Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the New England Wind Project Offshore Massachusetts, 37606-37702 [2023-11814]
Download as PDF
37606
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 217
[Docket No. 230530–0140]
RIN 0648–BL96
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to
Specified Activities; Taking Marine
Mammals Incidental to the New
England Wind Project Offshore
Massachusetts
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; proposed letter
of authorization; request for comments.
AGENCY:
NMFS has received a request
from Park City Wind, LLC (Park City
Wind) for Incidental Take Regulations
(ITR) and an associated Letter of
Authorization (LOA) pursuant to the
Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA). The requested regulations
would govern the authorization of take,
by Level A harassment and/or Level B
harassment, of small numbers of marine
mammals over the course of 5 years
(2025–2030) incidental to construction
of the New England Wind Project. Park
City Wind proposes to develop the New
England Wind Project in two phases,
known as Park City Wind (Phase 1) and
Commonwealth Wind (Phase 2). Project
activities that may result in incidental
take include pile driving (impact and
vibratory), drilling, unexploded
ordnance or munitions and explosives
of concern (UXO/MEC) detonation, and
vessel-based site assessment surveys
using high-resolution geophysical (HRG)
equipment. NMFS requests comments
on this proposed rule. NMFS will
consider public comments prior to
making any final decision on the
promulgation of the requested ITR and
issuance of the LOA; agency responses
to public comments will be summarized
in the final rule, if issued. If adopted,
the proposed regulations would be
effective March 27, 2025, through March
26, 2030.
DATES: Comments and information must
be received no later than July 10, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking
Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov and
enter NOAA–NMFS–2023–0080 in the
Search box. Click on the ‘‘Comment’’
icon, complete the required fields, and
enter or attach your comments.
Instructions: Comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
individual, or received after the end of
the comment period, may not be
considered by NMFS. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted for public
viewing on www.regulations.gov
without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address),
confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive information
submitted voluntarily by the sender will
be publicly accessible. NMFS will
accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/
A’’ in the required fields if you wish to
remain anonymous). Attachments to
electronic comments will be accepted in
Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF
file formats only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jaclyn Daly, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427–8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability
A copy of Park City Wind’s Incidental
Take Authorization (ITA) application
and supporting documents, as well as a
list of the references cited in this
document, may be obtained online at
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/marine-mammal-protection/
incidental-take-authorizations-otherenergy-activities-renewable. In case of
problems accessing these documents,
please call the contact listed above (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Purpose and Need for Regulatory
Action
This proposed rule would provide a
framework under the authority of the
MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) to allow
for the authorization of take of marine
mammals incidental to construction of
the New England Wind Project within
the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management (BOEM) Renewable Energy
Lease Area OCS–A 0534, the southwest
(SW) portion of Lease Area OCS–A
0501, and along an export cable corridor
to a landfall location in Massachusetts.
NMFS received a request from Park City
Wind for 5-year regulations and an LOA
that would authorize take, by Level A
harassment and/or Level B harassment,
of 39 species of marine mammals
incidental to Park City Wind’s
construction activities. After reviewing
the request, NMFS is proposing to
authorize the take, by harassment only,
of 38 species, representing 38 stocks. No
mortality or serious injury is anticipated
or proposed for authorization. Please see
the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals
section below for definitions of relevant
terms.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Legal Authority for the Proposed Action
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, regulations are promulgated,
and public notice and an opportunity
for public comment are provided.
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 as ‘‘mitigation’’); and
requirements pertaining to the
mitigation, monitoring and reporting of
the takings are set forth.
As noted above, no serious injury or
mortality is anticipated or proposed for
authorization in this proposed rule.
Relevant definitions of MMPA statutory
and regulatory terms are included
below:
• Citizen—individual U.S. citizens or
any corporation or similar entity if it is
organized under the laws of the United
States or any governmental unit defined
in 16 U.S.C. 1362(13) (see 50 CFR
216.103);
• Take—to harass, hunt, capture, or
kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture,
or kill any marine mammal (16 U.S.C.
1362);
• Incidental taking—an accidental
taking. This does not mean that the
taking is unexpected, but rather it
includes those takings that are
infrequent, unavoidable or accidental
(see 50 CFR 216.103);
• Serious Injury—any injury that will
likely result in mortality (50 CFR 216.3);
• Level A harassment—any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which
has the potential to injure a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild (16 U.S.C. 1362; 50 CFR 216.3);
and
• Level B harassment—any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance which
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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 (16 U.S.C. 1362).
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA and
the implementing regulations at 50 CFR
part 216, subpart I provide the legal
basis for proposing and, if appropriate,
issuing 5-year regulations and an
associated LOA. This proposed rule also
establishes required mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements
for Park City Wind’s activities.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Summary of Major Provisions Within
the Proposed Action
The major provisions within this
proposed rule are as follows:
• Authorize take of marine mammals
by Level A harassment and/or Level B
harassment.
• No mortality or serious injury of
any marine mammal is proposed to be
authorized;
• Establish a seasonal moratorium on
foundation installation and UXO/MEC
detonations during the months of
highest North Atlantic right whale
(Eubalaena glacialis) presence in the
project area (no foundation installation
or UXO/MEC detonation from January
1–April 30; no vibratory pile driving in
May and December; impact pile driving
and drilling activities would not be
planned or occur in December unless
due to unforeseen circumstances and
only with NMFS’ approval; UXO/MEC
detonations would not be planned or
occur in December or May unless due to
unforeseen circumstances and only with
NMFS’ approval);
• Enhanced North Atlantic right
whale clearance, shutdown and restart
procedures May 1 through May 14 and
November 1 through December 31 (if a
seasonally-restricted activity is
approved in December due to
unforeseen circumstances);
• Require both visual and passive
acoustic monitoring by trained, NOAA
Fisheries-approved Protected Species
Observers (PSOs) and Passive Acoustic
Monitoring (PAM; where required)
operators before, during, and after select
activities;
• Require the use of sound
attenuation device(s) during all
foundation installation activities and
UXO/MEC detonations to reduce noise
levels;
• Delay the start of foundation
installation and UXO/MEC detonations
if a North Atlantic right whale is
observed at any distance by PSOs or
acoustically detected within certain
distances;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
• Delay the start of foundation
installation and UXO/MEC detonations
if other marine mammals are observed
entering or within their respective
clearance zones;
• Shut down pile driving (if feasible)
if a North Atlantic right whale is
observed or if other marine mammals
enter their respective shut down zones;
• Implement sound field verification
requirements during impact pile driving
and UXO/MEC detonations to measure
in situ noise levels for comparison
against the model results;
• Implement soft-starts for impact
pile driving and use the least hammer
energy possible;
• Require PSOs to continue to
monitor for the presence of marine
mammals for 30 minutes after any
impact pile driving occurs;
• Implement ramp-up for HRG site
characterization survey equipment;
• Increase awareness of North
Atlantic right whale presence through
monitoring of the appropriate networks
and Channel 16, as well as reporting any
sightings to the sighting network;
• Implement various vessel strike
avoidance measures;
• Implement Best Management
Practices (BMPs) during fisheries
monitoring surveys, such as removing
gear from the water if marine mammals
are considered at-risk or are interacting
with gear; and
• Require frequent scheduled and
situational reporting including, but not
limited to, information regarding
activities occurring, marine mammal
observations and acoustic detections,
and sound field verification monitoring
results.
Under Section 105(a)(1) of the MMPA,
failure to comply with these
requirements or any other requirements
in a regulation or permit implementing
the MMPA may result in civil monetary
penalties. Pursuant to 50 CFR 216.106,
violations may also result in suspension
or withdrawal of the Letter of
Authorization (LOA) for the project.
Knowing violations may result in
criminal penalties under Section 105(b)
of the MMPA.
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)
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 evaluate the
proposed action (i.e., promulgation of
regulations and subsequent issuance of
a 5-year LOA) and alternatives with
respect to potential impacts on the
human environment.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37607
Accordingly, NMFS proposes to adopt
the BOEM’s Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS), provided our
independent evaluation of the
document finds that it includes
adequate information analyzing the
effects of promulgating the proposed
regulations and LOA issuance on the
human environment. NMFS is a
cooperating agency on BOEM’s EIS.
BOEM’s draft EIS, ‘‘New England Wind
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) for Commercial Wind Lease
OCS–A0534’’, was made available for
public comment on December 23, 2022
(87 FR 78993), beginning the 60-day
comment period ending on February 21,
2023. Additionally, BOEM held three
virtual public hearings on January 27,
February 1, and February 6, 2023.
Information contained within Park
City Wind’s incidental take
authorization (ITA) application and this
Federal Register document provide the
environmental information related to
these proposed regulations and
associated 5-year LOA for public review
and comment. NMFS will review all
comments submitted in response to this
notice of proposed rulemaking prior to
concluding the NEPA process or making
a final decision on the requested 5-year
ITR and LOA.
Fixing America’s Surface
Transportation Act (FAST–41)
This project is covered under Title 41
of the Fixing America’s Surface
Transportation Act, or ‘‘FAST–41’’.
FAST–41 includes a suite of provisions
designed to expedite the environmental
review for covered infrastructure
projects, including enhanced
interagency coordination as well as
milestone tracking on the public-facing
Permitting Dashboard. FAST–41 also
places a 2-year limitations period on
any judicial claim that challenges the
validity of a Federal agency decision to
issue or deny an authorization for a
FAST–41 covered project. 42 U.S.C.
4370m–6(a)(1)(A).
Park City Wind’s proposed project is
listed on the Permitting Dashboard,
where milestones and schedules related
to the environmental review and
permitting for the project can be found
at https://
www.permits.performance.gov/
permitting-project/new-england-wind.
Summary of Request
On December 1, 2021, Park City
Wind, a limited liability company
registered in the State of Delaware and
wholly owned subsidiary of Avangrid
Renewables, LLC, submitted a request
for the promulgation of regulations and
issuance of an associated 5-year LOA to
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
37608
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
take marine mammals incidental to
construction activities associated with
implementation of the New England
Wind Project (hereafter ‘‘Project’’)
offshore of Massachusetts in the BOEM
Lease Area OCS–A 0534 and the
possible use of their southwest (SW)
portion of Lease Area OCS–A 0501. The
request was for the incidental, but not
intentional, taking of a small number of
39 marine mammal species (comprising
38 stocks). Neither Park City Wind nor
NMFS expects serious injury or
mortality to result from the specified
activities nor is any proposed for
authorization.
Park City Wind is proposing to
develop the Project in two phases with
a maximum of 132 wind turbine
generators (WTGs) and electrical service
platforms (ESP) positions. Two
positions may potentially have colocated ESPs (i.e., two foundations
installed at one grid position); hence,
the 132 foundations would be installed
at 130 positions in the lease area. Phase
1 would include 41 to 62 WTGs and 1
or 2 ESPs while Phase 2 would include
64 to 88 WTG/ESP positions (up to 3 of
those positions will be occupied by
ESPs). Four or five offshore export
cables will transmit electricity generated
by the WTGs to onshore transmission
systems in the Town of Barnstable,
Massachusetts.
In response to our questions and
comments and following extensive
information exchange between Park City
Wind and NMFS, Park City Wind
submitted a final revised application on
July 13, 2022. NMFS deemed it
adequate and complete on July 20, 2022.
This final application is available on
NMFS’ website at https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/protectedresource-regulations.
On August 22, 2022, NMFS published
a notice of receipt (NOR) of Park City
Wind’s adequate and complete
application in the Federal Register (87
FR 51345), requesting public comments
and information on Park City Wind’s
request during a 30-day public comment
period. During the NOR public
comment period, NMFS received
comment letters from one private citizen
and one non-governmental organization
(ALLCO Renewable Energy Limited).
NMFS has reviewed all submitted
material and has taken the material into
consideration during the drafting of this
proposed rule. In January 2023 and
again in March 2023, Park City Wind
submitted memos to NMFS detailing
updates and changes to their ITA
application (‘‘Application Update
Report’’). These are available on the
NMFS website at https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
incidental-take-authorization-park-citywind-llc-construction-new-englandwind-offshore-wind.
NMFS previously issued one
Incidental Harassment Authorization
(IHA) to Park City Wind for the taking
of marine mammals incidental to
marine site characterization surveys,
using high-resolution geophysical (HRG)
of the Project Phase 1 in the BOEM
Lease Area OCS–A 0534 (87 FR 44087,
July 07, 2022). NMFS has also
previously issued another IHA to
Avangrid Renewables, LLC (Avangrid),
owner of Park City Wind, LLC, to take
small numbers of marine mammals
incidental to an HRG survey for a BOEM
Lease Area (OCS–A 0508) off the coasts
of North Carolina and Virginia (84 FR
31032, June 28, 2019). To date, Park City
Wind and Avangrid have complied with
all IHA requirements (e.g., mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting). Applicable
monitoring results may be found in the
Estimated Take of Marine Mammals
section. If available, the full monitoring
reports can be found on NMFS’ website
at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/marine-mammal-protection/
incidental-take-authorizations-otherenergy-activities-renewable.
On August 1, 2022, NMFS announced
proposed changes to the existing North
Atlantic right whale vessel speed
regulations (87 FR 46921, August 1,
2022) 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.
Should a final vessel speed rule be
issued and become effective during the
effective period of this ITR (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. The
responsibility to comply with the
applicable requirements of any vessel
speed rule would become effective
immediately upon the effective date of
any final vessel speed rule and, when
notice is published on the effective date,
NMFS would also notify Park City Wind
if the measures in the speed rule were
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
to supersede any of the measures in the
MMPA authorization such that they
were no longer required.
Description of the Specified Activities
Overview
Park City Wind has proposed to
construct and operate a wind energy
facility in State and Federal waters in
the Atlantic Ocean in lease area OCS–
A 0534. This lease area is located within
the Massachusetts Wind Energy Area
(MA WEA) and adjacent to the Rhode
Island/Massachusetts Wind Energy Area
(RI/MA WEA). The Project will occupy
all of Lease Area OCS–A 0534 and
potentially a portion of Lease Area
OCS–A 0501 in the event that Vineyard
Wind 1 does not develop spare or extra
positions included in Lease Area OCS–
A 0501. If Vineyard Wind 1 does not
develop spare or extra positions in
Lease Area OCS–A 0501, those positions
would be assigned to Lease Area OCS–
A 0534. Accordingly, for the purposes of
the LOA, Park City Wind has defined
the Southern Wind Development Area
(SWDA) as all of Lease Area OCS–A
0534 and the southwest portion of Lease
Area OCS–A 0501.
The Project would consist of several
different types of permanent offshore
infrastructure, including wind turbine
generators (WTGs) and associated
foundations, ESPs, and offshore cabling.
Onshore cabling, substations, and
operations and maintenance (O&M)
facilities are also planned. The Project is
divided into two phases: Park City Wind
(Phase 1) and Commonwealth Wind
(Phase 2). Phase 1 would occupy 150–
231 km2 (37,066–57,081 acres) which
would include 41–62 WTGs and 1–2
ESPs. Phase 1 includes two WTG
foundation types: monopiles and piled
jackets. The ESP(s) will also be
supported by a monopile or jacket
foundation. Strings of WTGs will
connect with the ESP(s) via a submarine
inter-array cable transmission system.
Two high-voltage alternating current
(HVAC) offshore export cables, up to
101 km (62.8 mi) in length per cable,
would be installed within the SWDA.
An Offshore Export Cable Corridor
(OECC) would transmit electricity from
the ESP(s) to a landfall site.
Phase 2 depends upon the final
footprint of Phase 1. Phase 2 is expected
to contain 64 to 88 WTGs and 1–3 ESP
positions within an area ranging from
222–303 km2 (54,857–74,873 acres).
Phase 2 includes three general WTG
foundation types: monopiles, jackets
(with piles or suction buckets), or
bottom-frame foundations (with piles or
suction buckets). Inter-array cables will
transmit electricity from the WTGs to
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
the ESP(s). The ESP(s) will also be
supported by a monopile or jacket
foundation (with piles or suction
buckets). Two or three HVAC offshore
export cables, each with a maximum
length of 116–124 km (63–67 NM) per
cable, will transmit power from the
ESP(s) to shore. All Phase 2 offshore
export cables are planned to use the
same OECC as the Phase 1. Cables for
Phase 1 and Phase 2 will diverge 2–3
km (1–2 mi) from shore to unique
landfall locations.
The installation of WTGs and ESPs,
would require impact and vibratory pile
driving and drilling. Work would also
include HRG vessel-based site
characterization surveys using active
acoustic sources with frequencies of less
than 180 kHz and the potential
detonations of 10 unexploded
ordnances or Munitions and Explosives
of Concern (UXO/MEC) of different
charge weights. Additionally, project
plans include trenching, laying, and
burial activities associated with the
installation of the export cable route
from the ESP to the shore-based landing
locations and the inter-array cables
between turbines; site preparation work
(e.g., boulder removal); placement of
scour protection around foundations;
and several types of fishery and
ecological monitoring surveys. Vessels
would transit within the project area
and between ports and the wind farm to
transport crew, supplies, and materials
to support pile installation. All offshore
cables will connect to onshore export
cables, substations, and grid
connections, which would be located in
Barnstable County, Massachusetts.
Marine mammals exposed to elevated
noise levels during impact and vibratory
pile driving, drilling, detonations of
UXOs, or site characterization surveys
may be taken by Level A harassment
37609
and/or Level B harassment depending
on the specified activity. No serious
injury or mortality is anticipated or
proposed for authorization.
Dates and Duration
Park City Wind anticipates that the
Project activities with the potential to
result in harassment of marine
mammals would occur throughout all 5
years of the proposed regulations which,
if promulgated, would be effective from
March 27, 2025 through March 26, 2030.
The estimated schedule, including dates
and duration, for various activities is
provided in Table 1 (also see Tables 1–
3 in Application Update Report).
However, this proposed rule considers
the potential for activity schedules to
shift. Detailed information about the
activities themselves may be found in
the Detailed Description of the Specific
Activities subsection.
TABLE 1—ESTIMATED ACTIVITY SCHEDULE TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE THE PROJECT
Project activity
Estimated schedule
HRG Surveys .....................................................
Scour Protection Pre- or Post-Installation .........
WTG and ESP Foundation Installation, Schedule A.
WTG and ESP Foundation Installation, Schedule B.
Horizontal Directional Drilling at Cable Landfall
Sites.
UXO/MEC Detonations ......................................
Q1 2025–Q4 2029 ...........................................
Q1 2025–Q4 2029 ...........................................
Q2–Q4 2026 and 2027 1 ..................................
Any time of the year, up to 25 days per year.
Any time of the year.
Up to 8 months per year.
Q2–Q4 2026, 2027, and 2028 1 .......................
Up to 8 months per year.
Q4 2025–Q2 2026 ...........................................
Up to 150 days.
Q2–Q4 2025 and 2026 3 ..................................
Inter-array Cable Installation ..............................
Export Cable Installation and Termination ........
Q3–Q4 2026 and Q2 2027–Q2 2028 ..............
Q2 2026–Q2 2028 ...........................................
Fishery Monitoring Surveys ...............................
Q1 2025–Q4 2029 ...........................................
Up to 6 days in 2025 and 4 days in 2026. No
more than 10 days total.
Phase 1: 5 months; 2 Phase 2: 10 months.2
Phase 1: 8–9 months; 1 Phase 2: 13–17
months.1
Any time of year.
Turbine Operation ..............................................
Estimated duration
Initial turbines operational 2027, all turbines operational by 2028.
1 Foundation
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
installation pile driving would be limited to May 1–December 31, annually; however, pile driving in December will not be planned
but may occur due to unforeseen circumstances (e.g., unanticipated extended weather delays, unexpected technical difficulties) and with NMFS
approval.
2 The Project is divided into 2 phases: Park City Wind (Phase 1) and Commonwealth Wind (Phase 2).
3 Park City Wind requested UXO/MEC detonations be allowed Q1 2025–Q4 2026. We propose to only allow it May–December 2025 and 2026.
