NMFS and other
organizations and incorporate data from 8 physiographic and 16 dynamic
oceanographic and biological covariates, and control for the influence
of sea state, group size, availability bias, and perception bias on the
probability of making a sighting. These density models were originally
developed for all cetacean taxa in the U.S. Atlantic (Roberts et al.,
2016). In subsequent years, certain models have been updated based on
additional data as well as certain methodological improvements. More
information is available online at https://seamap.env.duke.edu/models/Duke/EC/. Marine mammal density estimates in the project area (animals/
km\2\) were obtained using the most recent model results for all taxa
(Roberts 2022). The updated models incorporate sighting data, including
sightings from NOAA's Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected
Species (AMAPPS) surveys.
For exposure analysis, density data from Roberts (2022) were mapped
using a geographic information system (GIS). Density grid cells that
included any portion of the proposed project area were selected for all
survey months (see Figure 3 of Orsted's application). Given the
variability in level of effort between the Lease Areas and the ECR
area, densities were separated for the three Lease Areas (OCS-A 0486,
0487, and 0500) and the ECR area. The densities for each species as
reported by Roberts et al. (2022) for each of the Lease Areas and ECR
were averaged by month; those values were then used to calculate the
mean annual density for each species within the project area. Estimated
mean monthly and annual densities (animals per km\2\) of all marine
mammal species that may be taken by the proposed survey are shown in
Tables 8-11 of Orsted's application. Please see Table 7 for density
values used in the exposure estimation process.
Given their size and behavior when in the water, seals are
difficult to identify during shipboard visual surveys and limited
information is currently available on their distribution. Therefore,
data used to establish the density estimates from Roberts et al. (2022)
are based on information for all seal species that may occur in the
Western North Atlantic (i.e., harbor, gray, hooded, harp). However,
only the harbor seal and gray seal are reasonably expected to occur in
the project area, and the densities were split evenly between both
species.
Long- and short-finned pilot whales are also difficult to
distinguish during shipboard surveys so individual habitat models were
not able to be developed for these species. As only long-finned pilot
whales are expected to occur within the study area, pilot whale
densities within the study area were attributed to this species.
For bottlenose dolphin densities, Roberts (2022) does not
differentiate by stock. As previously discussed, only the Western North
Atlantic offshore stock is expected to occur in the proposed project
area. Thus, all bottlenose dolphin density estimates within the project
area were attributed to the offshore stock.
Table 7--Average Annual Marine Mammal Density Estimates Across Survey Sites
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Average annual density (km \2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OCS-A 0486 OCS-A 0487 OCS-A 0500 ECR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency Cetaceans:
Fin whale................................... 0.0013 0.0021 0.0023 0.0015
Sei whale................................... 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000
Minke whale................................. 0.0005 0.0008 0.0009 0.0005
Humpback whale.............................. 0.0012 0.0013 0.0015 0.0006
North Atlantic right whale.................. 0.0040 0.0020 0.0034 0.0008
Mid-frequency Cetaceans:
Sperm whale................................. 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
Atlantic white sided dolphin................ 0.0092 0.0234 0.0367 0.0163
Atlantic spotted dolphin.................... 0.0001 0.0003 0.0004 0.0003
Common bottlenose dolphin................... 0.0151 0.0078 0.0097 0.0266
Long-finned pilot whale..................... 0.0020 0.0074 0.0090 0.0043
Risso's dolphin............................. 0 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
Common dolphin.............................. 0.0457 0.0924 0.0945 0.0562
Striped dolphin............................. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
High-frequency Cetaceans:
Harbor porpoise............................. 0.0335 0.0399 0.0384 0.0337
Pinnipeds in-water: \1\
Gray seal................................... 0.0104 0.0110 0.0124 0.0182
Harbor seal................................. 0.0104 0.0110 0.0124 0.0182
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Seal species are not separated in the Roberts (2022) data therefore densities were evenly split between the
two species expected to occur in the project area.
[[Page 52532]]
Take Estimation
Here we describe how the information provided above is synthesized
to produce a quantitative estimate of the take that is reasonably
likely to occur and proposed for authorization.
Level B exposures were estimated by multiplying the average annual
density of each species within the project area (Table 7) by the
largest ZOI that was estimated to be ensonified to an SPL exceeding 160
dB re 1 [micro]Pa (141m; Table 6). That result was then multiplied by
the number of survey days in that Lease Area or ECR (Table 1), and
rounded to the nearest whole number to arrive at estimated take. This
final number equals the instances of take for the entire operational
period. It was assumed the sparker systems were operating all 400
survey days as it is the sound source expected to produce the largest
harassment zone. A summary of this method is illustrated in the
following formula with the resulting proposed take of marine mammals is
shown below in Table 8:
Estimated take = species density x ZOI x # of survey days
Table 8--Total Estimated and Requested Take Numbers
[By level B harassment only]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Requested Max percent
Species Abundance level B takes level B takes population
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency Cetaceans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fin whale....................................... 6,802 14 14 0.21
Sei whale....................................... 6,292 0 3 0.05
Minke whale..................................... 21,968 6 13 0.06
Humpback whale.................................. 1,396 8 34 2.44
North Atlantic right whale...................... 368 17 17 4.62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-frequency Cetaceans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sperm whale..................................... 4,349 0 2 0.05
Atlantic white-sided dolphin.................... 93,233 210 210 0.23
Atlantic spotted dolphin........................ 39,921 3 29 0.07
Common bottlenose dolphin....................... 62,851 139 139 0.22
Pilot whale..................................... 39,215 17 17 0.13
Risso's dolphin................................. 35,215 1 30 0.09
Common dolphin.................................. 172,974 601 6,000 3.47
Striped dolphin................................. 67,036 0 20 0.03
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High-frequency Cetaceans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor porpoise................................. 95,543 287 287 0.30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pinnipeds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seals:..........................................
Gray seal................................... 27,300 118 118 0.43
Harbor seal................................. 61,336 118 118 0.19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional data regarding average group sizes from survey effort in
the region was considered to ensure adequate take estimates are
evaluated. Take estimates for several species were adjusted based upon
observed group sizes in the area. The adjusted take estimates for these
species are indicated in bold in Table 8. These calculated take
estimates were adjusted for these species as follows:
Sei whale: Although no takes were estimated, prior
Protected Species Observer (PSO) monitoring documented the presence of
sei whales in the area. One take was requested based on the most common
group size reported in Kenney and Vigness-Raposa (2010);
Minke and humpback whales: Requested takes were increased
to the number recorded within 500 m of an active source based on draft
PSO data (see Table 13 in the application);
Sperm whale: No takes were estimated but based on their
occurrence in PSO data, 1 group of 2 (Barkaszi and Kelly, 2019) was
added to the requested takes;
Atlantic spotted dolphin: Requested takes were increased
to the average number of dolphins in a group reported in Palka et al.
(2017, 2021);
Risso's dolphin: Only one take was estimated but based on
their occurrence in PSO data, 1 group of 30 (Kenney and Vigness-Raposa,
2010) was added to the requested takes.
Common dolphin: Requested takes were increased to 6,000.
This is based on the average group size of 15 from the PSO data
(calculated by dividing the total number of individuals [14,250] by the
total number of detections [927] in Table 13 of the application)
multiplied by the planned number of survey days (400) in Table 1.
Striped dolphin: No takes were estimated but based on
their occurrence in PSO data, one group of 20 dolphins (Kenney and
Vigness-Raposa, 2010) was added to the requested takes.
PSO data for adjusting take estimates of minke whales, humpback
whales, common bottlenose dolphins, and common dolphins was derived
from draft PSO observer reports from surveys conducted in the project
lease areas and ECR from 2020-2021, as shown in Table 13 of Orsted's
application.
Proposed Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA,
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on
the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of the species or stock for taking for certain
subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS
regulations require applicants for
[[Page 52533]]
incidental take authorizations to include information about the
availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment,
methods, and manner of conducting the activity or other means of
effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected
species or stocks, and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, NMFS
considers two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat.
This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being
mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the
likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented
(probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as
planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability
implemented as planned), and;
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant
implementation, which may consider such things as cost and impact on
operations.
Mitigation for Marine Mammals and Their Habitat
NMFS proposes the following mitigation measures be implemented
during Orsted's proposed marine site characterization surveys. Pursuant
to section 7 of the ESA, NEETMA would also be required to adhere to
relevant Project Design Criteria (PDC) of the NMFS' Greater Atlantic
Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO) programmatic consultation
(specifically PDCs 4, 5, and 7) regarding geophysical surveys along the
U.S. Atlantic coast (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-england-mid-atlantic/consultations/section-7-take-reporting-programmatics-greater-atlantic#offshore-wind-site-assessment-and-site-characterization-activities-programmatic-consultation).