Specific Geographic Region
Park City Wind would construct the
Project in Federal waters offshore of
Massachusetts (Figure 1). The project
area is part of the Rhode Island/
Massachusetts Wind Energy Area (RIMA WEA). The project area covers
approximately 101,590 acres (411 km2)
in Lease Area OCS–A 0534. The project
area is located about 20 miles (32 km)
southwest of Martha’s Vineyard, about
24 miles (39 km) south of Nantucket,
and adjacent to the southwest boundary
of the BOEM-approved Vineyard Wind
1 energy project (Lease Area OCS–A
0501; 65,296 acres (262 km2) assigned
for potential Project development).
Water depths in the project area range
from 43 to 62 m (141–203 ft) and in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
OECC range from less than 2 m to 46 m
(<7–151 ft). The onshore components of
the Project will include up to three
export cable landfalls in Barnstable
County, Massachusetts (one for Phase 1
and up to two for Phase 2).
Park City Wind’s specified activities
would occur in the Northeast U.S.
Continental Shelf Large Marine
Ecosystem (NES LME), an area of
approximately 260,000 km2 from Cape
Hatteras in the south to the Gulf of
Maine in the north. Specifically, the
lease area and cable corridor are located
within the Mid-Atlantic Bight subarea of
the NES LME, which extends between
Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, and
Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts,
extending westward into the Atlantic to
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the 100-m isobath. In the Mid-Atlantic
Bight, which extends from
Massachusetts to North Carolina, the
pattern of sediment distribution is
relatively simple. The continental shelf
south of New England is broad and flat,
dominated by fine grained sediments.
Most of the surficial sediments on the
continental shelf are sands and gravels.
Silts and clays predominate at and
beyond the shelf edge, with most of the
slope being 70–100 percent mud. Fine
sediments are also common in the shelf
valleys leading to the submarine
canyons, as well as in areas such as the
‘‘Mud Patch’’ south of Rhode Island.
There are some larger materials,
including boulders and rocks, left on the
seabed by retreating glaciers, along the
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
37610
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
coast of Long Island and to the north
and east.
In support of the Rhode Island Ocean
Special Area Management Plan
development process, Codiga and
Ullman (2011) reviewed and
summarized the physical oceanography
of coastal waters off Rhode Island.
Conditions off the coast of Rhode Island
are shaped by a complex interplay
among wind-driven variability, tidal
processes, and density gradients that
arise from combined effects of
interaction with adjacent estuaries, solar
heating, and heat flux through the airsea interface. In winter and fall, the
stratification is minimal and circulation
is a weak upwelling pattern directed
offshore at shallow depths and onshore
near the seafloor. In spring and summer,
strong stratification develops due to an
important temperature contribution, and
a system of more distinct currents
occurs, including a narrow flow that
proceeds counterclockwise around the
perimeter of Rhode Island Sound (RIS)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
likely in association with a tidal mixing
front.
The waters in the vicinity of the
Project are transitional waters
positioned between the continental
slope and the coastal environments of
Rhode Island Sound and Nantucket
Sound. The region is generally
characterized by predominantly mobile
sandy substrate, and the associated
benthic communities are adopted to
survive in a dynamic environment. The
WEAs are composed of a mix of soft and
hard bottom environments as defined by
the dominant sediment grain size and
composition (Continental Margin
Mapping Program [Department of the
Interior, 2020]; usSEABED (USGS,
2020)).
The benthic environment of the RIMA WEA is dominated by sandy
sediments that ranged from very fine to
medium sand; very fine sands tend to be
more prevalent in deeper, lower energy
areas (i.e., the southern portion of the
MA WEA), whereas coarser sediments,
including gravels (e.g., patchy cobbles
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and boulders) were found in shallower
areas (Bay State Wind, 2019; Deepwater
Wind South Fork, LLC, 2019; DWW Rev
I, LLC, 2020; Stokesbury, 2014;
LaFrance et al., 2010; McMaster, 1960;
Popper et al., 2014). The species that
inhabit the benthic habitats of the OCS
are typically described as infaunal
species, those living in the sediments
(e.g., polychaetes, amphipods,
mollusks), and epifaunal species, those
living on the seafloor surface (mobile,
e.g., sea starts, sand dollars, sand
shrimp) or attached to substrates
(sessile, e.g., barnacles, anemones,
tunicates). Further detail on the benthic
habitats found in the project area,
including the results of site-specific
benthic habitat assessments, can be
found within Construction and
Operations Plan (COP) Volume II–A,
Section 5—Results Of Biological
Surveys and COP Volume II–A
Appendices—Appendix II–H 2016–2020
Benthic Reports.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
Detailed Description of Specific
Activities
Below, we provide detailed
descriptions of Park City Wind’s
activities, explicitly noting those that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
are anticipated to result in the take of
marine mammals and for which
incidental take authorization is
requested. Additionally, a brief
explanation is provided for those
activities that are not expected to result
in the take of marine mammals.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37611
WTG and ESP Foundation Installation
Park City Wind proposes to install a
maximum of 130 wind turbine generator
(WTG) and electrical service platform
(ESP) positions. Two positions may
potentially have co-located ESPs (i.e., 1
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
EP08JN23.000
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
37612
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
WTG and 1 ESP foundation installed at
1 grid position), resulting in 132
foundations. The WTGs would have a
maximum tip height of 357 m (1,171 ft)
and a maximum penetration depth of 85
m (279 ft). Each turbine would be
spaced 1 nautical mile (nmi) apart in
fixed east-to-west rows and north-tosouth columns to create the 1 nmi by 1
nmi grid arrangement. Park City Wind
anticipates that the initial WTGs (41–62
WTGs) would become operational in
2027 after installation is completed and
all necessary components, such as array
cables, ESPs, export cable routes, and
onshore substations. Park City Wind
expects that all remaining turbines will
be operational by 2028. No more than
one foundation will be installed at a
time (i.e., concurrent/simultaneous pile
driving of foundations would not
occur).
Phase 1 will include 41 to 62 WTGs
and 1 or 2 ESPs for a total of 42 to 64
foundations. The total number of
foundations in Phase 2 depends upon
the final footprint of Phase 1. Phase 2 is
expected to contain 64 to 88 WTG/ESP
foundations (up to 3 of those positions
will be occupied by ESPs). While only
132 foundations would be permanently
installed, Park City Wind has accounted
for up to 133 pile driving events in its
take request to account for the instance
wherein foundation installation began
but is unable to be completed due to
environmental or engineering
constraints and the pile is re-driven at
another position.
Phase 1 foundation types would be
monopiles or jackets while Phase 2
foundation types include monopiles,
jackets, or bottom-frame foundations.
Jacket foundations require the
installation of three to four jacket
securing piles, known as pin piles. The
bottom-frame foundation is similar to a
conventional jacket foundation, but
generally has fewer, larger structural
tubular members, has a triangular space
frame, no small-diameter lattice crossbracing, and a single central vertical
tubular column. At each foot, the
structure would be secured to the
seafloor using driven piles similar to
those used by piled jacket foundations
or suction buckets. For purposes of this
analysis, the use of suction buckets to
secure bottom-frame foundations is not
being considered further in this analysis
as installation of bottom-frame
foundations using suction buckets is not
anticipated to result in noise levels that
would cause harassment to marine
mammals.
The applicant proposed two
construction schedules, A and B.
Construction schedule A assumes a
single 2-year construction scenario.
Overall, 89 monopile foundations and 2
jacket foundations (8 pin piles) would
be installed in 2026 over 52 days and 18
monopile foundations and 24 jacket
foundations (96 pin piles) would be
installed in 2027 over 35 days for a total
of 87 days of pile driving to install all
133 foundations. All days would
include impact pile driving and a subset
may include vibratory pile driving and
drilling. No more than one foundation
would be installed at a time (i.e.,
concurrent/simultaneous installation of
more than one foundation would not
occur). Park City Wind anticipates that
a maximum of two monopiles or one
jacket (up to four pin piles) is expected
to be installed per day.
Construction schedule B assumes that
all construction would occur over a 3year period (2026–2028). Overall, 55
monopile foundations and 3 jacket
foundations (12 pin piles) would be
installed in 2026 over 38 days, 53
jackets (212 piles) would be installed in
2027 over 53 days, and 22 jackets (88
pin piles) would be installed over 22
days in 2028. In total, 133 foundations
would be installed over 113 days.
Similar to Schedule A, all days would
include impact pile driving and a subset
may include vibratory pile driving and
drilling. Please see Table 2 and 3 in Park
City Wind’s March 2023 Application
Update Report. Table 2 provides a
summary of Construction Schedule A
and B.
TABLE 2—FOUNDATION INSTALLATION CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULES
[Days]
Schedule A
Schedule B
Foundation type
2026
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Monopiles ................................................
Jackets ....................................................
No. of Days .............................................
89
2
52
Monopiles would be up to 12 m
(39.37 ft) or 13 m (42.7 ft) in diameter
and could be installed in both Phases 1
and 2. Jacket foundations require up to
four pin piles and each would have a
maximum diameter of 4 m (13.1 ft)
diameter (see Figures 3–6 in the ITA
application). When accounting for prepiling preparatory work and post-piling
activities, installation of a single
monopile or jacket pile will take
approximately 6–13 hours. Park City
Wind anticipates at least 1 hour
between monopile installations and 30
minutes between jacket pin pile
installations. Park City Wind anticipates
that a maximum of two monopiles or
one jacket (up to four pin piles) is
expected to be installed per day. Pile
driving activities could occur within the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
2027
Total
18
24
35
2026
107
26
87
8-month period of May through
December.
A WTG monopile foundation
typically consists of a single steel
tubular section with several sections of
rolled steel plate welded together and
secured to the seabed. Secondary
structures on each WTG monopile
foundation will include a boat landing
or alternative means of safe access,
ladders, a crane, and other ancillary
components. A typical monopile
installation sequence begins with the
monopiles transported directly to the
project area for installation or to the
construction staging port by an
installation vessel or a feeding barge. At
the foundation location, the main
installation vessel upends the monopile
in a vertical position in the pile gripper
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2027
55
3
38
2028
0
53
53
Total
0
22
22
55
78
113
mounted on the side of the vessel. The
hammer is then lifted on top of the pile
and pile driving commences with a softstart and proceeds to completion. Piles
are driven until the target embedment
depth is met (up to 50 m), then the pile
hammer is removed and the monopile is
released from the pile gripper. Once
installation of the monopile is complete,
the vessel moves to the next installation
location.
Monopiles would be installed using a
5,000 kJ to 6,000 kJ hammer to a
maximum penetration depth of 40 m
(131 ft). Park City Wind estimates that
a monopile could require up to 6,970
strikes at up to 30.0 blows per minute
(bpm) to reach full penetration depth. It
is expected that each monopile
installation will last less than 6 hours,
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
with most installations anticipated to
last between 3–4 hours. Figures 3–6 in
Park City Wind’s ITA application
provide a conceptual example of the
WTG support structures (i.e., towers and
foundations). WTGs would be designed
to withstand severe weather conditions
anticipated at the SWDA (COP
Appendix I–E). While major storms,
winter nor’easters, and, to a lesser
extent, hurricanes pass through the
SWDA regularly, the Project’s offshore
facilities are designed to withstand such
severe weather events (COP Volume I).
Jacket foundations may be used. Once
delivered to the SWDA, the jacket will
be lifted off the transport or installation
vessel and lowered to the seabed with
the correct orientation. The piles will be
driven to the engineered depth,
following the same process described
above for monopiles. The WTG jacket
piles are expected to be pre-piled (i.e.,
the jacket structure will be set on preinstalled piles). Up to three ESP jackets
are expected to be post-piled (i.e., the
jacket is placed on the seafloor and piles
are subsequently driven through guides
at the base of each leg). For the ESP
post-piled jackets, piling would be
initiated during daylight hours (no later
than 1.5 hours prior to civil sunset) and
need to continue until all piles are
installed due to health and safety
concerns.
Jacket foundations would be installed
using a 3,500 kJ hammer energy pile
driving for a 4-m pin pile to reach their
maximum penetration depth of 50 m
(164 ft). There are four pins per jacket
foundation, Park City Wind estimates
that each pin will take up to 9,805
hammer strikes at up 30.0 bpm to reach
full penetration depth (Table 1 in the
ITA application). Foundation
installation would use a 20-minute softstart to ensure that the monopile or
jacket foundation pile remains vertical
and to allow any motile marine life to
leave the area before the pile driving
intensity is increased. Jacket foundation
installation times will vary, but will
likely take up to 6 hours per pin pile,
depending on whether the jacket is preor post-piled (Table 4 ITA application).
The bottom-frame foundation (for Phase
2 only) is similar to the jacket
foundation, with shorter piles and
shallower penetration. The potential
acoustic impact of the bottom-frame
foundation installation is equivalent to
or less than that predicted for the jacket
foundation. As the design and
installation methods for bottom-frame
foundations would be equivalent to or
less than jacket foundations, bottomframe foundations are not carried
forward in this document.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
During construction of the Project, it
may be necessary to start pile
installation using a vibratory hammer
rather than using an impact hammer, a
technique known as vibratory setting of
piles. The vibratory method is
particularly useful when soft seabed
sediments are not sufficiently stiff to
support the weight of the pile during the
initial installation, increasing the risk of
‘pile run’ where a pile sinks rapidly
through seabed sediments. Piles which
experience pile run can be difficult to
recover and pose significant safety risks
to the personnel and equipment on the
construction vessel. The vibratory
hammer mitigates this risk by forming a
hard connection to the pile using
hydraulic clamps, thereby acting as a
lifting/handling tool as well as a
vibratory hammer. The tool is inserted
into the pile on the construction vessel
deck, and the connection made. The
pile is then lifted, upended and lowered
into position on the seabed using the
vessel crane. After the pile is lowered
into position, vibratory pile installation
will commence. Vibratory pile
installation is a technique where piles
are driven into soil using a longitudinal
vibration motion. The vibratory hammer
installation method can continue until
the pile is inserted to a depth that is
sufficient to fully support the structure,
and then the impact hammer can be
positioned and operated to complete the
pile installation. Of the 132 WTG/ESPs,
Park City Wind estimates approximately
70 total foundations (53 percent) may
require vibratory hammering before
impact hammering. Table 7 and 8 in
Park City Wind’s application provides a
breakdown of the number of potential
days of pile installation, by activity, per
month under the maximum design
scenario for Schedules A and B,
respectively.
Construction schedule A anticipates
20 days of vibratory hammering in 2026
and 25 days in 2027 (total 45 days)
(Table 2). Construction schedule B
anticipates 20 days of vibratory
hammering in 2026, 25 days in 2027,
and 9 days in 2028 (total 54 days) (Table
2). Comparisons of vibratory pile
installation versus impulsive hammer
pile installation indicate that vibratory
pile installation typically produces
lower amplitude sounds in the marine
environment than impact hammer
installation (Rausche and Beim 2012).
The average expected duration of
vibratory setting is approximately 30
minutes per pile for the Project. Due to
the small size of the permanent
threshold shift (PTS) ranges and the
mitigation that will be applied during
construction, no Level A harassment is
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37613
expected. More information on vibratory
pile setting is in Section 1.2.2 of the ITA
application.
Drilling is a contingency measure that
may be required to remove soil and/or
boulders from inside the pile in cases of
pile refusal during installation. A pile
refusal can occur if the total frictional
resistance of the soil becomes too much
for the structural integrity of the pile
and the capability of the impact
hammer. Continuing to drive in a
refused condition can lead to overstress
in the pile and potential to buckle (tear)
the pile material. The use of an offshore
drill can reduce the frictional resistance
by removing the material from inside
the pile and allowing the continuation
of safe pile driving. An offshore drill is
an equipment piece consisting of a
motor and bottom hole assembly (BHA).
The drill is placed on top of the refused
pile using the construction vessel crane,
and the BHA is lowered down to the
soil inside the pile. On the bottom face
of the BHA is a traditional ‘‘drill bit,’’
which slowly rotates (at 4 or 5
revolutions per minute or
approximately 0.4 m per hour) and
begins to disturb the material inside the
pile. As the disturbed material mixes
with seawater which is pumped into the
pile, it begins to liquefy. The liquefied
material is pumped out to a predesignated location, leaving only
muddy seawater inside the pile instead
of a solid ‘‘soil plug,’’ and largely
reducing the frictional resistance
generated by the material inside the
pile. When enough material has been
removed from inside the pile and the
resistance has reduced sufficiently, the
drill is then lifted off the pile and
recovered to the vessel. The impact
hammer is then docked onto the pile
and impact pile driving commences. It
may be necessary to remove and replace
the drill several times in the driving
process to achieve sufficiently low
frictional resistance to achieve the
design penetration through impact pile
driving. Of the 132 WTG/ESPs, Park
City Wind estimates 48 foundations (36
percent) may require drilling to remove
soil and/or boulders from inside the pile
that would otherwise affect the
capability of the impact hammer.
Construction schedule A anticipates 33
days of drilling in 2026 and 15 days in
2027 (total 48 days) (Table 2).
Construction schedule B anticipates 20
days of drilling in 2026, 19 days in
2027, and 9 days in 2028 (total 48 days)
(Tables 2).
While pre-piling preparatory work
and post-piling activities could be
ongoing at one foundation position as
pile driving is occurring at another
position, there is no concurrent/
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
37614
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
simultaneous pile driving of
foundations planned (see Dates and
Duration section). Impact pile driving
associated with foundation installation
would be limited to the months of May
through December and is currently
scheduled to be conducted during
2026–2028 (depending which
construction schedule is done, A or B).
Installation of foundations is anticipated
to result in the take of marine mammals
due to noise generated during pile
driving.
Park City Wind has proposed to
conduct pile driving 24 hours per day.
Once construction begins, Park City
Wind would proceed as rapidly as
possible, while meeting all required
mitigation and monitoring measures, to
reduce the total duration of
construction. NMFS acknowledges the
benefits of completing construction
quickly during times when North
Atlantic right whales are unlikely to be
in the area but also recognizes
challenges associated with monitoring
during reduced visibility conditions
such as night. Should Park City Wind
submit a NMFS-approved Alternative
Monitoring Plan, pile driving may be
initiated at night. NMFS intends to
condition the final rule, if issued,
identifying if initiating pile driving at
night may occur.
Installation of the WTG and ESP
foundations is anticipated to result in
the take of marine mammals due to
noise generated during pile driving and
drilling.
HRG Surveys
High-resolution geophysical site
characterization surveys would occur
annually throughout the 5 years the rule
and LOA would be effective with
duration dependent on the activities
occurring in that year (i.e., construction
versus non-construction year). HRG
surveys would utilize up to a maximum
of three vessels working concurrently in
different sections of the Lease Area and
OECC corridor. Park City Wind
estimates that no more than 3 years will
have HRG surveys and each year would
have at least 6,000 km surveyed. In
total, no more than 18,000 km may be
surveyed across the 5-years with a total
of no more than 225 vessel days within
the Lease Area and along the OECC
corridor in water depths ranging from 1
m (3.6 ft) to 61.9 m (203 ft). Each day
that a survey vessel covers 80 km (50
miles) of survey trackline is considered
vessel day. For example, three vessels
operating concurrently on the same
calendar day, covering 80 km each,
would be 3 vessel days.
HRG surveys would be conducted to
identify any seabed debris and to
support micrositing of the WTG and
ESP foundations and cable routes.
Geophysical survey instruments may
include side scan sonar, synthetic
aperture sonar, single and multibeam
echosounders, sub-bottom profilers
(SBP), and magnetometers/gradiometers,
some of which are expected to result in
the take of marine mammals (LOA
Section 1.2.5.). Equipment may be
mounted to the survey vessel or the
Project may use autonomous surface
vehicles (SFV) to carry out this work.
Surveys would occur annually, with
durations dependent on the activities
occurring in that year (i.e., construction
years versus operational years).
As summarized previously, HRG
surveys will be conducted using up to
three vessels concurrently. Up to 80 km
of survey lines will be surveyed per
vessel each survey day at approximately
7.4 km/hour (4 knots) on a 24-hour
basis. HRG surveys are anticipated to
operate at any time of year for 25 days
per year, a maximum of 125 days for the
maximum of the 3 planned years
covered under the 5-years of the LOA.