Marine Mammal Shutdown Zones
Marine mammal shutdown zones would be established around impulsive
HRG survey equipment (<180 kHz; e.g., sparkers and boomers) for all
marine mammals, and around impulsive HRG survey equipment and non-
impulsive, non-parametric sub-bottom profilers (e.g., CHIRPs) for North
Atlantic right whales. Shutdown zones would be monitored by protected
species observers (PSOs) based upon the radial distance from the
acoustic source rather than being based around the vessel itself. An
immediate shutdown of impulsive HRG survey equipment will be required
if a whale is sighted at or within the corresponding marine mammal
shutdown zones to minimize noise impacts on the animals. If a shutdown
is required, a PSO will notify the survey crew immediately. Vessel
operators and crews will comply immediately with any call for shutdown.
The shutdown zone may or may not encompass the Level B harassment zone.
Shutdown zone distances are as follows:
A 500-meter (m) Shutdown Zone for North Atlantic right
whales for use of impulsive acoustic sources (e.g., boomers and/or
sparkers) and non-impulsive, non-parametric sub-bottom profilers; and
A 100-m shutdown zone for use of impulsive acoustic
sources for all other marine mammals, with the exception of delphinids
belonging to the Family Delphinidae and one of the following genera:
Delphinus, Lagenorhynchus, Stenella, or Tursiops, and pinnipeds.
Shutdown will remain in effect until the minimum separation
distances (detailed above) between the animal and noise source are re-
established. If a marine mammal enters the respective shutdown zone
during a shutdown period, the equipment may not restart until that
animal is confirmed outside the clearance zone as stated previously in
the pre-start clearance procedures. These stated requirements will be
included in the site-specific training to be provided to the survey
team.
Pre-Start Clearance
Marine mammal clearance zones would be established at the following
distances around the HRG survey equipment and monitored by PSOs:
500 m for all ESA-listed marine mammals;
100 m for all other whales; and
50 m for dolphins and porpoises.
Orsted would implement a 30-minute pre-start clearance period prior
to the initiation of ramp-up of specified HRG equipment. During this
period, clearance zones will be monitored by PSOs, using the
appropriate visual technology. Ramp-up may not be initiated if any
marine mammal(s) is within its respective clearance zone. If a marine
mammal is observed within a clearance zone during the pre-start
clearance period, ramp-up may not begin until the animal(s) has been
observed exiting its respective exclusion zone or until an additional
time period has elapsed with no further sighting (i.e., 15 minutes for
small odontocetes and seals, and 30 minutes for all other species).
Monitoring would be conducted throughout all pre-clearance and shutdown
zones as well as all visible waters surrounding the sound sources and
the vessel. All marine mammals detected will be recorded as described
in the Proposed Monitoring and Reporting section.
Ramp-Up of Survey Equipment
A ramp-up procedure, involving a gradual increase in source level
output, is required at all times as part of the activation of the
acoustic source when technically feasible. The ramp-up procedure would
be used at the beginning of HRG survey activities in order to provide
additional protection to marine mammals near the project area by
allowing them to vacate the area prior to the commencement of survey
equipment operation at full power. Operators should ramp-up sources to
half power for 5 minutes and then proceed to full power.
The ramp-up procedure will not be initiated (i.e., equipment will
not be started) during periods of inclement conditions when the marine
mammal pre-start clearance zone cannot be adequately monitored by the
PSOs for a 30 minute period using the appropriate visual technology. If
any marine mammal enters the clearance zone, ramp-up will not be
initiated until the animal is confirmed outside the marine mammal
clearance zone, or until the appropriate time (30 minutes for whales,
15 minutes for dolphins, porpoises, and seals) has elapsed since the
last sighting of the animal in the clearance zone.
Shutdown, pre-start clearance, and ramp-up procedures are not
required during HRG survey operations using only non-impulsive sources
(e.g., echosounders) other than non-parametric sub-bottom profilers
(e.g., CHIRPs).
Vessel Strike Avoidance
Orsted must adhere to the following measures except in the case
where compliance would create an imminent and serious threat to a
person or vessel or to the extent that a vessel is restricted in its
ability to maneuver and, because of the restriction, cannot comply.
Vessel operators and crews must maintain a vigilant watch
for all protected species and slow down, stop their vessel, or alter
course, as appropriate and regardless of vessel size, to avoid striking
any protected species. A visual observer aboard the vessel must monitor
a vessel strike avoidance zone based on the
[[Page 52534]]
appropriate separation distance around the vessel (distances stated
below). Visual observers monitoring the vessel strike avoidance zone
may be third-party observers (i.e., PSOs) or crew members, but crew
members responsible for these duties must be provided sufficient
training to (1) distinguish protected species from other phenomena, and
(2) broadly identify a marine mammal as a right whale, other whale
(defined in this context as sperm whales or baleen whales other than
right whales), or other marine mammal;
a. All survey vessels, regardless of size, must observe a 10-knot
speed restriction in specified areas designated by NMFS for the
protection of North Atlantic right whales from vessel strikes including
seasonal management areas (SMAs) and dynamic management areas (DMAs)
when in effect;
b. Members of the monitoring team will consult NMFS North Atlantic
right whale reporting system and Whale Alert, as able, for the presence
of North Atlantic right whales throughout survey operations, and for
the establishment of a DMA. If NMFS should establish a DMA in the
project area during the survey, the vessels will abide by speed
restrictions in the DMA;
c. All vessels greater than or equal to 19.8 m in overall length
operating from November 1 through April 30 will operate at speeds of 10
kn (5.1 m/s) or less at all times;
d. All vessels must reduce their speed to 10 kn (5.1 m/s) or less
when mother/calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages of any species of
cetaceans is observed near a vessel;
e. All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 500 m
from right whales and other ESA-listed large whales;
f. If a whale is observed but cannot be confirmed as a species
other than a right whale or other ESA-listed large whale, the vessel
operator must assume that it is a right whale and take appropriate
action;
g. All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 100 m
from non-ESA listed whales;
All vessels must, to the maximum extent practicable,
attempt to maintain a minimum separation distance of 50 m from all
other marine mammals, with an understanding that at times this may not
be possible (e.g., for animals that approach the vessel);
When marine mammals are sighted while a vessel is
underway, the vessel shall take action as necessary to avoid violating
the relevant separation distance (e.g., attempt to remain parallel to
the animal's course, avoid excessive speed or abrupt changes in
direction until the animal has left the area). If marine mammals are
sighted within the relevant separation distance, the vessel must reduce
speed and shift the engine to neutral, not engaging the engines until
animals are clear of the area. This does not apply to any vessel towing
gear or any vessel that is navigationally constrained.
Project-specific training will be conducted for all vessel crew
prior to the start of a survey and during any changes in crew such that
all survey personnel are fully aware and understand the mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements. Prior to implementation with
vessel crews, the training program will be provided to NMFS for review
and approval. Confirmation of the training and understanding of the
requirements will be documented on a training course log sheet. Signing
the log sheet will certify that the crew member understands and will
comply with the necessary requirements throughout the survey
activities.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, NMFS
has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures
provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the
affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular
attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance.
Proposed Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the
monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for
authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the
necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased
knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on
populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present while
conducting the activities. Effective reporting is critical both to
compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the
required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution,
density);
Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) action or environment
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2)
affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas);
Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative),
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1)
long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2)
populations, species, or stocks;
Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of
marine mammal habitat); and,
Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Proposed Monitoring Measures
Visual monitoring will be performed by qualified, NMFS-approved
PSOs, the resumes of whom will be provided to NMFS for review and
approval prior to the start of survey activities. Orsted would employ
independent, dedicated, trained PSOs, meaning that the PSOs must (1) be
employed by a third-party observer provider, (2) have no tasks other
than to conduct observational effort, collect data, and communicate
with and instruct relevant vessel crew with regard to the presence of
marine mammals and mitigation requirements (including brief alerts
regarding maritime hazards), and (3) have successfully completed an
approved PSO training course appropriate for their designated task. On
a case-by-case basis, non-independent observers may be approved by NMFS
for limited, specified duties in support of approved, independent PSOs
on smaller vessels with limited crew operating in nearshore waters.
The PSOs will be responsible for monitoring the waters surrounding
each survey vessel to the farthest extent permitted by sighting
conditions, including shutdown and pre-clearance zones, during all HRG
survey operations. PSOs will visually monitor and identify marine
mammals, including those approaching or entering the established
shutdown and pre-clearance zones during survey activities. It will be
the responsibility of the Lead PSO on duty to communicate the
[[Page 52535]]
presence of marine mammals as well as to communicate the action(s) that
are necessary to ensure mitigation and monitoring requirements are
implemented as appropriate.
During all HRG survey operations (e.g., any day on which use of an
HRG source is planned to occur), a minimum of one PSO must be on duty
during daylight operations on each survey vessel, conducting visual
observations at all times on all active survey vessels during daylight
hours (i.e., from 30 minutes prior to sunrise through 30 minutes
following sunset). Two PSOs will be on watch during nighttime
operations. The PSO(s) would ensure 360 degree visual coverage around
the vessel from the most appropriate observation posts and would
conduct visual observations using binoculars and/or night vision
goggles and the naked eye while free from distractions and in a
consistent, systematic, and diligent manner. PSOs may be on watch for a
maximum of 4 consecutive hours followed by a break of at least 2 hours
between watches and may conduct a maximum of 12 hours of observations
per 24-hr period. In cases where multiple vessels are surveying
concurrently, any observations of marine mammals would be communicated
to PSOs on all nearby survey vessels.