Of the HRG equipment types proposed
for use, the following sources have the
potential to result in take of marine
mammals:
• Medium penetration SBPs
(boomers) to map deeper subsurface
stratigraphy as needed. A boomer is a
broad-band sound source operating in
the 0.2 kHz to 15 kHz frequency range.
This system is typically mounted on a
sled and towed behind the vessel.
• Medium penetration SBPs
(sparkers) to map deeper subsurface
stratigraphy as needed. A sparker
creates acoustic pulses from 0.05 kHz to
3 kHz omni-directionally from the
source that can penetrate several
hundred meters into the seafloor. These
are typically towed behind the vessel
with adjacent hydrophone arrays to
receive the return signals.
Table 3 identifies all the
representative survey equipment that
operate below 180 kilohertz (kHz) (i.e.,
at frequencies that are audible and have
the potential to disturb marine
mammals) that may be used in support
of planned geophysical survey activities
and are likely to be detected by marine
mammals given the source level,
frequency, and beamwidth of the
equipment. Equipment with operating
frequencies above 180 kHz and
equipment that does not have an
acoustic output (e.g., magnetometers)
may also be used but are not discussed
further because they are outside the
general hearing range of marine
mammals likely to occur in the project
area. In addition, due to the
characteristics of non-impulsive sources
(i.e., Ultra-Short BaseLine (USBL),
Innomar, and other parametric subbottom profilers), take is not anticipated
due to operating characteristics like very
narrow beam width which limit
acoustic propagation. Therefore, no
Level A harassment or B harassment can
be reasonably expected from the
operation of these sources. The sources
that have the potential to result in
harassment to marine mammals include
boomers and sparkers (Table 3).
TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIVE HRG SURVEY EQUIPMENT
Equipment type
Name
Boomer ..............
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Sparker ..............
Representative model
Applied Acoustics
AA251.
GeoMarine Geo
Spark 2000 (400
tip).
Operating
frequency
(kHz)
Applied Acoustics
AA251 a.
SIG ELC 820 Sparker b.
0.2–15
c 0.05–3
Source
level
(dB re 1
μPa m)
205
203
Peak source
level 0-pk
(dB re 1
μPa m)
Pulse
duration
(ms)
212
213
Repetition
rate
(Hz)
Beamwidth
(degrees)
Information
source
0.8
e2
180
CF
3.4
e1
d 180
CF
a Frequency estimated from Figures 14 and 16 in Crocker and Fratantonio (2016). Source levels, beam width, and pulse duration from Table 5 in Crocker and
Fratantonio (2016) at 300 J.
b SIG ELC 820 has similar operation settings as Geo Spark 2000 (Sect. I.5.1). See Table 9 in Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) source for levels at 5 m source
depth, 750 J setting.
c Frequency source specifications provided by Vineyard Wind.
d Assumes omnidirectional source.
e Vineyard Wind indicates they will use this repetition rate.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
UXO/MEC Detonations
Park City Wind anticipates
encountering UXO/MECs during Project
construction. UXO/MECs include
explosive munitions (such as bombs,
shells, mines, torpedoes, etc.) that did
not explode when they were originally
deployed or were intentionally
discarded in offshore munitions dump
sites to avoid land-based detonations.
The risk of incidental detonation
associated with conducting seabedaltering activities, such as cable laying
and foundation installation, in
proximity to UXO/MECs jeopardizes the
health and safety of project participants.
For UXO/MECs that are positively
identified in proximity to planned
activities on the seabed, several
alternative strategies will be considered
prior to in-situ UXO/MEC disposal.
These may include: (1) relocating the
activity away from the UXO/MEC
(avoidance), (2) physical UXO/MEC
removal (lift and shift), (3) alternative
combustive removal technique (low
order disposal), (4) cutting the UXO/
MEC open to apportion large
ammunition or deactivate fused
munitions (cut and capture), or (5) using
shaped charges to ignite the explosive
materials and allow them to burn at a
slow rate rather than detonate
instantaneously (deflagration). Only
after these alternatives are considered
and found infeasible would in-situ highorder UXO/MEC detonation be pursued.
If detonation is necessary, detonation
noise could result in the take of marine
mammals by Level A harassment and
Level B harassment.
Park City wind anticipates that up to
10 UXO/MECs may require disposal
through high-order detonation and that
these detonations would occur in 2025
and 2026. To better assess the likelihood
of encountering UXO/MECs during
project construction, Park City Wind is
conducting HRG surveys to identify
potential UXO/MECs that have not been
previously mapped. As these surveys
and analysis of data from them are still
underway, the exact number and type of
UXO/MECs in the project area are not
yet known. However, Park City Wind
assumes that up to 10 UXO/MECs
charges, of up to 454-kg (1,000 pounds;
lbs), which is the largest charge that is
reasonably expected to be encountered
(See Estimated Take of Marine
Mammals for detailed description of
UXO/MEC charge weights), may require
in-situ detonation. Although it is highly
unlikely that all charges would weigh
454 kg, this approach was determined to
be the most conservative for the
purposes of impact analysis. If
necessary, these detonations would
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
occur on up to 10 different days (i.e.,
only one detonation would occur per
day). Park City Wind anticipates up to
six detonations could occur in 2025 and
four in 2026. All detonations would
occur during daylight hours only and
would not occur from December 1
through May 31, annually; however,
NMFS may approve detonating UXO/
MECs on a case-by-case basis in
December and May.
NMFS concurs with Park City Wind
that Levels A and Level B harassment
are possible for UXO/MEC detonation
activities. Auditory injury or behavioral
harassment may result from exposure to
the sounds produced by UXO/MEC
detonation; no non-auditory injury is
anticipated.
Cable Laying and Installation
Up to five offshore export cables will
transmit electricity generated by the
WTGs to onshore transmission systems
in the Town of Barnstable,
Massachusetts. Underground onshore
export cables, located primarily within
existing roadway layouts, will connect
the landfall site(s) to one or two new
onshore substations in the Town of
Barnstable, Massachusetts. Grid
interconnection cables will then
connect the Phase 1 onshore substation
to the ISO New England (ISO–NE)
electric grid at Eversource’s existing 345
kilovolt substation in West Barnstable.
Park City Wind intends to install all
Phase 2 offshore export cables within
the same OECC as the Phase 1 cables but
will use separate landfall sites than
Phase 1 in Barnstable. The offshore
export cables will likely be transported
directly to the Offshore Development
Area in a cable laying vessel, on an
ocean-going barge, or on a heavy
transport vessel (which may also
transport the cable laying vessel
overseas) and installed by the cable
laying vessel upon arrival. Vessel types
under consideration for cable
installation activities are presented in
the COP Volume 1 Table 4.3–1.
Cable burial operations will occur
both in the SWDA for the inter-array
cables connecting the WTGs to the ESPs
and in the Offshore Export Cable
Corridor (OECC) for the cables carrying
power from the ESPs to the landfall
sites. Construction of the OECC and the
inter-array cable installation would take
place in 2026 through 2028 (Table 2).
The target depth for cable burial is 1.5
m to 2.5 m (5–8 ft). Therefore, the
seafloor in the direct path of the interarray, inter-link, and offshore export
cables within the SWDA will be
disturbed from the surface to a depth of
1.5 to 2.5 m (5–8 ft). Where sufficient
cable burial depths cannot be achieved,
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37615
cable protection would be used. Cable
laying, cable installation, and cable
burial activities planned to occur during
the construction of the project may
include the following: jetting (e.g., jet
plow or jet trenching); vertical injection;
leveling; mechanical cutting; plowing
(with or without jet-assistance); pretrenching; boulder removal; and
controlled flow excavation. During
construction related activities, including
cable laying and construction material
delivery, dynamic positioning (DP)
thrusters may be used to maneuver and
maintain station. No blasting is
proposed for cable installation.
Bottom habitat may also be
permanently altered to hard bottom
substrate through the installation of
cable protection (as described in
Sections 3.2.1.5.4 and 4.2.1.5.4 of BOEM
COP Volume I). Potential cable
protection methods include: rock
placement on top of the cables (6.4 cm
in diameter or larger); Gabion rock bags
on top of the cables; concrete
mattresses; or half-shell pipes or similar
(only for cable crossings or where the
cable is laid on the seafloor). Cable
protection will be up to 9 m (30 ft) wide.
The offshore export cables will likely be
transported directly to the Offshore
Development Area in a cable laying
vessel, on an ocean-going barge, or on a
heavy transport vessel (which may also
transport the cable laying vessel
overseas) and installed by the cable
laying vessel upon arrival. Phase 1 will
consist of two offshore export cables
with a maximum total length of ∼202
km (∼109 nmi). Phase 2 will consist of
two or three offshore export cables with
a maximum total length (assuming three
cables) of 356 km (∼192 nmi). The ends
of the offshore export cables will likely
be protected using protection conduits
put in place at the approach to the ESP
foundation(s). Installation of an offshore
export cable is anticipated to last
approximately 9 months for Phase 1 and
approximately 13.5 months for Phase 2.
Cable installation for each Phase may be
continuous and take up to 2 years. The
estimated installation time frame for the
inter-array cables is over a period of
approximately 4–5 months for Phase 1
and 9 months for Phase 2.
The ends of the offshore export cables
will likely be protected using protection
conduits put in place at the approach to
the ESP foundation(s) (see COP Volume
I Figure 3.2–8). This cable entry
protection system consists of different
components of composite material and/
or cast-iron half-shells with suitable
corrosion protection, which protect the
cables from fatigue and mechanical
loads as they transition above the
seabed and enter the foundation.
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
37616
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Although a large majority of the cable
entry protection system will likely lie
on top of the monopile scour protection
(if used), it will likely extend a short
distance beyond the edge of the scour
protection. Additional cable protection
may be placed on top of the cable entry
protection system (within the footprint
of the scour protection) to secure the
cable entry protection system in place
and limit movement of the cable, which
can damage the cable (for specific
details see COP Volume I section
3.2.1.5.4).
For Phases 1 and 2, 66 to 132 kilovolt
(kV) inter-array cables will connect
‘‘strings’’ of WTGs to an ESP. The
maximum anticipated total length of the
Phase 1 inter-array cables is
approximately 225 km (121 nmi) and
the maximum anticipated total length of
the inter-link cable is approximately 20
km (11 nmi). The maximum anticipated
total length of the Phase 2 inter-array
cables is approximately 325 km (175
nmi) and the maximum anticipated total
length of the inter-link cable is
approximately ∼60 km (∼32 nmi). The
target burial depth of the offshore export
cables will be at least 1.5–2.5 m (5–8 ft)
along their entire length. Like the
offshore export cables, all inter-array
cables and inter-link cables will likely
be protected with cable entry protection
systems at the approach to the WTG and
ESP foundations.
Some dredging of the upper portions
of sand waves may be required prior to
cable laying to achieve sufficient burial
depth below the stable sea bottom; large
boulders may also need to be relocated.
Dredging may be used to remove the
upper portions of sand waves within the
OECC and will be limited only to the
extent required to achieve adequate
cable burial depth during cable
installation. Dredging could be
accomplished by a trailing suction
hopper dredge (TSHD) or controlled
flow excavation.
The amount of habitat disturbance
from the use of jack-up and/or anchored
vessels, cable installation, and metocean
buoy anchors would be approximately
4.08 km2 (1.58 miles2). The total area of
alteration within the SWDA due to
foundation and scour protection
installation, jack-up and/or anchored
vessel use, inter-array and inter-link
cable installation, potential cable
protection (if required), and metocean
buoy anchors is 5.19 km2, (2.00 miles2)
which is 1.1 percent of the maximum
size of the SWDA. Metocean buoys are
small buoys that collect various ocean
data. As the noise levels generated from
cable laying and installation work are
low, the potential for take of marine
mammals to result is discountable. Park
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
City Wind is not requesting, and NMFS
is not proposing to authorize, take
associated with cable laying activities.
Therefore, cable laying activities are not
analyzed further in this document.
Site Preparation
Seabed preparation may be required
prior to foundation installation, scour
protection installation, or cable-laying
(see Section 3.3.1.2 and 4.3.1.2 of the
COP Volume I). This could include the
removal of large obstructions and/or
leveling of the seabed. Large boulders
along the route may need to be relocated
prior to cable installation. Some
dredging of the upper portions of sand
waves may also be required prior to
cable laying to achieve sufficient burial
depth below the stable sea bottom.
However, depending on bottom
conditions, water depth, and contractor
preferences, other specialty techniques
may be used in certain areas to ensure
sufficient burial depth. For monopile
and jacket pile installation, seafloor
preparation will include required
boulder clearance and removal of any
obstructions within the seafloor
preparation area at each foundation
location. Scour protection installation
will occur pre- or post-installation and
will involve a rock dumping vessel
placing scour using fall-pipes, side
dumping, and/or placement using a
crane/bucket at each foundation
location (more details can be found in
Park City Wind’s COP Volume 1 Section
3.3.1.2).
For Phases 1 and 2, a pre-lay grapnel
run and pre-lay survey are expected to
be performed to clear obstructions, such
as abandoned fishing gear and other
marine debris, and inspect the route
prior to cable laying. A specialized
vessel will tow a grapnel rig that hooks
and recovers obstructions, such as
fishing gear, ropes, and wires from the
seafloor. Boulder clearance may be
required in targeted locations to clear
boulders along the OECC, inter-array
cable (IAC) routes, and/or foundations
prior to installation.
Boulder removal would occur prior to
installation and would be completed by
a support vessel based. It is currently
anticipated that boulders larger than
approximately 0.2–0.3 m (0.7–1 ft) will
be avoided or relocated outside of the
final installation corridor to create an
installation corridor wide enough to
allow the installation tool to proceed
unobstructed along the seafloor. If there
are boulders along the final route that
cannot be moved, a reasonable buffer of
up to 5 m (16 ft) could be utilized.
Further details on boulder relocation
can be found in COP Volume 1 Section
3.3.1.3.2.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Dredging would also occur and be
limited to the extent required to achieve
adequate cable burial depth during
cable installation. Where dredging is
necessary, Park City Wind
conservatively assumed that the dredge
corridor would typically be 15 m (50 ft)
wide at the bottom (to allow for
equipment maneuverability) with
approximately 1:3 sideslopes for each
cable. However, the depth of dredging
will vary with the height of sand waves
and the dimensions of the sideslopes
will likewise vary with the depth of
dredging and sediment conditions. This
dredge corridor includes up to 1 m (3.3
ft) wide cable installation trench and up
to 3 m (10 ft) wide temporary
disturbance zone from the tracks or
skids of the cable installation
equipment. The average dredge depth is
approximately 0.5 m (1.6 ft) and may
range up to 5.25 m (17 ft) in localized
areas. The total vertical disturbance
within sand waves is up to 8 m (26 ft),
which includes dredging and cable
installation.
Two installation methods may be
used to complete sand leveling
including Trailing Suction Hopper
Dredging (TSHD) and controlled flow
excavation (CFE). A TSHD can be used
in sand waves of most sizes, whereas
the controlled flow excavation
technique is most likely to be used in
areas where sand waves are less than 2
m (6.6 ft) high. A TSHD vessel contains
one or more drag arms that extend from
the vessel, rest on the seafloor, and
suction up sediments. Any sediment
removed would be deposited in the
dredged material within the OECC.
Bottom dumping of dredged material
would only occur within sand waves.
CFE is a contactless dredging tool,
providing a method of clearing loose
sediment below submarine cables,
enabling burial. The CFE tool draws in
seawater from the sides and then jets
this water out from a vertical down pipe
at a specified pressure and volume,
which is then positioned over the cable
alignment, enabling the stream of water
to fluidize the sands around the cable.
This allows the cable to settle into the
trench under its own weight. Further
details on dredging and sand level can
be found in COP Volume I 3.3.1.3.5.
NMFS does not expect site
preparation work, including boulder
removal and sand leveling (i.e.,
dredging), to generate noise levels that
would cause take of marine mammals.
Underwater noise associated with these
activities is expected to be similar in
nature to the sound produced by the
dynamic positioning (DP) cable lay
vessels used during cable installation
activities within the project. Sound
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
produced by DP vessels is considered
non-impulsive and is typically more
dominant than mechanical or hydraulic
noises produced from the cable
trenching or boulder removal vessels
and equipment. Therefore, noise
produced by those vessels would be
comparable to or less than the noise
produced by DP vessels, so impacts are
also expected to be similar.
Additionally, boulder clearance is a
discreet action occurring over a short
duration resulting in short term direct
effects and sound produced by boulder
clearance equipment would be preceded
by, and associated with, sound from
ongoing vessel noise and would be
similar in nature.
NMFS expects that marine mammals
would not be exposed to sounds levels
or durations from seafloor preparation
work that would disrupt behavioral
patterns. Therefore, the potential for
take of marine mammals to result from
these activities is discountable and Park
Wind did not request, and NMFS does
not propose to authorize, any Level A
harassment or Level B harassment takes
associated with seafloor preparation
work and these activities are not
analyzed further in this document.
Vessel Operation
Park City Wind will utilize various
types of vessels over the course of the
5-year proposed regulations. Park City
Wind has identified several existing
port facilities located in Massachusetts,
Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York,
and/or New Jersey to support offshore
construction, assembly and fabrication,
crew transfer and logistics, and other
operational activities. In addition, some
components, materials, and vessels
could come from Canadian and
European ports. A variety of vessels
would be used throughout the
construction activities. These range
from crew transportation vessels,
tugboats, jack-up vessels, cargo ships,
and various support vessels (Table 4).
Details on the vessels, related work,
operational speeds, and general trip
behavior can be found in Table 2 of the
ITA application and Table 3.3–1 in the
COP Volume 1. In addition to vessels,
helicopters may be used for crew
transfer and fast response visual
inspections and repair activities during
both construction and operations. It is
not possible at this stage of the project
to quantify the expected use of
helicopters and any potential reduction
in the number of vessel trips.
As part of various vessel-based
construction activities, including cable
laying and construction material
delivery, dynamic positioning thrusters
may be utilized to hold vessels in
position or move slowly. Sound
produced through use of dynamic
positioning thrusters is similar to that
produced by transiting vessels, and
dynamic positioning thrusters are
typically operated either in a similarly
predictable manner or used for short
durations around stationary activities.
Sound produced by dynamic
positioning thrusters would be preceded
by, and associated with, sound from
ongoing vessel noise and would be
similar in nature; thus, any marine
mammals in the vicinity of the activity
would be aware of the vessel’s presence.
Construction-related vessel activity,
including the use of dynamic
positioning thrusters, is not expected to
result in take of marine mammals. Park
City Wind did not request, and NMFS
does not propose to authorize, any take
associated with vessel activity.
During construction and operation,
crew transfer vessels (CTVs) and a
service operation vessel (SOV) will be
37617
used to conduct maintenance activities.
Although less likely, if an SOV is not
used, several CTVs and helicopters
would be used to frequently transport
crew to and from the offshore facilities.
Park City Wind has also included
potential for helicopters to be used
when rough weather limits or precludes
the use of CTVs and during fast
response visual inspections and repair
activities during both construction and
operations (COP Volume 1 Sections
3.3.1.12.1 and 4.3.1.12.1). The total
vessels expected for use during the
Project are in Table 4; more details can
be found in Table 2 of the ITA
application.
Assuming the maximum design
scenario for each Phase individually,
∼3,200 total vessel round trips (an
average of approximately six round trips
per day) are expected to occur during
offshore construction of Phase 1 and
∼3,800 total vessel round trips (an
average of approximately seven round
trips per day) are expected to occur
during offshore construction of Phase 2
(For the purposes of estimating vessel
trips, tugboats and barges are considered
one vessel). Due to the range of buildout
scenarios for Phases 1 and 2, Park City
Wind expects the total number of vessel
trips from both Phases of New England
Wind combined to be less than the sum
of vessel trips estimated for each Phase
independently (section 1.1.2 ITA
application). Park City Wind estimates
that, between the 5 major port areas they
intend to use, they expect an average of
15 round trips per day and 443 round
trips per month during peak
construction (Table 1 ITA application).