PSOs must be equipped with binoculars and have the ability to
estimate distance and bearing to detect marine mammals, particularly in
proximity to exclusion zones. Reticulated binoculars must also be
available to PSOs for use as appropriate based on conditions and
visibility to support the sighting and monitoring of marine mammals.
During nighttime operations, night-vision goggles with thermal clip-ons
and infrared technology would be used. Position data would be recorded
using hand-held or vessel GPS units for each sighting.
During good conditions (e.g., daylight hours; Beaufort sea state
(BSS) 3 or less), to the maximum extent practicable, PSOs would also
conduct observations when the acoustic source is not operating for
comparison of sighting rates and behavior with and without use of the
active acoustic sources. Any observations of marine mammals by crew
members aboard any vessel associated with the survey would be relayed
to the PSO team. Data on all PSO observations would be recorded based
on standard PSO collection requirements. This would include dates,
times, and locations of survey operations; dates and times of
observations, location and weather, details of marine mammal sightings
(e.g., species, numbers, behaviors); and details of any observed marine
mammal behavior that occurs (e.g., notes behavioral disturbances). For
more detail on the proposed monitoring requirements, see Condition 5 of
the draft IHA.
Proposed Reporting Measures
Within 90 days after completion of survey activities or expiration
of this IHA, whichever comes sooner, a draft comprehensive report will
be provided to NMFS that fully documents the methods and monitoring
protocols, summarizes the data recorded during monitoring, summarizes
the number of marine mammals observed during survey activities (by
species, when known), summarizes the mitigation actions taken during
surveys including what type of mitigation and the species and number of
animals that prompted the mitigation action, when known), and provides
an interpretation of the results and effectiveness of all mitigation
and monitoring. Any recommendations made by NMFS must be addressed in
the final report prior to acceptance by NMFS. A final report must be
submitted within 30 days following any comments on the draft report.
All draft and final marine mammal and acoustic monitoring reports must
be submitted to [email protected] and
[email protected] The report must contain at minimum, the following:
a. PSO names and affiliations;
a. Dates of departures and returns to port with port names;
b. Dates and times (Greenwich Mean Time) of survey effort and times
corresponding with PSO effort;
c. Vessel location (latitude/longitude) when survey effort begins
and ends; vessel location at beginning and end of visual PSO duty
shifts;
d. Vessel heading and speed at beginning and end of visual PSO duty
shifts and upon any line change;
e. Environmental conditions while on visual survey (at beginning
and end of PSO shift and whenever conditions change significantly),
including wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, Beaufort wind
force, swell height, weather conditions, cloud cover, sun glare, and
overall visibility to the horizon;
Factors that may be contributing to impaired observations
during each PSO shift change or as needed as environmental conditions
change (e.g., vessel traffic, equipment malfunctions); and
Survey activity information, such as type of survey
equipment in operation, acoustic source power output while in
operation, and any other notes of significance (i.e., pre-clearance
survey, ramp-up, shutdown, end of operations, etc.).
If a marine mammal is sighted, the following information should be
recorded:
a. Watch status (sighting made by PSO on/off effort, opportunistic,
crew, alternate vessel/platform);
b. PSO who sighted the animal;
c. Time of sighting;
d. Vessel location at time of sighting;
e. Water depth;
f. Direction of vessel's travel (compass direction);
g. Direction of animal's travel relative to the vessel;
h. Pace of the animal;
i. Estimated distance to the animal and its heading relative to
vessel at initial sighting;
Identification of the animal (e.g., genus/species, lowest
possible taxonomic level, or unidentified); also note the composition
of the group if there is a mix of species;
a. Estimated number of animals (high/low/best);
b. Estimated number of animals by cohort (adults, yearlings,
juveniles, calves, group composition, etc.);
c. Description (as many distinguishing features as possible of each
individual seen, including length, shape, color, pattern, scars or
markings, shape and size of dorsal fin, shape of head, and blow
characteristics);
Detailed behavior observations (e.g., number of blows,
number of surfaces, breaching, spyhopping, diving, feeding, traveling;
as explicit and detailed as possible; note any observed changes in
behavior);
a. Animal's closest point of approach and/or closest distance from
the center point of the acoustic source;
Platform activity at time of sighting (e.g., deploying,
recovering, testing, data acquisition, other); and
Description of any actions implemented in response to the
sighting (e.g., delays, shutdown, ramp-up, speed or course alteration,
etc.) and time and location of the action.
If a North Atlantic right whale is observed at any time by PSOs or
personnel on any project vessels, during surveys or during vessel
transit, Orsted must immediately report sighting information to the
NMFS North Atlantic Right Whale Sighting Advisory System: (866) 755-
6622. North Atlantic right whale sightings in any location may also be
reported to the U.S. Coast Guard via channel 16.
In the event that Orsted personnel discover an injured or dead
marine
[[Page 52536]]
mammal, Orsted will report the incident to the NMFS Office of Protected
Resources (OPR) and the NMFS New England/Mid-Atlantic Stranding
Coordinator as soon as feasible. The report would include the following
information:
Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first
discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);
a. Species identification (if known) or description of the
animal(s) involved;
b. Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if the
animal is dead);
c. Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
d. If available, photographs or video footage of the animal(s); and
e. General circumstances under which the animal was discovered.
In the unanticipated event of a ship strike of a marine mammal by
any vessel involved in this activities covered by the IHA, Orsted would
report the incident to NMFS OPR and the NMFS New/England/Mid-Atlantic
Stranding Coordinator as soon as feasible. The report would include the
following information:
a. Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
b. Species identification (if known) or description of the
animal(s) involved;
c. Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
d. Vessel's course/heading and what operations were being conducted
(if applicable);
e. Status of all sound sources in use;
f. Description of avoidance measures/requirements that were in
place at the time of the strike and what additional measures were
taken, if any, to avoid strike;
g. Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction,
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, visibility) immediately preceding the
strike;
h. Estimated size and length of animal that was struck;
i. Description of the behavior of the marine mammal immediately
preceding and following the strike;
j. If available, description of the presence and behavior of any
other marine mammals immediately preceding the strike;
k. Estimated fate of the animal (e.g., dead, injured but alive,
injured and moving, blood or tissue observed in the water, status
unknown, disappeared); and
l. To the extent practicable, photographs or video footage of the
animal(s).
Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough
information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to
considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be
``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the
likely nature of any impacts or responses (e.g., intensity, duration),
the context of any impacts or responses (e.g., critical reproductive
time or location, foraging impacts affecting energetics), as well as
effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness of the mitigation. We
also assess the number, intensity, and context of estimated takes by
evaluating this information relative to population status. Consistent
with the 1989 preamble for NMFS' implementing regulations (54 FR 40338;
September 29, 1989), the impacts from other past and ongoing
anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this analysis via their
impacts on the baseline (e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status of
the species, population size and growth rate where known, ongoing
sources of human-caused mortality, or ambient noise levels).
To avoid repetition, the discussion of our analysis applies to all
the species listed in Table 3, given that the anticipated effects of
this activity on these different marine mammal stocks are expected to
be similar. Where there are meaningful differences between species or
stocks--as is the case of the North Atlantic right whale--they are
included as separate subsections below. NMFS does not anticipate that
serious injury or mortality would occur as a result from HRG surveys,
even in the absence of mitigation, and no serious injury or mortality
is proposed to be authorized. As discussed in the Potential Effects of
Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and their Habitat section, non-
auditory physical effects and vessel strike are not expected to occur.
NMFS expects that all potential takes would be in the form of Level B
behavioral harassment in the form of temporary avoidance of the area or
decreased foraging (if such activity was occurring), reactions that are
considered to be of low severity and with no lasting biological
consequences (e.g., Southall et al., 2007, 2021). Even repeated Level B
harassment of some small subset of an overall stock is unlikely to
result in any significant realized decrease in viability for the
affected individuals, and thus would not result in any adverse impact
to the stock as a whole. As described above, Level A harassment is not
expected to occur given the nature of the operations and the estimated
small size of the Level A harassment zones.
In addition to being temporary, the maximum expected harassment
zone around the survey vessel is 141 m. Therefore, the ensonified area
surrounding each vessel is relatively small compared to the overall
distribution of the animals in the area and their use of the habitat.
Feeding behavior is not likely to be significantly impacted as prey
species are mobile and are broadly distributed throughout the project
area; therefore, marine mammals that may be temporarily displaced
during survey activities are expected to be able to resume foraging
once they have moved away from areas with disturbing levels of
underwater noise. Because of the temporary nature of the disturbance
and the availability of similar habitat and resources in the
surrounding area, the impacts to marine mammals and the food sources
that they utilize are not expected to cause significant or long-term
consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations.