Throughout the entire construction
period, they expect an average of 8
round trips per day and 215 round trips
per month (Table 1 ITA application).
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
TABLE 4—TYPE AND NUMBER OF VESSELS ANTICIPATED DURING CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS
Max number
of vessels
Project period
Vessel types
All Foundation Installation ...........................................................
All Foundation Installation ...........................................................
All Foundation Installation ...........................................................
WTG Installation .........................................................................
WTG Installation .........................................................................
Inter-array Cable Installation .......................................................
Inter-array Cable Installation .......................................................
ESP Installation ...........................................................................
ESP Installation ...........................................................................
Offshore Export Cable Installation ..............................................
Offshore Export Cable Installation ..............................................
All Other Construction Activities .................................................
All Other Construction Activities .................................................
Transport, Installation, and Support ..........................................
Crew Transfer ............................................................................
Environmental Monitoring and Mitigation ..................................
Transport, Installation, and Support ..........................................
Crew Transfer Vessel ................................................................
Transport, Installation, and Support ..........................................
Crew Transfer Vessel ................................................................
Transport, Installation, and Support ..........................................
Crew Transfer Vessel ................................................................
Transport, Installation, and Support ..........................................
Crew Transfer Vessel ................................................................
Crew Transfer Vessel ................................................................
Transport, Survey, and Support ................................................
NMFS is proposing to require
extensive vessel strike avoidance
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
measures that would avoid vessel
strikes from occurring (see Proposed
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20
3
8
21
3
7
2
9
1
13
1
4
4
Mitigation section). Park City Wind has
not requested, and NMFS is not
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
37618
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
proposing to authorize, take from vessel
strikes.
Fisheries and Benthic Monitoring
Fisheries and benthic monitoring
surveys are being designed for the
project in accordance with
recommendations set forth in
‘‘Guidelines for Providing Information
on Fisheries for Renewable Energy
Development on the Atlantic Outer
Continental Shelf’’ (BOEM, 2019). Park
City Wind would conduct trawl net
sampling, video surveillance (drop
camera), plankton (Neuston) net,
ventless trap, and tagging surveys.
Specifically, Park City Wind would
conduct seasonal trawl surveys
following the Northeast Area
Monitoring and Assessment Program
(NEAMAP) survey protocol to sample
fish and invertebrates in the SWDA and
control area. The surveys would be
comprised of 200 tows per year
conducted for 20 minutes at vessel
speed of 3.0 knots. The ventless trap
surveys would follow Massachusetts
and Rhode Island Division of Marine
Fisheries protocol to sample lobster,
black sea bass, and Jonah crab. Surveys
would be conducted twice per month
from May to December in 30 stations
across the SWDA and control areas with
6 lobster traps and 1 fish pot at each
station. Because the drop camera,
tagging efforts, and Neuston nets do not
have components with which marine
mammals are likely to interact (i.e.,
become entangled in or hooked by),
these activities are not anticipated to
result in take of marine mammals and
will not be discussed further. Only trap
and trawl surveys have the potential to
result in harassment to marine
mammals. However, Park City Wind
would implement mitigation and
monitoring measures to avoid taking
marine mammals, including, but not
limited to, monitoring for marine
mammals before and during trawling
activities, not deploying or pulling trawl
gear in certain circumstances, limiting
tow times, and fully repairing nets. A
full description of mitigation measures
can be found in the Proposed Mitigation
section.
With the implementation of these
measures, Park City Wind does not
anticipate, and NMFS is not proposing
to authorize, take of marine mammals
incidental to research trap and trawl
surveys. Given no take is anticipated
from these surveys, impacts from fishery
surveys will not be discussed further in
this document (with the exception of
the description of measures in the
Proposed Mitigation section).
Description of Marine Mammals in the
Area of Specified Activities
Thirty-eight marine mammal species
under NMFS’ jurisdiction have
geographic ranges within the western
North Atlantic OCS (Hayes et al., 2022).
Park City Wind requested take of all 38
species (comprising 38 stocks) of marine
mammals. The majority of takes are
requested for only 17 species; the
remaining 22 stocks are considered rare
in the project area and Park City Wind
is requested a limited amount of take for
those species (e.g., one group size).
Sections 3 and 4 of Park City Wind’s
ITA 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
in the application instead of reprinting
the information. Additional information
regarding population trends and threats
may be found in NMFS’s Stock
Assessment Reports (SARs), https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-stock-assessments), and more
general information about these species
(e.g., physical and behavioral
descriptions) may be found on NMFS’s
website (https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
Table 5 lists all species and stocks for
which take is expected and proposed to
be authorized for this action 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) level,
where known. The MMPA defines PBR
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’’ (16 U.S.C. 1362(20)). PBR
values are identified in NMFS’s SARs.
While no mortality is anticipated or
proposed to be authorized, 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’s stock
abundance estimates for most species
represent the total estimate of
individuals within the geographic area,
if known, that comprises that stock. For
some stocks, this geographic area may
extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed
stocks in this region are assessed in
NMFS’s U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of
Mexico SARs. All values presented in
Table 5 are the most recent available at
the time of publication and, unless
noted otherwise, use NMFS’ 2022 SARs
(Hayes et al., 2023) available online at
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/marine-mammal-protection/
draft-marine-mammal-stockassessment-reports.
TABLE 5—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES THAT MAY OCCUR IN THE PROJECT AREA AND BE TAKEN, BY HARASSMENT
Common name
Scientific name
ESA/
MMPA
status;
strategic
(Y/N) 1
Stock
Stock abundance
(CV, Nmin, most recent
abundance survey) 2
PBR
Annual
mortalities
or serious
injuries
(M/SI) 3
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Order Artiodactyla—Cetacea—Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
Family Balaenidae:
North Atlantic right whale .....
Family
Balaenopteridae
(rorquals):
Blue whale ............................
Fin whale ..............................
Humpback whale ..................
Minke whale .........................
Sei whale ..............................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Eubalaena glacialis ........
Western Atlantic .........................
E,D,Y
338 (0; 332; 2020) ...........
0.7
8.1
Balaenoptera musculus ..
Balaenoptera physalus ...
Megaptera novaeangliae
Balaenoptera
acutorostrata.
Balaenoptera borealis ....
Western North Atlantic ...............
Western North Atlantic ...............
Gulf of Maine ..............................
Canadian Eastern Coastal .........
E,D,Y
E,D,Y
-,-,Y
-,-,N
0.8
11
22
170
0
1.8
12.15
10.6
Nova Scotia ................................
E,D,Y
UNK (UNK, 402, 2019) ....
6,802 (0.24; 5,573; 2016)
1,396 (0; 1,380; 2016) .....
21,968 (0.31; 17,002;
2016).
6,292 (1.02; 3,098; 2016)
6.2
0.8
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
37619
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5—MARINE MAMMAL SPECIES THAT MAY OCCUR IN THE PROJECT AREA AND BE TAKEN, BY HARASSMENT—
Continued
Common name
Scientific name
ESA/
MMPA
status;
strategic
(Y/N) 1
Stock
Stock abundance
(CV, Nmin, most recent
abundance survey) 2
Annual
mortalities
or serious
injuries
(M/SI) 3
PBR
Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
Family Physeteridae:
Sperm whale ........................
Family Kogiidae:
Dwarf sperm whale 4 ............
Pygmy sperm whale 4 ..........
Family Ziphiidae:
Cuvier’s beaked whale .........
Blainville’s beaked whale .....
Physeter macrocephalus
North Atlantic ..............................
E,D,Y
4,349 (0.28; 3,451; 2016)
3.9
0
Kogia sima ......................
Kogia breviceps ..............
Western North Atlantic ...............
Western North Atlantic ...............
-,-,N
-,-,N
7,750 (0.38; 5,689; 2016)
7,750 (0.38; 5,689; 2016)
46
46
0
0
Ziphius cavirostris ...........
Mesoplodon densirostris
Western North Atlantic ...............
Western North Atlantic ...............
-,-,N
-,-,N
43
81
5 0.2
Gervais’ beaked whale .........
Sowerby’s beaked whale .....
Mesoplodon europaeus ..
Mesoplodon bidens ........
Western North Atlantic ...............
Western North Atlantic ...............
-,-,N
-,-,N
True’s beaked whale ............
Mesoplodon mirus ..........
Western North Atlantic ...............
-,-,N
Hyperoodon ampullatus
Western North Atlantic ...............
-,-,N
5,744 (0.36, 4,282, 2016)
10,107 (0.27, 8,085,
2016).
5,744 (0.36, 4,282, 2016)
10,107 (0.27, 8,085,
2016).
10,107 (0.27, 8,085,
2016).
UNK (UNK, UNK, 2016) ..
Stenella frontalis .............
Western North Atlantic ...............
-,-,N
Atlantic white-sided dolphin
Lagenorhynchus acutus
Western North Atlantic ...............
-,-,N
Bottlenose dolphin ................
Tursiops truncatus ..........
-,-,N
Clymene dolphin ..................
Common dolphin ..................
Stenella clymene ............
Delphinus delphis ...........
Western North Atlantic—Offshore.
Western North Atlantic ...............
Western North Atlantic ...............
Long-finned pilot whale ........
Globicephala melas ........
Western North Atlantic ...............
-,-,N
Short-finned pilot whale .......
Western North Atlantic ...............
-,-,Y
Risso’s dolphin .....................
Globicephala
macrorhynchus.
Grampus griseus ............
Western North Atlantic ...............
-,-,N
False killer whale .................
Fraser’s dolphin ....................
Killer whale ...........................
Melon-headed whale ............
Pantropical spotted dolphin ..
Pygmy killer whale ...............
Rough-toothed dolphin .........
Spinner dolphin ....................
Striped dolphin .....................
Pseudorca crassidens ....
Lagenodelphis hosei ......
Orcinus orca ...................
Peponocephala electra ...
Stenella attenuata ..........
Feresa attenuata ............
Steno bredanensis .........
Stenella longirostris ........
Halichoerus grypus .........
Western North Atlantic ...............
Western North Atlantic ...............
Western North Atlantic ...............
Western North Atlantic ...............
Western North Atlantic ...............
Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy .......
Western North Atlantic ...............
Western North Atlantic ...............
Western North Atlantic ...............
-,-,N
-,-,N
-,-,N
-,-,N
-,D,N
-,-,N
-,-,N
-,D,N
-,-,N
White-beaked dolphin ..........
Phoca vitulina .................
Western North Atlantic ...............
-,-,N
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
Harbor porpoise ...................
Phocoena phocoena ......
Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy .......
-,-,N
Northern bottlenose whale ...
Family Delphinidae:
Atlantic spotted dolphin ........
-,-,N
-,-,N
39,921 (0.27; 32,032;
2016).
93,233 (0.71; 54,433;
2016).
62,851 (0.23; 51,914;
2016).
4,237 (1.03; 2,071; 2016)
172,897 (0.21; 145,216;
2016).
39,215 (0.3; 30,627;
2016).
28,924 (0.24, 23,637, See
SAR).
35,215 (0.19; 30,051;
2016).
1,791 (0.56, 1,154, 2016)
UNK (UNK, UNK, 2016) ..
UNK (UNK, UNK, 2016) ..
UNK (UNK, UNK, 2016) ..
6,593 (0.52, 4,367, 2016)
UNK (UNK, UNK, 2016) ..
136 (1.0, 67, 2016) ..........
4,102 (0.99, 2,045, 2016)
67,036 (0.29; 52,939;
2016).
536,016 (0.31; 415,344;
2016).
95,543 (0.31; 74,034;
2016).
0.2
81
81
50
81
50
UNK
0
320
0
544
27
519
28
21
1,452
0
390
306
29
236
136
301
34
12
UNK
UNK
UNK
44
UNK
0.7
20
529
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,153
0
851
16
1,389
4,453
1,729
339
426,000
UNK
178,573
1,680
50
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Order Carnivora—Superfamily Pinnipedia
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
Gray seal 6 ............................
Halichoerus grypus .........
Western North Atlantic ...............
-,-,N
Harbor seal ...........................
Phoca vitulina .................
Western North Atlantic ...............
-,-,N
Harp seal ..............................
Hooded seal .........................
Pagophilus groenlandicus
Cystophora cristata ........
Western North Atlantic ...............
Western North Atlantic ...............
-,-,N
-,-,N
27,300 (0.22; 22,785;
2016).
61,336 (0.08; 57,637;
2018).
7.6M (UNK; 7.1M; 2019)
UNK (UNK, UNK, N/A) ....
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 can be found 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). (https://marinemammalscience.org/science-and-publications/list-marine-mammal-species-subspecies/; Committee on Taxonomy (2022)).
4 Accounts for both Kogia species.
5 Accounts for all Mesoplodon species.
6 NMFS’ stock abundance estimate (and associated PBR value) applies to the 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.
In addition to the species listed in
Table 5, the Florida manatees
(Trichechus manatus; a sub-species of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
the West Indian manatee) has been
previously documented as an occasional
visitor to the Northeast region during
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
summer months (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), 2019). However,
manatees are managed by the USFWS
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
37620
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
and are not considered further in this
document.
Park City Wind also requested take for
beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas),
however, beluga whales are so rare in
the project area that there is no beluga
whale stock designated along the U.S.
Eastern Seaboard as it is a more
northerly species. In 2014, a beluga
whale was observed in Taunton River,
Massachusetts, however, experts opined
that this whale was far from its natural
habitat (which include arctic and
subarctic waters) (Swaintek, 2014). It is
not anticipated that beluga whales
would occur in the project area;
therefore, beluga whales are not
considered further in this document.
Between October 2011 and June 2015,
a total of 76 aerial surveys were
conducted throughout the MA and RI/
MA WEAs (the Project is contained
within the MA WEA and adjacent to the
RI/MA WEA along with several other
offshore renewable energy Lease Areas).
Between November 2011 and March
2015, Marine Autonomous Recording
Units (MARU; a type of static passive
acoustic monitoring (PAM) recorder)
were deployed at nine sites in the MA
and RI/MA WEAs. The goal of the study
was to collect visual and acoustic
baseline data on distribution,
abundance, and temporal occurrence
patterns of marine mammals (Kraus et
al., 2016). The New England Aquarium
conducted additional aerial surveys
throughout the MA and RI/MA WEAs
from February 2017 through July 2018
(38 surveys), October 2018 through
August 2019 (40 surveys), and March
2020 through July 2021 (12 surveys)
(Quintana and Kraus, 2019; O’Brien et
al., 2021a; O’Brien et al., 2021b). As
indicated above, 17 species and stocks
in Table 5 are known to temporally and
spatially co-occur with the activity.
Additionally, 22 stocks are rare in the
project area. However, Park City Wind
has conservatively requested a limited
amount of take to ensure MMPA
compliance in the unlikely event that
one or more of these rare species are
encountered during project activities
that may result in take (Table 32). Five
of the marine mammal species for
which take is requested are listed as
threatened or endangered under the
ESA: North Atlantic right, blue, fin, sei,
and sperm whales.
In addition to what is included in
Sections 3 and 4 of Park City Wind’s
ITA application (https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/
incidental-take-authorization-park-citywind-llc-construction-new-englandwind-offshore-wind), the SARs (https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/marine-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
mammal-stock-assessments), and
NMFS’ website (https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/speciesdirectory/marine-mammals), we
provide further detail below informing
the baseline for select species (e.g.,
information regarding current Unusual
Mortality Events (UME) and known
important habitat areas, such as
Biologically Important Areas (BIAs)
(Van Parijs, 2015)). There are no ESAdesignated critical habitats for any
species within the project area (https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/map/
national-esa-critical-habitat-mapper).
Under the MMPA, a UME is defined
as ‘‘a stranding that is unexpected;
involves a significant die-off of any
marine mammal population; and
demands immediate response’’ (16
U.S.C. 1421h(6)). As of May 2023, five
UMEs are active. Four of these UMEs
are occurring along the U.S. Atlantic
coast for various marine mammal
species. Of these, the most relevant to
the project area are the North Atlantic
right whale, humpback whale, and
harbor and gray seal UMEs given the
prevalence of these species in the
project area. More information on
UMEs, including all active, closed, or
pending, can be found on NMFS’
website at https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-life-distress/active-and-closedunusual-mortality-events.
Below, we include information for a
subset of the species that presently have
an active or recently closed UME
occurring along the Atlantic coast or for
which there is information available
related to areas of biological
significance. Blue whales have been
included due to their ESA-listing and
not due to any UME or area of biological
significance. For the majority of species
potentially present in the specific
geographic region, NMFS has
designated only a single generic stock
(e.g., ‘‘western North Atlantic’’) for
management purposes. This includes
the ‘‘Canadian east coast’’ stock of
minke whales, which includes all minke
whales found in U.S. waters and is also
a generic stock for management
purposes. For humpback and sei
whales, NMFS defines stocks on the
basis of feeding locations (i.e., Gulf of
Maine and Nova Scotia, respectively).
However, references to humpback
whales and sei whales in this document
refer to any individuals of the species
that are found in the project area. Any
areas of known biological importance
(including the BIAs identified in
LaBrecque et al., 2015) that overlap
spatially (or are adjacent) with the
project area are addressed in the species
sections below.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
North Atlantic Right Whales
The North Atlantic right whale has
been listed as Endangered since the
ESA’s enactment in 1973. The species
was recently uplisted from Endangered
to Critically Endangered on the
International Union for Conservation of
Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened
Species (Cooke, 2020). The uplisting
was due to a decrease in population size
(Pace et al., 2017), an increase in vessel
strikes and entanglements in fixed
fishing gear (Daoust et al., 2017; Davis
& Brillant, 2019; Knowlton et al., 2012;
Knowlton et al., 2022; Moore et al.,
2021; Sharp et al., 2019), and a decrease
in birth rate (Pettis et al., 2022; Reed et
al., 2022). The Western Atlantic stock is
considered depleted under the MMPA
(Hayes et al., 2022). There is a recovery
plan (NMFS, 2005) for the North
Atlantic right whale, and NMFS
completed 5-year reviews of the species
in 2012, 2017, and 2022 which
concluded no change to the listing
status is warranted.
Designated by NMFS as a Species in
the Spotlight, the North Atlantic right
whale is considered among the species
with the greatest risk of extinction in the
near future (https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/
endangered-species-conservation/
species-in-the-spotlight).
The North Atlantic right whale
population had only a 2.8 percent
recovery rate between 1990 and 2011
and an overall abundance decline of
23.5 percent from 2011–2019 (Hayes et
al., 2022). Since 2010, the North
Atlantic right whale population has
been in decline (Pace et al., 2017; Pace
et al., 2021), with a 40 percent decrease
in calving rate (Kraus et al., 2016; Moore
et al., 2021). North Atlantic right whale
calving rates dropped from 2017 to 2020
with zero births recorded during the
2017–2018 season. The 2020–2021
calving season had the first substantial
calving increase in 5 years with 20
calves born followed by 15 calves
during the 2021–2022 calving season.
However, mortalities continue to
outpace births, and best estimates
indicate fewer than 70 reproductively
active females remain in the population.
Critical habitat for North Atlantic
right whales is not present in the project
area. However, the project area both
spatially and temporally overlaps a
portion of the migratory corridor BIA
within which North Atlantic right
whales migrate south to calving grounds
generally in November and December,
followed by a northward migration into
feeding areas east and north of the
project area in March and April
(LaBrecque et al., 2015; Van Parijs et al.,
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
2015). While the project does not
overlap any North Atlantic right whale
feeding BIAs, it does spatially overlap a
more recently described important
feeding area. North Atlantic right
whales have recently been observed
feeding year-round in the region south
of Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket
with larger numbers in this area in the
winter making it the only known winter
foraging habitat for the species (Leiter et
al., 2017; Quintana-Rizzo et al., 2021).