There are no rookeries, mating or calving grounds known to be
biologically important to marine mammals within the proposed project
area. Several harbor and gray seal haul out sites have been identified
on Block Island, Great Gull Island, and Fishers Island as wells as
along Narragansett and Nantucket Sounds. As the acoustic footprint of
the proposed HRG activities is relatively small, hauled seals are not
expected to be impacted by these activities. In addition, cable
landfall sites have yet to be determined and may not be in the vicinity
of haul out sites. The proposed ECR area encompasses a feeding BIA for
fin whales east of Montauk Point, NY that is active from March through
October (LaBrecque et al., 2015). The fin whale feeding BIA is
extensive and sufficiently large (2,933 km\2\), and the acoustic
footprint of the proposed survey is sufficiently small (project area)
that feeding opportunities for fin whales would not be reduced
appreciably. Given the relatively small size of the ensonified area, it
is unlikely that prey availability would be adversely affected by HRG
survey
[[Page 52537]]
operations. In addition, feeding success is not likely to be
significantly affected as minimal impacts to prey species are expected,
for reasons as described above in the Potential Effects of Specified
Activities on Marine Mammals and their Habitat section.
North Atlantic Right Whale
The status of the North Atlantic right whale (NARW) population is
of heightened concern and therefore, merits additional analysis. As
noted previously, elevated NARW mortalities began in June 2017 and
there is an active UME. Overall, preliminary findings support human
interactions, specifically vessel strikes and entanglements, as the
cause of death for the majority of right whales. The proposed project
area overlaps with a migratory corridor BIA for North Atlantic right
whales (effective March-April; November-December) that extends from
Massachusetts to Florida and, off the coast of NY and RI, from the
coast to beyond the shelf break (LaBrecque et al., 2015). Right whale
migration is not expected to be impacted by the proposed survey due to
the very small size of the project area relative to the spatial extent
of the available migratory habitat in the BIA. The proposed project
area also overlaps with the Block Island seasonal management area
(SMA), active from November 1 to April 30. NARWs may be feeding or
migrating within the SMA. Required vessel strike avoidance measures and
following the speed restrictions of the SMA will decrease the risk of
ship strike during NARW migration; no ship strike is expected to occur
during Orsted's proposed activities. For reasons as described above,
minimal impacts are expected to prey availability and feeding success.
Additionally, HRG survey operations are required to maintain a 500
distance and shutdown if a NARW is sighted at or within 500 m. The 500
m shutdown zone for right whales is conservative, considering the Level
B harassment isopleth for the most impactful sources (i.e., GeoMarine
Sparkers, AA Dura-spark UHD Sparkers, AA Triple plate S-Boom) is
estimated to be 141 m, and thereby minimizes the potential for
behavioral harassment of this species. Therefore only very limited take
by Level B harassment of NARW has been requested and is being proposed
for authorization by NMFS. As noted previously, Level A harassment is
not expected, nor authorized, due to the small PTS zones associated
with HRG equipment types proposed for use. NMFS does not anticipate
NARW takes that result from the proposed survey activities would impact
annual rates of recruitment or survival. Thus, any takes that occur
would not result in population level impacts.
Other Marine Mammals With Active UMEs
As noted previously, there are several active UMEs occurring in the
vicinity of Orsted's proposed project area. Elevated humpback whale
mortalities have occurred along the Atlantic coast from Maine through
Florida since January 2016. Of the cases examined, approximately half
had evidence of human interaction (ship strike or entanglement). The
UME does not yet provide cause for concern regarding population-level
impacts. Despite the UME, the relevant population of humpback whales
(the West Indies breeding population, or DPS) remains stable at
approximately 12,000 individuals.
Beginning in January 2017, elevated minke whale strandings have
occurred along the Atlantic coast from Maine through South Carolina,
with highest numbers in Massachusetts, Maine, and New York. This event
does not provide cause for concern regarding population level impacts,
as the likely population abundance is greater than 20,000 whales.
The required mitigation measures are expected to reduce the number
and/or severity of proposed takes for all species listed in Table 3,
including those with active UMEs, to the level of least practicable
adverse impact. In particular, they would provide animals the
opportunity to move away from the sound source before HRG survey
equipment reaches full energy, thus preventing them from being exposed
to more severe Level B harassment. No Level A harassment is
anticipated, even in the absence of mitigation measures, or proposed
for authorization.
NMFS expects that takes would be in the form of short-term Level B
behavioral harassment by way of brief startling reactions and/or
temporary vacating of the area, or decreased foraging in the area (if
such activity was occurring)--reactions that (at the scale and
intensity anticipated here) are considered to be of low severity, with
no lasting biological consequences. Since both the sources and marine
mammals are mobile, animals would only be exposed briefly to a small
ensonified area that might result in take. Required mitigation
measures, such as shutdown zones and ramp up, would further reduce
exposure to sound that could result in more severe behavioral
harassment.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily
support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from
this activity are not expected to adversely affect any of the species
or stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or
authorized;
No Level A harassment (PTS) is anticipated, even in the
absence of mitigation measures, or proposed for authorization;
Foraging success is not likely to be significantly
impacted as effects on species that serve as prey species for marine
mammals from the survey are expected to be minimal;
The availability of alternate areas of similar habitat
value for marine mammals to temporarily vacate the ensonified area
during the planned surveys to avoid exposure to sounds from the
activity;
Take is anticipated to be of Level B behavioral harassment
only consisting of brief startling reactions and/or temporary avoidance
of the ensonified area;
While the project area is within areas noted as a
migratory BIA and SMA for North Atlantic right whales, the activities
would occur in such a comparatively small area such that any avoidance
of the ensonified area due to activities would not affect migration. In
addition, mitigation measures require shutdown at 500 m (almost four
times the size of the Level B harassment isopleth (141 m), which
minimizes the effects of the take on the species; and
The proposed mitigation measures, including visual
monitoring and shutdowns, are expected to minimize potential impacts to
marine mammals.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and
mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine
mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on
all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
Small Numbers
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be
authorized under sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for
specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA
does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated
numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to
the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or
[[Page 52538]]
stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to
small numbers of marine mammals. When the predicted number of
individuals to be taken is fewer than one-third of the species or stock
abundance, the take is considered to be of small numbers. Additionally,
other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as
the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
The amount of take NMFS proposes to authorize is below one third of
the estimated stock abundance for all species (in fact, take of
individuals is less than 6 percent of the abundance of the affected
stocks for these species, see Table 8). The figures presented in Table
8 are likely conservative estimates as they assume all takes are of
different individual animals which is likely not to be the case. Some
individuals may return multiple times in a day, but PSOs would count
them as separate takes if they cannot be individually identified.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity
(including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the
anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small
numbers of marine mammals would be taken relative to the population
size of the affected species or stocks.
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine
mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has
determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would
not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such
species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Endangered Species Act
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any
action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated
critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs,
NMFS Office of Protected Resources (OPR) consults internally whenever
we propose to authorize take for endangered or threatened species.
NMFS OPR is proposing to authorize the incidental take of four
species of marine mammals which are listed under the ESA, including the
North Atlantic right, fin, sei, and sperm whale, and has determined
that these activities fall within the scope of activities analyzed 107
in GARFO's programmatic consultation regarding geophysical surveys
along the U.S. Atlantic coast in the three Atlantic Renewable Energy
Regions (completed June 29, 2021; revised September 2021).
Proposed Authorization
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to
issue an IHA to Orsted for conducting site characterization surveys off
the coast of New York and Rhode Island from September 25, 2022 through
September 24, 2023, provided the previously mentioned mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. A draft of the
proposed IHA can be found at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-other-energy-activities-renewable.
Request for Public Comments
We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and
any other aspect of this notice of proposed IHA for the proposed HRG
surveys. We also request comment on the potential renewal of this
proposed IHA as described in the paragraph below. Please include with
your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help
inform decisions on the request for this IHA or a subsequent renewal
IHA.
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time, one-year
renewal IHA following notice to the public providing an additional 15
days for public comments when (1) up to another year of identical or
nearly identical activities as described in the Description of Proposed
Activities section of this notice is planned or (2) the activities as
described in the Description of Proposed Activities section of this
notice would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and a renewal
would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in
the Dates and Duration section of this notice, provided all of the
following conditions are met:
A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days
prior to the needed renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the
renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond one year from
expiration of the initial IHA).
The request for renewal must include the following:
(1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the
requested renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under
the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so
minor (e.g., reduction in pile size) that the changes do not affect the
previous analyses, mitigation and monitoring requirements, or take
estimates (with the exception of reducing the type or amount of take).
(2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the
required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the
monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not
previously analyzed or authorized.
Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected
species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines
that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the
mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and
appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.
Dated: August 23, 2022.
Kimberly Damon-Randall,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-18454 Filed 8-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P