NMFS’ regulations at 50 CFR 224.105
designated Seasonal Management Areas
(SMAs) for North Atlantic right whales
in 2008 (73 FR 60173, October 10,
2008). SMAs were developed to reduce
the threat of collisions between ships
and North Atlantic right whales around
their migratory route and calving
grounds. The Block Island SMA is near
the proposed project area; this SMA is
currently active from November 1
through April 30 of each year and may
be used by North Atlantic right whales
for feeding (although to a lesser extent
than the area to the east near Nantucket
Shoals) and/or migrating. As noted
above, NMFS is proposing changes to
the North Atlantic right whale speed
rule (87 FR 46921, August 1, 2022). Due
to the current status of North Atlantic
right whales and the spatial proximity
overlap of the proposed project with
areas of biological significance, (i.e., a
migratory corridor, SMA), the potential
impacts of the proposed project on
North Atlantic right whales warrant
particular attention.
North Atlantic right whale presence
in the project area is predominately
seasonal; however, year-round
occurrence is documented. Abundance
is highest in winter with irregular
occurrence during summer months and
similar occurrence rates in spring and
fall (O’Brien et al., 2022; QuintanaRizzo et al., 2021; Estabrook et al.,
2022). Model outputs suggest that 23
percent of the North Atlantic right
whale population is present from
December through May, and the mean
residence time has tripled to an average
of 13 days during these months
(Quintana-Rizzo et al., 2021).
North Atlantic right whale
distribution can also be derived from
acoustic data. A review of passive
acoustic monitoring data from 2004 to
2014 collected throughout the western
North Atlantic demonstrated nearly
continuous year-round North Atlantic
right whale presence across their entire
habitat range with a decrease in summer
months, including in locations
previously thought of as migratory
corridors suggesting that not all of the
population undergoes a consistent
annual migration (Davis et al., 2017). To
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
describe seasonal trends in North
Atlantic right whale presence, Estabrook
et al. (2022) analyzed North Atlantic
right whale acoustic detections
collected between 2011–2015 during
winter (January–March), spring (April–
June), summer (July–September), and
autumn (October–December). Winter
had the highest presence (75 percent
array-days, n = 193), and summer had
the lowest presence (10 percent arraydays, n = 27). Spring and autumn were
similar, where 45 percent (n = 117) and
51 percent (n = 121) of the array-days
had detections, respectively. Across all
years, detections were consistently
lowest in August and September. In
Massachusetts Bay and Cape Cod Bay,
located outside of the project area,
acoustic detections of North Atlantic
right whales increased in more recent
years in both the peak season of late
winter through early spring and in
summer and fall, likely reflecting broadscale regional habitat changes (Charif et
al., 2020). NMFS’ Passive Acoustic
Cetacean Map (PACM) contains up-todate acoustic data that contributes to
our understanding of when and where
specific whales (including North
Atlantic right whales), dolphin, and
other cetacean species are acoustically
detected in the North Atlantic. These
data support the findings of the
aforementioned literature.
In late fall (i.e., November), a portion
of the right whale population (including
pregnant females) typically departs the
feeding grounds in the North Atlantic,
moves south along the migratory
corridor BIA, including through the
project area, to right whale calving
grounds off Georgia and Florida.
However, recent research indicates
understanding of their movement
patterns remains incomplete and not all
of the population undergoes a consistent
annual migration (Davis et al., 2017;
Gowan et al., 2019; Krzystan et al.,
2018). The results of multistate
temporary emigration capture-recapture
modeling, based on sighting data
collected over the past 22 years, indicate
that non-calving 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 (Gowan et al., 2019).
Southern New England waters are a
migratory corridor in the spring and
early winter and a primary feeding
habitat for North Atlantic right whales
during late winter through spring. Right
whales feed primarily on the copepod
Calanus finmarchicus, a species whose
availability and distribution has
changed both spatially and temporally
over the last decade due to an
oceanographic regime shift that has
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37621
been ultimately linked to climate
change (Meyer-Gutbrod et al., 2021;
Record et al., 2019; Sorochan et al.,
2019). This distribution change in prey
availability has led to shifts in North
Atlantic right whale habitat-use patterns
within the region over the same time
period (Davis et al., 2020; MeyerGutbrod et al., 2022; Quintana-Rizzo et
al., 2021; O’Brien et al., 2022). Since
2010, North Atlantic right whales have
reduced their use of foraging 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). The SWDA and OECC are
south and east of Martha’s Vineyard and
south and west of Nantucket Islands.
Since 2017, 98 dead, seriously
injured, or sublethally injured or ill
North Atlantic right whales along the
U.S. and Canadian coasts have been
documented, necessitating a UME
declaration and investigation. The
leading category for the cause of death
for this ongoing UME is ‘‘human
interaction,’’ specifically from
entanglements or vessel strikes. As of
May 17, 2023, there have been 36
confirmed mortalities (dead stranded or
floaters) and 33 seriously injured freeswimming whales for a total of 69
whales. Beginning on October 14, 2022,
the UME also considers animals with
sublethal injury or illness bringing the
total number of whales in the UME to
98. Approximately 42 percent of the
population is known to be in reduced
health (Hamilton et al., 2021) likely
contributing to smaller body sizes at
maturation, making them more
susceptible to threats and reducing
fecundity (Moore et al., 2021; Reed et
al., 2022; Stewart et al., 2022). More
information about the North Atlantic
right whale UME is available online at
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/marine-life-distress/2017-2023north-atlantic-right-whale-unusualmortality-event.
Humpback Whales
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 once single
species into 14 distinct population
segments (DPS), removed the specieslevel 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
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
37622
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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.
Bettridge et al. (2015) estimated the size
of the West Indies DPS population at
12,312 (95 percent confidence interval
(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). Kraus et al.
(2016) observed humpbacks in the RI/
MA & MA WEAs and surrounding areas
during all seasons but most often during
spring and summer months with a peak
from April to June. Acoustic data
indicate that this species may be present
within the RI/MA WEA year-round with
the highest rates of acoustic detections
in the winter and spring (Kraus et al.,
2016).
The project area does not overlap any
ESA-designated critical habitat, BIAs, or
other important areas for the humpback
whales. A humpback whale feeding BIA
extends throughout the Gulf of Maine,
Stellwagen Bank, and Great South
Channel from May through December,
annually (LaBrecque et al., 2015).
However, this BIA is located further east
and north of, and thus, does not overlap,
the project area.
Since January 2016, elevated
humpback whale mortalities along the
Atlantic coast from Maine to Florida led
to the declaration of a UME. As of May
17, 2023, 191 humpback whales have
stranded as part of this UME. Partial or
full necropsy examinations have been
conducted on approximately 90 of the
known cases. Of the whales examined,
about 40 percent had evidence of
human interaction, either ship strike or
entanglement. While a portion of the
whales have shown evidence of premortem vessel strike, this finding is not
consistent across all whales examined
and more research is needed. More
information is available at https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-life-distress/active-and-closedunusual-mortality-events.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
Fin Whales
Fin whales typically feed in the Gulf
of Maine and the waters surrounding
New England, but their mating and
calving (and general wintering) areas are
largely unknown (Hain et al., 1992;
Hayes et al., 2022). Acoustic detections
of fin whale singers augment and
confirm these visual sighting
conclusions for males. Recordings from
Massachusetts Bay, New York Bight,
and deep-ocean areas have detected
some level of fin whale singing from
September through June (Watkins et al.,
1987; Clark and Gagnon, 2002; Morano
et al., 2012). These acoustic
observations from both coastal and
deep-ocean regions support the
conclusion that male fin whales are
broadly distributed throughout the
western North Atlantic for most of the
year (Hayes et al., 2022).
Kraus et al. (2016) suggest that,
compared to other baleen whale species,
fin whales have a high multi-seasonal
relative abundance in the RI/MA & MA
WEAs and surrounding areas. Fin
whales were observed in the MA WEA
in spring and summer. This species was
observed primarily in the offshore
(southern) regions of the RI/MA & MA
WEAs during spring and was found
closer to shore (northern areas) during
the summer months (Kraus et al., 2016).
Calves were observed three times and
feeding was observed nine times during
the Kraus et al. (2016) study. Although
fin whales were largely absent from
visual surveys in the RI/MA & MA
WEAs in the fall and winter months
(Kraus et al., 2016), acoustic data
indicate that this species is present in
the RI/MA & MA WEAs during all
months of the year, although less so in
summer months (Morano et al., 2012;
Muirhead et al., 2018; Davis et al.,
2020).
New England waters represent a major
feeding ground for fin whales. The
project area partially overlaps the fin
whale feeding BIA (2,933 km2) offshore
of Montauk Point, New York from
March to October (Hain et al., 1992;
LaBrecque et al., 2015). A separate
larger year-round feeding BIA (18,015
km2) located far to the northeast in the
southern Gulf of Maine does not overlap
with the project area and would thus
not be impacted by project activities.
Minke Whales
Minke whales are common and
widely distributed throughout the U.S.
Atlantic EEZ (Cetacean and Turtle
Assessment Program (CETAP), 1982;
Hayes et al., 2022), although their
distribution has a strong seasonal
component. Minke whale occurrence is
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
common and widespread in New
England from spring to fall, although the
species is largely absent in the winter
(Hayes et al., 2022; Risch et al., 2013).
Surveys conducted in the RI/MA WEAs
from October 2011 through June 2015
reported 103 minke whale sightings
within the area, predominantly in the
spring followed by summer and fall
(Kraus et al., 2016). Recent surveys
conducted in the RI/MA WEAs from
February 2017 through July 2018,
October 2018 through August 2019, and
March 2020 through July 2021
documented minke whales as the most
common rorqual (baleen whales with
pleated throat grooves) sighted in the
WEAs. Surveys also reported a shift in
the greatest seasonal abundance of
minke whales from spring (2017–2018)
(Quintana and Kraus, 2018) to summer
(2018–2019 and 2020–2021) (O’Brien et
al., 2021a, b).
There are two minke whale feeding
BIAs identified in the southern and
southwestern section of the Gulf of
Maine, including Georges Bank, the
Great South Channel, Cape Cod Bay and
Massachusetts Bay, Stellwagen Bank,
Cape Anne, and Jeffreys Ledge from
March through November, annually
(LaBrecque et al., 2015). However, these
BIAs do not overlap the project area as
they are located further east and north.
A migratory route for minke whales
transiting between northern feeding
grounds and southern breeding areas
may exist to the east of the proposed
project area as minke whales may track
warmer waters along the continental
shelf while migrating (Risch et al.,
2014).
From 2017 through 2022, elevated
minke whale mortalities detected along
the Atlantic coast from Maine through
South Carolina resulted in the
declaration of a UME. As of April 14,
2023, a total of 142 minke whale
mortalities have occurred during this
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 minke whales examined, so
more research is needed. More
information is available at https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-life-distress/2017-2022-minkewhale-unusual-mortality-event-alongatlantic-coast.
Sei Whale
The Nova Scotia stock of sei whales
can be found in deeper waters of the
continental shelf edge of the eastern
United States and northeastward to
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
south of Newfoundland (Mitchell, 1975;
Hain et al., 1985; Hayes et al., 2022).
During spring and summer, the stock is
mainly concentrated in northern feeding
areas, including the Scotian Shelf
(Mitchell and Chapman, 1977), the Gulf
of Maine, Georges Bank, the Northeast
Channel, and south of Nantucket
(CETAP, 1982; Kraus et al., 2016;
Roberts et al., 2016; Palka et al., 2017;
Cholewiak et al., 2018; Hayes et al.,
2022). Sei whales have been detected
acoustically along the Atlantic
Continental Shelf and Slope from south
of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina to the
Davis Strait, with acoustic occurrence
increasing in the mid-Atlantic region
since 2010 (Davis et al., 2020).
Although their migratory movements
are not well understood, sei whales are
believed to migrate north in June and
July to feeding areas and south in
September and October to breeding
areas (Mitchell, 1975; CETAP, 1982;
Davis et al., 2020). Although sei whales
generally occur offshore, individuals
may also move into shallower, more
inshore waters (Payne et al., 1990;
Halpin et al., 2009; Hayes et al., 2022).
A sei whale feeding BIA occurs in New
England waters from May through
November (LaBrecque et al., 2015). This
BIA is located nearby but not within the
project area and is not expected to be
impacted by the Project activities.
Blue Whales
Blue whales are included within this
section due to their ESA-listing status
and not to any active BIA or UME in the
project area. Blue whales are widely
distributed throughout the world’s
oceans and are an ESA-listed species
throughout their range. Their Western
North Atlantic Stock occurs in the
western North Atlantic and generally
ranges from the Arctic to at least midlatitude waters. Blue whales are most
frequently sighted in more northerly
waters off eastern Canada, with the
majority of records from the Gulf of St.
Lawrence by Newfoundland, Canada
(Hayes et al., 2019). They often are
found near the continental shelf edge
where upwelling produces
concentrations of krill, their main prey
species (Yochem and Leatherwood,
1985; Fiedler et al., 1998; Gill et al.,
2011). The blue whale is not common in
the project area. A 2008 study detected
blue whale calls in offshore areas of the
New York Bight on 28 out of 258 days
of recordings (11 percent of the days),
mostly during winter (Muirhead et al.,
2018). Kraus et al. (2016) conducted
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
aerial and acoustic surveys between
2011–2015 in the MA and RI/MA WEAs
and surrounding areas. Blue whales
were not visually observed and were
only sparsely acoustically detected in
the MA and RI/MA WEAs during
winter; the acoustic detection could
have been due to very distant
vocalizations. These data suggest that
blue whales are rarely, if at all, present
in the MA and RI/MA WEAs (Kraus et
al., 2016). Surveys conducted in 2018–
2020, did not result in any sightings of
blue whales in MA and RI/MA WEAs
(O’Brien et al., 2021a; O’Brien et al.,
2021b). However, Park City Wind has
requested a small amount of take for
blue whales on the minimal chance of
encounter.
Much is not known about the blue
whale populations, the last minimum
population abundance was estimated at
402 (Hayes et al., 2023). There are
insufficient data to determine
population trends for blue whales. The
total level of human caused mortality
and serious injury is unknown, but it is
believed to be insignificant and
approaching a zero mortality and
serious injury rate (Hayes et al., 2019).
There are no blue whale BIAs or ESAprotected critical habitat identified in
the project area or along the U.S. Eastern
Seaboard. There is no UME for blue
whales. More information is available at
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/
blue-whale.
Pinnipeds
Since June 2022, elevated numbers of
harbor seal and gray seal mortalities
have occurred across the southern and
central coast of Maine. This event has
been declared a UME. Preliminary
testing of samples has found some
harbor and gray seals positive for highly
pathogenic avian influenza. While the
UME is not occurring in the project area,
the populations affected by the UME are
the same as those potentially affected by
the project. Information on this UME is
available online at https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/2022-2023pinniped-unusual-mortality-eventalong-maine-coast.
The above event was preceded by a
different UME, occurring from 2018–
2020 (closure of the 2018–2020 UME is
pending). Beginning in July 2018,
elevated numbers of harbor seal and
gray seal mortalities occurred across
Maine, New Hampshire, and
Massachusetts. Additionally, stranded
seals have shown clinical signs as far
south as Virginia, although not in
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37623
elevated numbers, therefore the UME
investigation encompassed all seal
strandings from Maine to Virginia. A
total of 3,152 reported strandings (of all
species) occurred from July 1, 2018,
through March 13, 2020. Full or partial
necropsy examinations have been
conducted on some of the seals and
samples have been collected for testing.
Based on tests conducted thus far, 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, which is pending closure.
Information on this UME is available
online at https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-englandmid-atlantic/marine-life-distress/20182020-pinniped-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. Current data indicate
that not all marine mammal species
have equal hearing capabilities (e.g.,
Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and
Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008).
To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007)
recommended that marine mammals be
divided into functional hearing groups
based on directly measured or estimated
hearing ranges on the basis of available
behavioral response data, audiograms
derived using auditory evoked potential
techniques, anatomical modeling, and
other data. Note that no direct
measurements of hearing ability have
been successfully completed for
mysticetes (i.e., low-frequency
cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (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 6.
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
37624
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 6—MARINE MAMMAL HEARING GROUPS
[NMFS, 2018]
Generalized
hearing range *
Hearing group
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) ...................................................................................................................
7 Hz to 35 kHz.
150 Hz to 160 kHz.
275 Hz to 160 kHz.
50 Hz to 86 kHz.
* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual species’
hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized hearing range chosen based on ∼65 dB threshold from normalized composite audiogram,
with the exception for lower limits for LF cetaceans (Southall et al., 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation).
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.
NMFS notes that in 2019a, Southall et
al. recommended new names for
hearing groups that are widely
recognized. However, this new hearing
group classification does not change the
weighting functions or acoustic
thresholds (i.e., the weighting functions
and thresholds in Southall et al. (2019a)
are identical to NMFS 2018 Revised
Technical Guidance). When NMFS
updates our Technical Guidance, we
will be adopting the updated Southall et
al. (2019a) hearing group classification.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Potential Effects of the Specified
Activities on Marine Mammals and
Their Habitat
This section includes a summary and
discussion of the ways that components
of the specified activity may impact
marine mammals and their habitat. The
Estimated Take of Marine Mammals
section later in this document includes
a quantitative analysis of the number of
individuals that are expected to be taken
by this activity. The Negligible Impact
Analysis and Determination section
considers the content of this section, the
Estimated Take of Marine Mammals
section, and the Proposed Mitigation
section, to draw conclusions regarding
the likely impacts of these activities on
the reproductive success or survivorship
of individuals and how those impacts
on individuals are likely to impact
marine mammal species or stocks.
General background information on
marine mammal hearing was provided
previously (see the Description of
Marine Mammals in the Area of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
Specified Activities section). Here, the
potential effects of sound on marine
mammals are discussed.
Park City Wind has requested, and
NMFS proposes to authorize, the take of
marine mammals incidental to the
construction activities associated with
the project area. In their application and
Application Update Report, Park City
Wind presented their analyses of
potential impacts to marine mammals
from the acoustic and explosive sources.
NMFS both carefully reviewed the
information provided by Park City
Wind, as well as independently
reviewed applicable scientific research
and literature and other information to
evaluate the potential effects of the
Project’s activities on marine mammals.
The proposed activities would result
in the construction and placement of up
to 132 permanent foundations to
support WTGs and ESPs and seafloor
mapping using HRG surveys.
Additionally, up to 10 UXO/MEC
detonations may occur during
construction if they cannot be safely
removed by other means. There are a
variety of types and degrees of effects to
marine mammals, prey species, and
habitat that could occur as a result of
the Project. Below we provide a brief
description of the types of sound
sources that would be generated by the
project, the general impacts from these
types of activities, and an analysis of the
anticipated impacts on marine
mammals from the project, with
consideration of the proposed
mitigation measures.
Description of Sound Sources
This section contains a brief technical
background on sound, on the
characteristics of certain sound types,
and on metrics used in this proposal
inasmuch as the information is relevant
to the specified activity and to a
discussion of the potential effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals
found later in this document. For
general information on sound and its
interaction with the marine
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
environment, please see Au and
Hastings (2008); Richardson et al.
(1995); Urick (1983) as well as the
Discovery of Sound in the Sea (DOSITS)
website at https://dosits.org/. Sound is a
vibration that travels as an acoustic
wave through a medium such as a gas,
liquid or solid. Sound waves alternately
compress and decompress the medium
as the wave travels. These compressions
and decompressions are detected as
changes in pressure by aquatic life and
man-made sound receptors such as
hydrophones (underwater
microphones). In water, sound waves
radiate in a manner similar to ripples on
the surface of a pond and may be either
directed in a beam (narrow beam or
directional sources) or sound beams
may radiate in all directions
(omnidirectional sources).
Sound travels in water more
efficiently than almost any other form of
energy, making the use of acoustics
ideal for the aquatic environment and
its inhabitants. In seawater, sound
travels at roughly 1,500 meters per
second (m/s). In-air, sound waves travel
much more slowly, at about 340 m/s.
However, the speed of sound can vary
by a small amount based on
characteristics of the transmission
medium, such as water temperature and
salinity. Sound travels in water more
efficiently than almost any other form of
energy, making the use of acoustics
ideal for the aquatic environment and
its inhabitants. In seawater, sound
travels at roughly 1,500 m/s. In-air,
sound waves travel much more slowly,
at about 340 m/s. However, the speed of
sound can vary by a small amount based
on characteristics of the transmission
medium, such as water temperature and
salinity.
The basic components of a sound
wave are frequency, wavelength,
velocity, and amplitude. Frequency is
the number of pressure waves that pass
by a reference point per unit of time and
is measured in Hz or cycles per second.
Wavelength is the distance between two
peaks or corresponding points of a
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
sound wave (length of one cycle).
Higher frequency sounds have shorter
wavelengths than lower frequency
sounds, and typically attenuate
(decrease) more rapidly, except in
certain cases in shallower water.
The intensity (or amplitude) of
sounds are measured in decibels (dB),
which are a relative unit of
measurement that is used to express the
ratio of one value of a power or field to
another. Decibels are measured on a
logarithmic scale, so a small change in
dB corresponds to large changes in
sound pressure. For example, a 10-dB
increase is a ten-fold increase in
acoustic power. A 20-dB increase is
then a 100-fold increase in power and
a 30-dB increase is a 1000-fold increase
in power. However, a ten-fold increase
in acoustic power does not mean that
the sound is perceived as being 10 times
louder. Decibels are a relative unit
comparing two pressures, therefore, a
reference pressure must always be
indicated. For underwater sound, this is
1 microPascal (mPa). For in-air sound,
the reference pressure is 20 microPascal
(mPa). The amplitude of a sound can be
presented in various ways; however,
NMFS typically considers three metrics.
In this proposed rule, all decibel levels
referenced to 1mPa.
Sound exposure level (SEL)
represents the total energy in a stated
frequency band over a stated time
interval or event, and considers both
amplitude and duration of exposure
(represented as dB re 1 mPa2-s). SEL is
a cumulative metric; it can be
accumulated over a single pulse (for pile
driving this is often referred to as singlestrike SEL; SELss), or calculated over
periods containing multiple pulses
(SELcum). Cumulative SEL represents the
total energy accumulated by a receiver
over a defined time window or during
an event. The SEL metric is useful
because it allows sound exposures of
different durations to be related to one
another in terms of total acoustic
energy. The duration of a sound event
and the number of pulses, however,
should be specified as there is no
accepted standard duration over which
the summation of energy is measured.
Root mean square (rms) is the
quadratic mean sound pressure over the
duration of an impulse. Root mean
square is calculated by squaring all of
the sound amplitudes, averaging the
squares, and then taking the square root
of the average (Urick, 1983). Root mean
square accounts for both positive and
negative values; squaring the pressures
makes all values positive so that they
may be accounted for in the summation
of pressure levels (Hastings and Popper,
2005). This measurement is often used
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
in the context of discussing behavioral
effects, in part because behavioral
effects, which often result from auditory
cues, may be better expressed through
averaged units than by peak pressures.
Peak sound pressure (also referred to
as zero-to-peak sound pressure or 0-pk)
is the maximum instantaneous sound
pressure measurable in the water at a
specified distance from the source, and
is represented in the same units as the
rms sound pressure. Along with SEL,
this metric is used in evaluating the
potential for PTS (permanent threshold
shift) and TTS (temporary threshold
shift). Peak sound pressure is also used
to evaluate the potential for gastrointestinal tract injury (Level A
harassment) from explosives.
For explosives, an impulse metric (Pas), which is the integral of a transient
sound pressure over the duration of the
pulse, is used to evaluate the potential
for mortality (i.e., severe lung injury)
and slight lung injury. These impulse
metric thresholds account for animal
mass and depth.
Sounds can be either impulsive or
non-impulsive. The distinction between
these two sound types is important
because they have differing potential to
cause physical effects, particularly with
regard to hearing (e.g., Ward, 1997 in
Southall et al., 2007). Please see NMFS
et al. (2018) and Southall et al. (2007,
2019a) for an in-depth discussion of
these concepts. Impulsive sound
sources (e.g., airguns, explosions,
gunshots, sonic booms, impact pile
driving) produce signals that are brief
(typically considered to be less than one
second), broadband, atonal transients
(American National Standards Institute
(ANSI), 1986, 2005; Harris, 1998;
National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH), 1998;
International Organization for
Standardization (ISO), 2003) and occur
either as isolated events or repeated in
some succession. Impulsive sounds are
all characterized by a relatively rapid
rise from ambient pressure to a maximal
pressure value followed by a rapid
decay period that may include a period
of diminishing, oscillating maximal and
minimal pressures, and generally have
an increased capacity to induce physical
injury as compared with sounds that
lack these features. Impulsive sounds
are typically intermittent in nature.
Non-impulsive sounds can be tonal,
narrowband, or broadband, brief or
prolonged, and may be either
continuous or intermittent (ANSI, 1995;
NIOSH, 1998). Some of these nonimpulsive sounds can be transient
signals of short duration but without the
essential properties of pulses (e.g., rapid
rise time). Examples of non-impulsive
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37625
sounds include those produced by
vessels, aircraft, machinery operations
such as drilling or dredging, vibratory
pile driving, and active sonar systems.
Sounds are also characterized by their
temporal component. Continuous
sounds are those whose sound pressure
level remains above that of the ambient
sound with negligibly small fluctuations
in level (NIOSH, 1998; ANSI, 2005)
while intermittent sounds are defined as
sounds with interrupted levels of low or
no sound (NIOSH, 1998). NMFS
identifies Level B harassment thresholds
based on if a sound is continuous or
intermittent.
Even in the absence of sound from the
specified activity, the underwater
environment is typically loud due to
ambient sound, which is defined as
environmental background sound levels
lacking a single source or point
(Richardson et al., 1995). The sound
level of a region is defined by the total
acoustical energy being generated by
known and unknown sources. These
sources may include physical (e.g.,
wind and waves, earthquakes, ice,
atmospheric sound), biological (e.g.,
sounds produced by marine mammals,
fish, and invertebrates), and
anthropogenic (e.g., vessels, dredging,
construction) sound. A number of
sources contribute to ambient sound,
including wind and waves, which are a
main source of naturally occurring
ambient sound for frequencies between
200 Hz and 50 kHz (International
Council for the Exploration of the Sea
(ICES), 1995). In general, ambient sound
levels tend to increase with increasing
wind speed and wave height.
Precipitation can become an important
component of total sound at frequencies
above 500 Hz and possibly down to 100
Hz during quiet times. Marine mammals
can contribute significantly to ambient
sound levels as can some fish and
snapping shrimp. The frequency band
for biological contributions is from
approximately 12 Hz to over 100 kHz.
Sources of ambient sound related to
human activity include transportation
(surface vessels), dredging and
construction, oil and gas drilling and
production, geophysical surveys, sonar,
and explosions. Vessel noise typically
dominates the total ambient sound for
frequencies between 20 and 300 Hz. In
general, the frequencies of
anthropogenic sounds are below 1 kHz,
and if higher frequency sound levels are
created, they attenuate rapidly.
The sum of the various natural and
anthropogenic sound sources that
comprise ambient sound at any given
location and time depends not only on
the source levels (as determined by
current weather conditions and levels of
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
37626
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
biological and human activity) but also
on the ability of sound to propagate
through the environment. In turn, sound
propagation is dependent on the
spatially and temporally varying
properties of the water column and sea
floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a
result of the dependence on a large
number of varying factors, ambient
sound levels can be expected to vary
widely over both coarse and fine spatial
and temporal scales. Sound levels at a
given frequency and location can vary
by 10–20 dB from day to day
(Richardson et al., 1995). The result is
that, depending on the source type and
its intensity, sound from the specified
activity may be a negligible addition to
the local environment or could form a
distinctive signal that may affect marine
mammals. Human-generated sound is a
significant contributor to the acoustic
environment in the project location.
Potential Effects of Underwater Sound
on Marine Mammals
Anthropogenic sounds cover a broad
range of frequencies and sound levels
and can have a range of highly variable
impacts on marine life from none or
minor to potentially severe responses
depending on received levels, duration
of exposure, behavioral context, and
various other factors. Broadly,
underwater sound from active acoustic
sources, such as those in the Project, can
potentially result in one or more of the
following: temporary or permanent
hearing impairment, non-auditory
physical or physiological effects,
behavioral disturbance, stress, and
masking (Richardson et al., 1995;
Gordon et al., 2003; Nowacek et al.,
2007; Southall et al., 2007; Go¨tz et al.,
2009). Non-auditory physiological
effects or injuries that theoretically
might occur in marine mammals
exposed to high level underwater sound
or as a secondary effect of extreme
behavioral reactions (e.g., change in
dive profile as a result of an avoidance
reaction) caused by exposure to sound
include neurological effects, bubble
formation, resonance effects, and other
types of organ or tissue damage (Cox et
al., 2006; Southall et al., 2007; Zimmer
and Tyack, 2007; Tal et al., 2015).
In general, the degree of effect of an
acoustic exposure is intrinsically related
to the signal characteristics, received
level, distance from the source, and
duration of the sound exposure, in
addition to the contextual factors of the
receiver (e.g., behavioral state at time of
exposure, age class, etc.). In general,
sudden, high level sounds can cause
hearing loss as can longer exposures to
lower level sounds. Moreover, any
temporary or permanent loss of hearing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
will occur almost exclusively for noise
within an animal’s hearing range. We
describe below the specific
manifestations of acoustic effects that
may occur based on the activities
proposed by Park City Wind.
Richardson et al. (1995) described
zones of increasing intensity of effect
that might be expected to occur in
relation to distance from a source and
assuming that the signal is within an
animal’s hearing range. First (at the
greatest distance) is the area within
which the acoustic signal would be
audible (potentially perceived) to the
animal but not strong enough to elicit
any overt behavioral or physiological
response. The next zone (closer to the
receiving animal) corresponds with the
area where the signal is audible to the
animal and of sufficient intensity to
elicit behavioral or physiological
responsiveness. The third is a zone
within which, for signals of high
intensity, the received level is sufficient
to potentially cause discomfort or tissue
damage to auditory or other systems.
Overlaying these zones to a certain
extent is the area within which masking
(i.e., when a sound interferes with or
masks the ability of an animal to detect
a signal of interest that is above the
absolute hearing threshold) may occur;
the masking zone may be highly
variable in size.
Below, we provide additional detail
regarding potential impacts on marine
mammals and their habitat from noise
in general, starting with hearing
impairment, as well as from the specific
activities Park City Wind plans to
conduct, to the degree it is available
(noting that there is limited information
regarding the impacts of offshore wind
construction on marine mammals).
Hearing Threshold Shift
Marine mammals exposed to highintensity sound or to lower-intensity
sound for prolonged periods can
experience hearing threshold shift (TS),
which NMFS defines as a change,
usually an increase, in the threshold of
audibility at a specified frequency or
portion of an individual’s hearing range
above a previously established reference
level expressed in decibels (NMFS,
2018). Threshold shifts can be
permanent, in which case there is an
irreversible increase in the threshold of
audibility at a specified frequency or
portion of an individual’s hearing range
or temporary, in which there is
reversible increase in the threshold of
audibility at a specified frequency or
portion of an individual’s hearing range
and the animal’s hearing threshold
would fully recover over time (Southall
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
et al., 2019a). Repeated sound exposure
that leads to TTS could cause PTS.
When PTS occurs, there can be
physical damage to the sound receptors
in the ear (i.e., tissue damage) whereas
TTS represents primarily tissue fatigue
and is reversible (Henderson et al.,
2008). 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; Southall et al., 2019a). Therefore,
NMFS does not consider TTS to
constitute auditory injury.
Relationships between TTS and PTS
thresholds have not been studied in
marine mammals, and there is no PTS
data for cetaceans. However, such
relationships are assumed to be similar
to those in humans and other terrestrial
mammals. Noise exposure can result in
either a permanent shift in hearing
thresholds from baseline (PTS; a 40 dB
threshold shift approximates a PTS
onset; e.g., Kryter et al., 1966; Miller,
1974; Henderson et al., 2008) or a
temporary, recoverable shift in hearing
that returns to baseline (a 6 dB
threshold shift approximates a TTS
onset; e.g., Southall et al., 2019a). Based
on data from terrestrial mammals, a
precautionary assumption is that the
PTS thresholds, expressed in the
unweighted peak sound pressure level
metric (PK), for impulsive sounds (such
as impact pile driving pulses) are at
least 6 dB higher than the TTS
thresholds and the weighted PTS
cumulative sound exposure level
thresholds are 15 (impulsive sound) to
20 (non-impulsive sounds) dB higher
than TTS cumulative sound exposure
level thresholds (Southall et al., 2019a).
Given the higher level of sound or
longer exposure duration necessary to
cause PTS as compared with TTS, PTS
is less likely to occur as a result of these
activities, but it is possible and a small
amount has been proposed for
authorization for several species.
TTS is the mildest form of hearing
impairment that can occur during
exposure to sound, with a TTS of 6 dB
considered the minimum threshold shift
clearly larger than any day-to-day or
session-to-session variation in a
subject’s normal hearing ability
(Schlundt et al., 2000; Finneran et al.,
2000; Finneran et al., 2002). 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. There is
data on sound levels and durations
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
necessary to elicit mild TTS for marine
mammals, but recovery is complicated
to predict and dependent on multiple
factors.
Marine mammal hearing plays a
critical role in communication with
conspecifics, and interpretation of
environmental cues for purposes such
as predator avoidance and prey capture.
Depending on the degree (elevation of
threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery
time), and frequency range of TTS, and
the context in which it is experienced,
TTS can have effects on marine
mammals ranging from discountable to
serious depending on the degree of
interference of marine mammals
hearing. For example, a marine mammal
may be able to readily compensate for
a brief, relatively small amount of TTS
in a non-critical frequency range that
occurs during a time where ambient
noise is lower and there are not as many
competing sounds present.
Alternatively, a larger amount and
longer duration of TTS sustained during
time when communication is critical
(e.g., for successful mother/calf
interactions, consistent detection of
prey) could have more serious impacts.
Currently, TTS data only exist for four
species of cetaceans (bottlenose
dolphin, beluga whale (Delphinapterus
leucas), harbor porpoise, and Yangtze
finless porpoise (Neophocaena
asiaeorientalis)) and six species of
pinnipeds (northern elephant seal
(Mirounga angustirostris), harbor seal,
ring seal, spotted seal, bearded seal, and
California sea lion (Zalophus
californianus)) that were exposed to a
limited number of sound sources (i.e.,
mostly tones and octave-band noise
with limited number of exposure to
impulsive sources such as seismic
airguns or impact pile driving) in
laboratory settings (Southall et al.,
2019a). There is currently no data
available on noise-induced hearing loss
for mysticetes. For summaries of data on
TTS or PTS in marine mammals or for
further discussion of TTS or PTS onset
thresholds, please see Southall et al.
(2019a) and NMFS (2018).
Recent studies with captive
odontocete species (bottlenose dolphin,
harbor porpoise, beluga, and false killer
whale) have observed increases in
hearing threshold levels when
individuals received a warning sound
prior to exposure to a relatively loud
sound (Nachtigall and Supin, 2013,
2015; Nachtigall et al., 2016a, 2016b,
2016c; Finneran, 2018; Nachtigall et al.,
2018). These studies suggest that captive
animals have a mechanism to reduce
hearing sensitivity prior to impending
loud sounds. Hearing change was
observed to be frequency dependent and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
Finneran (2018) suggests hearing
attenuation occurs within the cochlea or
auditory nerve. Based on these
observations on captive odontocetes, the
authors suggest that wild animals may
have a mechanism to self-mitigate the
impacts of noise exposure by
dampening their hearing during
prolonged exposures of loud sound or if
conditioned to anticipate intense
sounds (Finneran, 2018; Nachtigall et
al., 2018).
Behavioral Effects
Exposure of marine mammals to
sound sources can result in, but is not
limited to, no response or any of the
following observable responses:
increased alertness; orientation or
attraction to a sound source; vocal
modifications; cessation of feeding;
cessation of social interaction; alteration
of movement or diving behavior; habitat
abandonment (temporary or permanent);
and in severe cases, panic, flight,
stampede, or stranding, potentially
resulting in death (Southall et al., 2007).
A review of marine mammal responses
to anthropogenic sound was first
conducted by Richardson (1995). More
recent reviews address studies
conducted since 1995 and focused on
observations where the received sound
level of the exposed marine mammal(s)
was known or could be estimated
(Nowacek et al., 2007; DeRuiter et al.,
2012 and 2013; Ellison et al., 2012;
Gomez et al., 2016). Gomez et al. (2016)
conducted a review of the literature
considering the contextual information
of exposure in addition to received level
and found that higher received levels
were not always associated with more
severe behavioral responses and vice
versa. Southall et al. (2021) states that
results demonstrate that some
individuals of different species display
clear yet varied responses, some of
which have negative implications while
others appear to tolerate high levels and
that responses may not be fully
predictable with simple acoustic
exposure metrics (e.g., received sound
level). Rather, the authors state that
differences among species and
individuals along with contextual
aspects of exposure (e.g., behavioral
state) appear to affect response
probability.
Behavioral responses to sound are
highly variable and context-specific.
Many different variables can influence
an animal’s perception of and response
to (nature and magnitude) an acoustic
event. An animal’s prior experience
with a sound or sound source affects
whether it is less likely (habituation) or
more likely (sensitization) to respond to
certain sounds in the future (animals
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37627
can also be innately predisposed to
respond to certain sounds in certain
ways) (Southall et al., 2019a). Related to
the sound itself, the perceived nearness
of the sound, bearing of the sound
(approaching vs. retreating), the
similarity of a sound to biologically
relevant sounds in the animal’s
environment (i.e., calls of predators,
prey, or conspecifics), and familiarity of
the sound may affect the way an animal
responds to the sound (Southall et al.,
2007, DeRuiter et al., 2013). Individuals
(of different age, gender, reproductive
status, etc.) among most populations
will have variable hearing capabilities,
and differing behavioral sensitivities to
sounds that will be affected by prior
conditioning, experience, and current
activities of those individuals. Often,
specific acoustic features of the sound
and contextual variables (i.e., proximity,
duration, or recurrence of the sound or
the current behavior that the marine
mammal is engaged in or its prior
experience), as well as entirely separate
factors, such as the physical presence of
a nearby vessel, may be more relevant
to the animal’s response than the
received level alone.
Overall, the variability of responses to
acoustic stimuli depends on the species
receiving the sound, the sound source,
and the social, behavioral, or
environmental contexts of exposure
(e.g., DeRuiter et al., 2012). For
example, Goldbogen et al. (2013a)
demonstrated that individual behavioral
state was critically important in
determining response of blue whales to
sonar, noting that some individuals
engaged in deep (greater than 50 m)
feeding behavior had greater dive
responses than those in shallow feeding
or non-feeding conditions. Some blue
whales in the Goldbogen et al. (2013a)
study that were engaged in shallow
feeding behavior demonstrated no clear
changes in diving or movement even
when received levels were high (∼160
dB re 1mPa) for exposures to 3–4 kHz
sonar signals, while deep feeding and
non-feeding whales showed a clear
response at exposures at lower received
levels of sonar and pseudorandom
noise. Southall et al. (2011) found that
blue whales had a different response to
sonar exposure depending on behavioral
state, more pronounced when deep
feeding/travel modes than when
engaged in surface feeding.
With respect to distance influencing
disturbance, DeRuiter et al. (2013)
examined behavioral responses of
Cuvier’s beaked whales to midfrequency sonar and found that whales
responded strongly at low received
levels (89–127 dB re 1mPa) by ceasing
normal fluking and echolocation,
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
37628
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
swimming rapidly away, and extending
both dive duration and subsequent nonforaging intervals when the sound
source was 3.4–9.5 km away.
Importantly, this study also showed that
whales exposed to a similar range of
received levels (78–106 dB re 1mPa)
from distant sonar exercises (118 km
away) did not elicit such responses,
suggesting that context may moderate
reactions. Thus, distance from the
source is an important variable in
influencing the type and degree of
behavioral response and this variable is
independent of the effect of received
levels (e.g., DeRuiter et al., 2013;
Dunlop et al., 2017a, 2017b; Falcone et
al., 2017; Dunlop et al., 2018; Southall
et al., 2019a).
Ellison et al. (2012) outlined an
approach to assessing the effects of
sound on marine mammals that
incorporates contextual-based factors.
The authors recommend considering not
just the received level of sound but also
the activity the animal is engaged in at
the time the sound is received, the
nature and novelty of the sound (i.e., is
this a new sound from the animal’s
perspective), and the distance between
the sound source and the animal. They
submit that this ‘‘exposure context,’’ as
described, greatly influences the type of
behavioral response exhibited by the
animal. Forney et al. (2017) also point
out that an apparent lack of response
(e.g., no displacement or avoidance of a
sound source) may not necessarily mean
there is no cost to the individual or
population, as some resources or
habitats may be of such high value that
animals may choose to stay, even when
experiencing stress or hearing loss.
Forney et al. (2017) recommend
considering both the costs of remaining
in an area of noise exposure such as
TTS, PTS, or masking, which could lead
to an increased risk of predation or
other threats or a decreased capability to
forage, and the costs of displacement,
including potential increased risk of
vessel strike, increased risks of
predation or competition for resources,
or decreased habitat suitable for
foraging, resting, or socializing. This
sort of contextual information is
challenging to predict with accuracy for
ongoing activities that occur over large
spatial and temporal expanses.
However, distance is one contextual
factor for which data exist to
quantitatively inform a take estimate,
and the method for predicting Level B
harassment in this rule does consider
distance to the source. Other factors are
often considered qualitatively in the
analysis of the likely consequences of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
sound exposure where supporting
information is available.
Behavioral change, such as
disturbance manifesting in lost foraging
time, in response to anthropogenic
activities is often assumed to indicate a
biologically significant effect on a
population of concern. However,
individuals may be able to compensate
for some types and degrees of shifts in
behavior, preserving their health and
thus their vital rates and population
dynamics. For example, New et al.
(2013) developed a model simulating
the complex social, spatial, behavioral
and motivational interactions of coastal
bottlenose dolphins in the Moray Firth,
Scotland, to assess the biological
significance of increased rate of
behavioral disruptions caused by vessel
traffic. Despite a modeled scenario in
which vessel traffic increased from 70 to
470 vessels a year (a six-fold increase in
vessel traffic) in response to the
construction of a proposed offshore
renewables’ facility, the dolphins’
behavioral time budget, spatial
distribution, motivations and social
structure remained unchanged.
Similarly, two bottlenose dolphin
populations in Australia were also
modeled over 5 years against a number
of disturbances (Reed et al., 2020) and
results indicate that habitat/noise
disturbance had little overall impact on
population abundances in either
location, even in the most extreme
impact scenarios modeled.
Friedlaender et al. (2016) provided
the first integration of direct measures of
prey distribution and density variables
incorporated into across-individual
analyses of behavior responses of blue
whales to sonar and demonstrated a
fivefold increase in the ability to
quantify variability in blue whale diving
behavior. These results illustrate that
responses evaluated without such
measurements for foraging animals may
be misleading, which again illustrates
the context-dependent nature of the
probability of response.
The following subsections provide
examples of behavioral responses that
give an idea of the variability in
behavioral responses that would be
expected given the differential
sensitivities of marine mammal species
to sound, contextual factors, 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Avoidance and Displacement
Avoidance is the displacement of an
individual from an area or migration
path as a result of the presence of a
sound or other stressors and is one of
the most obvious manifestations of
disturbance in marine mammals
(Richardson et al., 1995). For example,
gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) and
humpback whales are known to change
direction—deflecting from customary
migratory paths—in order to avoid noise
from airgun surveys (Malme et al., 1984;
Dunlop et al., 2018). 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 may be short-term with
animals returning to the area once the
noise has ceased (e.g., Malme et al.,
1984; Bowles et al., 1994; Goold, 1996;
Stone et al., 2000; Morton and
Symonds, 2002; Gailey et al., 2007;
Da¨hne et al., 2013; Russel et al., 2016).
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; Forney et
al., 2017). Avoidance of marine
mammals during the construction of
offshore wind facilities (specifically,
impact pile driving) has been
documented in the literature with some
significant variation in the temporal and
spatial degree of avoidance and with
most studies focused on harbor
porpoises as one of the most common
marine mammals in European waters
(e.g., Tougaard et al., 2009; Da¨hne et al.,
2013; Thompson et al., 2013; Russell et
al., 2016; Brandt et al., 2018).
Available information on impacts to
marine mammals from pile driving
associated with offshore wind is limited
to information on harbor porpoises and
seals, as the vast majority of this
research has occurred at European
offshore wind projects where large
whales and other odontocete species are
uncommon. Harbor porpoises and
harbor seals are considered to be
behaviorally sensitive species (e.g.,
Southall et al., 2007) and the effects of
wind farm construction in Europe on
these species has been well
documented. These species have
received particular attention in
European waters due to their abundance
in the North Sea (Hammond et al., 2002;
Nachtsheim et al., 2021). A summary of
the literature on documented effects of
wind farm construction on harbor
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
porpoise and harbor seals is described
below.
Brandt et al. (2016) summarized the
effects of the construction of eight
offshore wind projects within the
German North Sea (i.e., Alpha Ventus,
BARD Offshore I, Borkum West II,
DanTysk, Global Tech I, Meerwind Su¨d/
Ost, Nordsee Ost, and Riffgat) between
2009 and 2013 on harbor porpoises,
combining PAM data from 2010–2013
and aerial surveys from 2009–2013 with
data on noise levels associated with pile
driving. Results of the analysis revealed
significant declines in porpoise
detections during pile driving when
compared to 25–48 hours before pile
driving began, with the magnitude of
decline during pile driving clearly
decreasing with increasing distances to
the construction site. During the
majority of projects, significant declines
in detections (by at least 20 percent)
were found within at least 5–10 km of
the pile driving site, with declines at up
to 20–30 km of the pile driving site
documented in some cases. Similar
results demonstrating the long-distance
displacement of harbor porpoises (18–
25 km) and harbor seals (up to 40 km)
during impact pile driving have also
been observed during the construction
at multiple other European wind farms
(Tougaard et al., 2009; Bailey et al.,
2010; Da¨hne et al., 2013; Lucke et al.,
2012; Haelters et al., 2015).
While harbor porpoises and seals tend
to move several kilometers away from
wind farm construction activities, the
duration of displacement has been
documented to be relatively temporary.
In two studies at Horns Rev II using
impact pile driving, harbor porpoise
returned within 1–2 days following
cessation of pile driving (Tougaard et
al., 2009; Brandt et al., 2011). Similar
recovery periods have been noted for
harbor seals off England during the
construction of four wind farms
(Brasseur et al., 2012; Carroll et al.,
2010; Hamre et al., 2011; Hastie et al.,
2015; Russell et al., 2016). In some
cases, an increase in harbor porpoise
activity has been documented inside
wind farm areas following construction
(e.g., Lindeboom et al., 2011). Other
studies have noted longer term impacts
after impact pile driving. Near Dogger
Bank in Germany, harbor porpoises
continued to avoid the area for over 2
years after construction began (Gilles et
al., 2009). Approximately 10 years after
construction of the Nysted wind farm,
harbor porpoise abundance had not
recovered to the original levels
previously seen, although the
echolocation activity was noted to have
been increasing when compared to the
previous monitoring period (Teilmann
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
and Carstensen, 2012). However,
overall, there are no indications for a
population decline of harbor porpoises
in European waters (e.g., Brandt et al.,
2016). Notably, where significant
differences in displacement and return
rates have been identified for these
species, the occurrence of secondary
project-specific influences such as use
of mitigation measures (e.g., bubble
curtains, acoustic deterrent devices
(ADDs)) or the manner in which species
use the habitat in the project area are
likely the driving factors of this
variation.
NMFS notes the aforementioned
studies from Europe involve installing
much smaller piles than Park City Wind
proposes to install and, therefore, we
anticipate noise levels from impact pile
driving to be louder. For this reason, we
anticipate that the greater distances of
displacement observed in harbor
porpoise and harbor seals documented
in Europe are likely to occur off
Massachusetts. However, we do not
anticipate any greater severity of
response due to harbor porpoise and
harbor seal habitat use off
Massachusetts or population-level
consequences similar to European
findings. In many cases, harbor
porpoises and harbor seals are resident
to the areas where European wind farms
have been constructed. However, off
Massachusetts, harbor porpoises are
primarily transient (with higher
abundances in winter when foundation
installation and UXO/MEC detonations
would not occur) and a very small
percentage of the large harbor seal
population are only seasonally present
with no rookeries established. In
summary, we anticipate that harbor
porpoise and harbor seals will likely
respond to pile driving by moving
several kilometers away from the source
but return to typical habitat use patterns
when pile driving ceases.
Some avoidance behavior of other
marine mammal species has been
documented to be dependent on
distance from the source. As described
above, DeRuiter et al. (2013) noted that
distance from a sound source may
moderate marine mammal reactions in
their study of Cuvier’s beaked whales
(an acoustically sensitive species),
which showed the whales swimming
rapidly and silently away when a sonar
signal was 3.4–9.5 km away while
showing no such reaction to the same
signal when the signal was 118 km away
even though the received levels were
similar. Tyack et al. (1983) conducted
playback studies of Surveillance Towed
Array Sensor System (SURTASS) low
frequency active (LFA) sonar in a gray
whale migratory corridor off California.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37629
Similar to North Atlantic right whales,
gray whales migrate close to shore
(approximately +2 kms) and are low
frequency hearing specialists. The LFA
sonar source was placed within the gray
whale migratory corridor
(approximately 2 km offshore) and
offshore of most, but not all, migrating
whales (approximately 4 km offshore).
These locations influenced received
levels and distance to the source. For
the inshore playbacks, not
unexpectedly, the louder the source
level of the playback (i.e., the louder the
received level), whale avoided the
source at greater distances. Specifically,
when the source level was 170 dB rms
and 178 dB rms, whales avoided the
inshore source at ranges of several
hundred meters, similar to avoidance
responses reported by Malme et al.
(1983, 1984). Whales exposed to source
levels of 185 dB rms demonstrated
avoidance levels at ranges of +1 km.
Responses to the offshore source
broadcasting at source levels of 185 and
200 dB, avoidance responses were
greatly reduced. While there was
observed deflection from course, in no
case did a whale abandon its migratory
behavior.
The signal context of the noise
exposure has been shown to play an
important role in avoidance responses.
In a 2007–2008 Bahamas study,
playback sounds of a potential
predator—a killer whale—resulted in a
similar but more pronounced reaction in
beaked whales (an acoustically sensitive
species), which included longer interdive intervals and a sustained straightline departure of more than 20 km from
the area (Boyd et al., 2008; Southall et
al., 2009; Tyack et al., 2011). Park City
Wind does not anticipate, and NMFS is
not proposing to authorize take of
beaked whales and, moreover, the
sounds produced by Park City Wind do
not have signal characteristics similar to
predators. Therefore we would not
expect such extreme reactions to occur.
Southall et al. (2011) found that blue
whales had a different response to sonar
exposure depending on behavioral state,
more pronounced when deep feeding/
travel modes than when engaged in
surface feeding.
One potential consequence of
behavioral avoidance is the altered
energetic expenditure of marine
mammals because energy is required to
move and avoid surface vessels or the
sound field associated with active sonar
(Frid and Dill, 2002). Most animals can
avoid that energetic cost by swimming
away at slow speeds or speeds that
minimize the cost of transport (MiksisOlds, 2006), as has been demonstrated
in Florida manatees (Miksis-Olds, 2006).
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
37630
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Those energetic costs increase, however,
when animals shift from a resting state,
which is designed to conserve an
animal’s energy, to an active state that
consumes energy the animal would
have conserved had it not been
disturbed. Marine mammals that have
been disturbed by anthropogenic noise
and vessel approaches are commonly
reported to shift from resting to active
behavioral states, which would imply
that they incur an energy cost.
Forney et al. (2017) detailed the
potential effects of noise on marine
mammal populations with high site
fidelity, including displacement and
auditory masking, noting that a lack of
observed response does not imply
absence of fitness costs and that
apparent tolerance of disturbance may
have population-level impacts that are
less obvious and difficult to document.
Avoidance of overlap between
disturbing noise and areas and/or times
of particular importance for sensitive
species may be critical to avoiding
population-level impacts because
(particularly for animals with high site
fidelity) there may be a strong
motivation to remain in the area despite
negative impacts. Forney et al. (2017)
stated that, for these animals, remaining
in a disturbed area may reflect a lack of
alternatives rather than a lack of effects.
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; Frid and Dill, 2002).
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, beaked whale strandings (Cox et
al., 2006; D’Amico et al., 2009).
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. Flight responses of marine
mammals have been documented in
response to mobile high intensity active
sonar (e.g., Tyack et al., 2011; DeRuiter
et al., 2013; Wensveen et al., 2019), and
more severe responses have been
documented when sources are moving
towards an animal or when they are
surprised by unpredictable exposures
(Watkins, 1986; Falcone et al., 2017).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
Generally speaking, however, marine
mammals would be expected to be less
likely to respond with a flight response
to either stationery pile driving (which
they can sense is stationery and
predictable) or significantly lower-level
HRG surveys, unless they are within the
area ensonified above behavioral
harassment thresholds at the moment
the source is turned on (Watkins, 1986;
Falcone et al., 2017).
Diving and Foraging
Changes in dive behavior in response
to noise exposure can vary widely. They
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., 2013a; Goldbogen et
al., 2013b). Variations in dive behavior
may reflect interruptions in biologically
significant activities (e.g., foraging) or
they may be of little biological
significance. Variations in dive behavior
may also expose an animal to
potentially harmful conditions (e.g.,
increasing the chance of ship-strike) or
may serve as an avoidance response that
enhances survivorship. The impact of a
variation in diving resulting from an
acoustic exposure depends on what the
animal is doing at the time of the
exposure, the type and magnitude of the
response, and the context within which
the response occurs (e.g., the
surrounding environmental and
anthropogenic circumstances).
Nowacek et al. (2004) reported
disruptions of dive behaviors in foraging
North Atlantic right whales when
exposed to an alerting stimulus, an
action, they noted, that could lead to an
increased likelihood of ship strike. The
alerting stimulus was in the form of an
18 minute exposure that included three
2-minute signals played three times
sequentially. This stimulus was
designed with the purpose of providing
signals distinct to background noise that
serve as localization cues. However, the
whales did not respond to playbacks of
either right whale social sounds or
vessel noise, highlighting the
importance of the sound characteristics
in producing a behavioral reaction.
Although source levels for the proposed
pile driving activities may exceed the
received level of the alerting stimulus
described by Nowacek et al. (2004),
proposed mitigation strategies (further
described in the Proposed Mitigation
section) will reduce the severity of
response to proposed pile driving
activities. Converse to the behavior of
North Atlantic right whales, IndoPacific humpback dolphins have been
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
observed to dive for longer periods of
time in areas where vessels were present
and/or approaching (Ng and Leung,
2003). In both of these studies, the
influence of the sound exposure cannot
be decoupled from the physical
presence of a surface vessel, thus
complicating interpretations of the
relative contribution of each stimulus to
the response. Indeed, the presence of
surface vessels, their approach, and
speed of approach, seemed to be
significant factors in the response of the
Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins (Ng
and Leung, 2003). Low frequency
signals of the Acoustic Thermometry of
Ocean Climate (ATOC) sound source
were not found to affect dive times of
humpback whales in Hawaiian waters
(Frankel and Clark, 2000) or to overtly
affect elephant seal dives (Costa et al.,
2003). They did, however, produce
subtle effects that varied in direction
and degree among the individual seals,
illustrating the equivocal nature of
behavioral effects and consequent
difficulty in defining and predicting
them.
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 cessation of
secondary indicators of foraging (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., 2006a; Yazvenko et
al., 2007; Southall et al., 2019b). An
understanding 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
can facilitate the assessment of whether
foraging disruptions are likely to incur
fitness consequences (Goldbogen et al.,
2013b; Farmer et al., 2018; Pirotta et al.,
2018; Southall et al., 2019a; Pirotta et
al., 2021).
Impacts on marine mammal foraging
rates from noise exposure have been
documented, though there is little data
regarding the impacts of offshore
turbine construction specifically.
Several broader examples follow, and it
is reasonable to expect that exposure to
noise produced during the 5-years the
proposed rule would be effective could
have similar impacts.
Visual tracking, passive acoustic
monitoring, and movement recording
tags were used to quantify sperm whale
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
behavior prior to, during, and following
exposure to airgun arrays at received
levels in the range 140–160 dB at
distances of 7–13 km, following a phasein of sound intensity and full array
exposures at 1–13 km (Madsen et al.,
2006a; Miller et al., 2009). Sperm
whales did not exhibit horizontal
avoidance behavior at the surface.
However, foraging behavior may have
been affected. The sperm whales
exhibited 19 percent less vocal (buzz)
rate during full exposure relative to post
exposure, and the whale that was
approached most closely had an
extended resting period and did not
resume foraging until the airguns had
ceased firing. The remaining whales
continued to execute foraging dives
throughout exposure; however,
swimming movements during foraging
dives were 6 percent lower during
exposure than control periods (Miller et
al., 2009). Miller et al. (2009) noted that
more data are required to understand
whether the differences were due to
exposure or natural variation in sperm
whale behavior.
Balaenopterid whales exposed to
moderate low-frequency signals similar
to the ATOC sound source
demonstrated no variation in foraging
activity (Croll et al., 2001), whereas five
out of six North Atlantic right whales
exposed to an acoustic alarm
interrupted their foraging dives
(Nowacek et al., 2004). Although the
received SPLs were similar in the latter
two studies, the frequency, duration,
and temporal pattern of signal
presentation were different. These
factors, as well as differences in species
sensitivity, are likely contributing
factors to the differential response. The
source levels of both the proposed
construction and HRG activities exceed
the source levels of the signals
described by Nowacek et al. (2004) and
Croll et al. (2001), and noise generated
by Park City Wind’s activities at least
partially overlap in frequency with the
described signals. Blue whales exposed
to mid-frequency sonar in the Southern
California Bight were less likely to
produce low frequency calls usually
associated with feeding behavior
(Melco´n et al., 2012). However, Melco´n
et al. (2012) were unable to determine
if suppression of low frequency calls
reflected a change in their feeding
performance or abandonment of
foraging behavior and indicated that
implications of the documented
responses are unknown. Further, it is
not known whether the lower rates of
calling actually indicated a reduction in
feeding behavior or social contact since
the study used data from remotely
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
deployed, passive acoustic monitoring
buoys. Results from the 2010–2011 field
season of a behavioral response study in
Southern California waters indicated
that, in some cases and at low received
levels, tagged blue whales responded to
mid-frequency sonar but that those
responses were mild and there was a
quick return to their baseline activity
(Southall et al., 2011; Southall et al.,
2012b, Southall et al., 2019).
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.
Foraging strategies may impact foraging
efficiency, such as by reducing foraging
effort and increasing success in prey
detection and capture, in turn
promoting fitness and allowing
individuals to better compensate for
foraging disruptions. Surface feeding
blue whales did not show a change in
behavior in response to mid-frequency
simulated and real sonar sources with
received levels between 90 and 179 dB
re 1 mPa, but deep feeding and nonfeeding whales showed temporary
reactions including cessation of feeding,
reduced initiation of deep foraging
dives, generalized avoidance responses,
and changes to dive behavior (DeRuiter
et al., 2017; Goldbogen et al., 2013b;
Sivle et al., 2015). Goldbogen et al.
(2013b) 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 whale 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 that individual
fitness and health would be impacted,
particularly since unconsumed prey
would likely still be available in the
environment in most cases following the
cessation of acoustic exposure.
Similarly, while the rates of foraging
lunges decrease in humpback whales
due to sonar exposure, there was
variability in the response across
individuals, with one animal ceasing to
forage completely and another animal
starting to forage during the exposure
(Sivle et al., 2016). In addition, almost
half of the animals that demonstrated
avoidance were foraging before the
exposure but the others were not; the
animals that avoided while not feeding
responded at a slightly lower received
level and greater distance than those
that were feeding (Wensveen et al.,
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37631
2017). These findings indicate the
behavioral state of the animal and
foraging strategies play a role in the type
and severity of a behavioral response.
For example, when the prey field was
mapped and used as a covariate in
examining how behavioral state of blue
whales is influenced by mid-frequency
sound, the response in blue whale deepfeeding behavior was even more
apparent, reinforcing the need for
contextual variables to be included
when assessing behavioral responses
(Friedlaender et al., 2016).
Vocalizations and Auditory Masking
Marine mammals vocalize for
different purposes and across multiple
modes, such as whistling, production of
echolocation clicks, calling, and singing.
Changes in vocalization behavior in
response to anthropogenic noise can
occur for any of these modes and may
result directly from increased vigilance
or a startle response, or from a need to
compete with an increase in background
noise (see Erbe et al., 2016 review on
communication masking), the latter of
which is described more below.
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) and blue
whales increased song production (Di
Iorio and Clark, 2009), while North
Atlantic right whales have been
observed to shift the frequency content
of their calls upward while reducing the
rate of calling in areas of increased
anthropogenic noise (Parks et al., 2007).
In some cases, animals may cease or
reduce sound production during
production of aversive signals (Bowles
et al., 1994; Thode et al., 2020; Cerchio
et al., 2014; McDonald et al., 1995).
Blackwell et al. (2015) showed that
whales increased calling rates as soon as
airgun signals were detectable before
ultimately decreasing calling rates at
higher received levels.
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, or
navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995;
Erbe and Farmer, 2000; Tyack, 2000;
Erbe et al., 2016). Masking occurs when
the receipt of a sound is interfered with
by another coincident sound at similar
frequencies and at similar or higher
intensity, and may occur whether the
sound is natural (e.g., snapping shrimp,
wind, waves, precipitation) or
anthropogenic (e.g., shipping, sonar,
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
37632
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
seismic exploration) in origin. The
ability of a noise source to mask
biologically important sounds depends
on the characteristics of both the noise
source and the signal of interest (e.g.,
signal-to-noise ratio, temporal
variability, direction), in relation to each
other and to an animal’s hearing
abilities (e.g., sensitivity, frequency
range, critical ratios, frequency
discrimination, directional
discrimination, age, or TTS hearing
loss), and existing ambient noise and
propagation conditions.
Masking these acoustic signals can
disturb the behavior of individual
animals, groups of animals, or entire
populations. Masking can lead to
behavioral changes including vocal
changes (e.g., Lombard effect, increasing
amplitude, or changing frequency),
cessation of foraging or lost foraging
opportunities, and leaving an area, to
both signalers and receivers, in an
attempt to compensate for noise levels
(Erbe et al., 2016) or because sounds
that would typically have triggered a
behavior were not detected. In humans,
significant masking of tonal signals
occurs as a result of exposure to noise
in a narrow band of similar frequencies.
As the sound level increases, though,
the detection of frequencies above those
of the masking stimulus decreases also.
This principle is expected to apply to
marine mammals as well because of
common biomechanical cochlear
properties across taxa.
Therefore, when the coincident
(masking) sound is man-made, it may be
considered harassment when disrupting
behavioral patterns. It is important to
distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist
after the sound exposure, from masking,
which only occurs during the sound
exposure. Because masking (without
resulting in threshold shift) is not
associated with abnormal physiological
function, it is not considered a
physiological effect, but rather a
potential behavioral effect.
The frequency range of the potentially
masking sound is important in
determining any potential behavioral
impacts. For example, low-frequency
signals may have less effect on highfrequency echolocation sounds
produced by odontocetes but are more
likely to affect detection of mysticete
communication calls and other
potentially important natural sounds
such as those produced by surf and
some prey species. The masking of
communication signals by
anthropogenic noise may be considered
as a reduction in the communication
space of animals (e.g., Clark et al., 2009;
Matthews et al., 2017) and may result in
energetic or other costs as animals
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
change their vocalization behavior (e.g.,
Miller et al., 2000; Foote et al., 2004;
Parks et al., 2007; Di Iorio and Clark,
2009; Holt et al., 2009). Masking can be
reduced in situations where the signal
and noise come from different
directions (Richardson et al., 1995),
through amplitude modulation of the
signal, or through other compensatory
behaviors (Houser and Moore, 2014).
Masking can be tested directly in
captive species (e.g., Erbe, 2008), but in
wild populations it must be either
modeled or inferred from evidence of
masking compensation. There are few
studies addressing real-world masking
sounds likely to be experienced by
marine mammals in the wild (e.g.,
Branstetter et al., 2013; Cholewiak et al.,
2018).
The echolocation calls of toothed
whales are subject to masking by highfrequency sound. Human data indicate
low-frequency sound can mask highfrequency sounds (i.e., upward
masking). Studies on captive
odontocetes by Au et al. (1974, 1985,
1993) indicate that some species may
use various processes to reduce masking
effects (e.g., adjustments in echolocation
call intensity or frequency as a function
of background noise conditions). There
is also evidence that the directional
hearing abilities of odontocetes are
useful in reducing masking at the highfrequencies these cetaceans use to
echolocate, but not at the low-tomoderate frequencies they use to
communicate (Zaitseva et al., 1980). A
study by Nachtigall and Supin (2008)
showed that false killer whales adjust
their hearing to compensate for ambient
sounds and the intensity of returning
echolocation signals.
Impacts on signal detection, measured
by masked detection thresholds, are not
the only important factors to address
when considering the potential effects
of masking. As marine mammals use
sound to recognize conspecifics, prey,
predators, or other biologically
significant sources (Branstetter et al.,
2016), it is also important to understand
the impacts of masked recognition
thresholds (often called ‘‘informational
masking’’). Branstetter et al. (2016)
measured masked recognition
thresholds for whistle-like sounds of
bottlenose dolphins and observed that
they are approximately 4 dB above
detection thresholds (energetic masking)
for the same signals. Reduced ability to
recognize a conspecific call or the
acoustic signature of a predator could
have severe negative impacts.
Branstetter et al. (2016) observed that if
‘‘quality communication’’ is set at 90
percent recognition the output of
communication space models (which
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
are based on 50 percent detection)
would likely result in a significant
decrease in communication range.
As marine mammals use sound to
recognize predators (Allen et al., 2014;
Cummings and Thompson, 1971; Cure´
et al., 2015; Fish and Vania, 1971), the
presence of masking noise may also
prevent marine mammals from
responding to acoustic cues produced
by their predators, particularly if it
occurs in the same frequency band. For
example, harbor seals that reside in the
coastal waters off British Columbia are
frequently targeted by mammal-eating
killer whales. The seals acoustically
discriminate between the calls of
mammal-eating and fish-eating killer
whales (Deecke et al., 2002), a capability
that should increase survivorship while
reducing the energy required to attend
to all killer whale calls. Similarly,
sperm whales (Cure´ et al., 2016;
Isojunno et al., 2016), long-finned pilot
whales (Visser et al., 2016), and
humpback whales (Cure´ et al., 2015)
changed their behavior in response to
killer whale vocalization playbacks;
these findings indicate that some
recognition of predator cues could be
missed if the killer whale vocalizations
were masked. The potential effects of
masked predator acoustic cues depends
on the duration of the masking noise
and the likelihood of a marine mammal
encountering a predator during the time
that detection and recognition of
predator cues are impeded.
Redundancy and context can also
facilitate detection of weak signals.
These phenomena may help marine
mammals detect weak sounds in the
presence of natural or manmade noise.
Most masking studies in marine
mammals present the test signal and the
masking noise from the same direction.
The dominant background noise may be
highly directional if it comes from a
particular anthropogenic source such as
a ship or industrial site. Directional
hearing may significantly reduce the
masking effects of these sounds by
improving the effective signal-to-noise
ratio.
Masking affects both senders and
receivers of acoustic signals and, at
higher levels and longer duration, can
potentially have long-term chronic
effects on marine mammals at the
population level as well as at the
individual level. Low-frequency
ambient sound levels have increased by
as much as 20 dB (more than three times
in terms of SPL) in the world’s ocean
from pre-industrial periods, with most
of the increase from distant commercial
shipping (Hildebrand, 2009; Cholewiak
et al., 2018). All anthropogenic sound
sources, but especially chronic and
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
lower-frequency signals (e.g., from
commercial vessel traffic), contribute to
elevated ambient sound levels, thus
intensifying masking.
In addition to making it more difficult
for animals to perceive and recognize
acoustic cues in their environment,
anthropogenic sound presents separate
challenges for animals that are
vocalizing. When they vocalize, animals
are aware of environmental conditions
that affect the ‘‘active space’’ (or
communication space) of their
vocalizations, which is the maximum
area within which their vocalizations
can be detected before it drops to the
level of ambient noise (Brenowitz, 2004;
Brumm et al., 2004; Lohr et al., 2003).
Animals are also aware of
environmental conditions that affect
whether listeners can discriminate and
recognize their vocalizations from other
sounds, which is more important than
simply detecting that a vocalization is
occurring (Brenowitz, 1982; Brumm et
al., 2004; Dooling, 2004; Marten and
Marler, 1977; Patricelli and Blickley,
2006). Most species that vocalize have
evolved with an ability to make
adjustments to their vocalizations to
increase the signal-to-noise ratio, active
space, and recognizability/
distinguishability of their vocalizations
in the face of temporary changes in
background noise (Brumm et al., 2004;
Patricelli and Blickley, 2006).
Vocalizing animals can make
adjustments to vocalization
characteristics such as the frequency
structure, amplitude, temporal
structure, and temporal delivery
(repetition rate), or ceasing to vocalize.
Many animals will combine several of
these strategies to compensate for high
levels of background noise.
Anthropogenic sounds that reduce the
signal-to-noise ratio of animal
vocalizations, increase the masked
auditory thresholds of animals listening
for such vocalizations, or reduce the
active space of an animal’s vocalizations
impair communication between
animals. Most animals that vocalize
have evolved strategies to compensate
for the effects of short-term or temporary
increases in background or ambient
noise on their songs or calls. Although
the fitness consequences of these vocal
adjustments are not directly known in
all instances, like most other trade-offs
animals must make, some of these
strategies likely come at a cost (Patricelli
and Blickley, 2006; Noren et al., 2017;
Noren et al., 2020). Shifting songs and
calls to higher frequencies may also
impose energetic costs (Lambrechts,
1996).
Marine mammals are also known to
make vocal changes in response to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
anthropogenic noise. In cetaceans,
vocalization changes have been reported
from exposure to anthropogenic noise
sources such as sonar, vessel noise, and
seismic surveying (see the following for
examples: Gordon et al., 2003; Di Iorio
and Clark, 2009; Hatch et al., 2012; Holt
et al., 2009; Holt et al., 2011; Lesage et
al., 1999; McDonald et al., 2009; Parks
et al., 2007; Risch et al., 2012; Rolland
et al., 2012), as well as changes in the
natural acoustic environment (Dunlop et
al., 2014). Vocal changes can be
temporary, or can be persistent. For
example, model simulation suggests that
the increase in starting frequency for the
North Atlantic right whale upcall over
the last 50 years resulted in increased
detection ranges between right whales.
The frequency shift, coupled with an
increase in call intensity by 20 dB, led
to a call detectability range of less than
3 km to over 9 km (Tennessen and
Parks, 2016). Holt et al. (2009) measured
killer whale call source levels and
background noise levels in the 1 to 40
kHz band and reported that the whales
increased their call source levels by 1
dB SPL for every one dB SPL increase
in background noise level. Similarly,
another study on St. Lawrence River
belugas reported a similar rate of
increase in vocalization activity in
response to passing vessels (Scheifele et
al., 2005). Di Iorio and Clark (2009)
showed that blue whale calling rates
vary in association with seismic sparker
survey activity, with whales calling
more on days with surveys than on days
without surveys. They suggested that
the whales called more during seismic
survey periods as a way to compensate
for the elevated noise conditions.
In some cases, these vocal changes
may have fitness consequences, such as
an increase in metabolic rates and
oxygen consumption, as observed in
bottlenose dolphins when increasing
their call amplitude (Holt et al., 2015).
A switch from vocal communication to
physical, surface-generated sounds such
as pectoral fin slapping or breaching
was observed for humpback whales in
the presence of increasing natural
background noise levels, indicating that
adaptations to masking may also move
beyond vocal modifications (Dunlop et
al., 2010).
While these changes all represent
possible tactics by the sound-producing
animal to reduce the impact of masking,
the receiving animal can also reduce
masking by using active listening
strategies such as orienting to the sound
source, moving to a quieter location, or
reducing self-noise from hydrodynamic
flow by remaining still. The temporal
structure of noise (e.g., amplitude
modulation) may also provide a
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37633
considerable release from masking
through comodulation masking release
(a reduction of masking that occurs
when broadband noise, with a
frequency spectrum wider than an
animal’s auditory filter bandwidth at the
frequency of interest, is amplitude
modulated) (Branstetter and Finneran,
2008; Branstetter et al., 2013). Signal
type (e.g., whistles, burst-pulse, sonar
clicks) and spectral characteristics (e.g.,
frequency modulated with harmonics)
may further influence masked detection
thresholds (Branstetter et al., 2016;
Cunningham et al., 2014).
Masking is more likely to occur in the
presence of broadband, relatively
continuous noise sources, such as
vessels. Several studies have shown
decreases in marine mammal
communication space and changes in
behavior as a result of the presence of
vessel noise. For example, right whales
were 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) as well as increasing the
amplitude (intensity) of their calls
(Parks, 2009; Parks et al., 2011). Clark et
al. (2009) observed that right whales’
communication space decreased by up
to 84 percent in the presence of vessels.
Cholewiak et al. (2018) also observed
loss in communication space in
Stellwagen National Marine Sanctuary
for North Atlantic right whales, fin
whales, and humpback whales with
increased ambient noise and shipping
noise. Although humpback whales off
Australia did not change the frequency
or duration of their vocalizations in the
presence of ship noise, their source
levels were lower than expected based
on source level changes to wind noise,
potentially indicating some signal
masking (Dunlop, 2016). Multiple
delphinid species have also been shown
to increase the minimum or maximum
frequencies of their whistles in the
presence of anthropogenic noise and
reduced communication space (for
examples see: Holt et al., 2009; Holt et
al., 2011; Gervaise et al., 2012; Williams
et al., 2013; Hermannsen et al., 2014;
Papale et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2017).
While masking impacts are not a
concern from lower intensity, higher
frequency HRG surveys, some degree of
masking would be expected in the
vicinity of turbine pile driving and
concentrated support vessel operation.
However, pile driving is an intermittent
sound and would not be continuous
throughout a day.
Habituation and Sensitization
Habituation can occur when an
animal’s response to a stimulus wanes
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
37634
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
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 having a neutral
or positive outcome (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.
Both habituation and sensitization
require an ongoing learning process. 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; National Research Council (NRC),
2003; Wartzok et al., 2003; Southall et
al., 2019b). Controlled experiments with
captive marine mammals have shown
pronounced behavioral reactions,
including avoidance of loud sound
sources (e.g., Ridgway et al., 1997;
Finneran et al., 2003; Houser et al.,
2013a; Houser et al., 2013b; Kastelein et
al., 2018). Observed responses of wild
marine mammals to loud impulsive
sound sources (typically 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;
Tougaard et al., 2009; Brandt et al.,
2011; Brandt et al., 2012; Da¨hne et al.,
2013; Brandt et al., 2014; Russell et al.,
2016; Brandt et al., 2018).
Stone (2015) reported data from at-sea
observations during 1,196 airgun
surveys from 1994 to 2010. When large
arrays of airguns (considered to be 500
in 3 or more) were firing, lateral
displacement, more localized
avoidance, or other changes in behavior
were evident for most odontocetes.
However, significant responses to large
arrays were found only for the minke
whale and fin whale. Behavioral
responses observed included changes in
swimming or surfacing behavior with
indications that cetaceans remained
near the water surface at these times.
Behavioral observations of gray whales
during an airgun survey monitored
whale movements and respirations
pre-, during-, and post-seismic survey
(Gailey et al., 2016). Behavioral state
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
and water depth were the best ‘natural’
predictors of whale movements and
respiration and after considering natural
variation, none of the response variables
were significantly associated with
survey or vessel sounds. Many
delphinids approach low-frequency
airgun source vessels with no apparent
discomfort or obvious behavioral change
(e.g., Barkaszi et al., 2012), indicating
the importance of frequency output in
relation to the species’ hearing
sensitivity.
Physiological Responses
An animal’s perception of a threat
may be sufficient to trigger stress
responses consisting of some
combination of behavioral responses,
autonomic nervous system responses,
neuroendocrine responses, or immune
responses (e.g., Seyle, 1950; Moberg,
2000). In many cases, an animal’s first
and sometimes most economical (in
terms of energetic costs) response is
behavioral avoidance of the potential
stressor. Autonomic nervous system
responses to stress typically involve
changes in heart rate, blood pressure,
and gastrointestinal activity. These
responses have a relatively short
duration and may or may not have a
significant long-term effect on an
animal’s fitness.
Neuroendocrine stress responses often
involve the hypothalamus-pituitaryadrenal system. Virtually all
neuroendocrine functions that are
affected by stress—including immune
competence, reproduction, metabolism,
and behavior—are regulated by pituitary
hormones. Stress-induced changes in
the secretion of pituitary hormones have
been implicated in failed reproduction,
altered metabolism, reduced immune
competence, and behavioral disturbance
(e.g., Moberg, 1987; Blecha, 2000).
Increases in the circulation of
glucocorticoids are also equated with
stress (Romano et al., 2004).
The primary distinction between
stress (which is adaptive and does not
normally place an animal at risk) and
‘‘distress’’ is the cost of the response.
During a stress response, an animal uses
glycogen stores that can be quickly
replenished once the stress is alleviated.
In such circumstances, the cost of the
stress response would not pose serious
fitness consequences. However, when
an animal does not have sufficient
energy reserves to satisfy the energetic
costs of a stress response, energy
resources must be diverted from other
functions. This state of distress will last
until the animal replenishes its
energetic reserves sufficiently to restore
normal function.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Relationships between these
physiological mechanisms, animal
behavior, and the costs of stress
responses are well studied through
controlled experiments and for both
laboratory and free-ranging animals
(e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al.,
1998; Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et
al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005). Stress
responses due to exposure to
anthropogenic sounds or other stressors
and their effects on marine mammals
have also been reviewed (Fair and
Becker, 2000; Romano et al., 2002b)
and, more rarely, studied in wild
populations (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder,
2007; Romano et al., 2002a; Rolland et
al., 2012). For example, Rolland et al.
(2012) found that noise reduction from
reduced ship traffic in the Bay of Fundy
was associated with decreased stress in
North Atlantic right whales.
These and other studies lead to a
reasonable expectation that some
marine mammals will experience
physiological stress responses upon
exposure to acoustic stressors and that
it is possible that some of these would
be classified as ‘‘distress.’’ In addition,
any animal experiencing TTS would
likely also experience stress responses
(NRC, 2003, 2017).
Respiration naturally varies with
different behaviors and variations in
respiration rate as a function of acoustic
exposure can be expected to co-occur
with other behavioral reactions, such as
a flight response or an alteration in
diving. However, respiration rates in
and of themselves may be representative
of annoyance or an acute stress
response. Mean exhalation rates of gray
whales at rest and while diving were
found to be unaffected by seismic
surveys conducted adjacent to the whale
feeding grounds (Gailey et al., 2007).
Studies with captive harbor porpoises
show increased respiration rates upon
introduction of acoustic alarms
(Kastelein et al., 2001; Kastelein et al.,
2006a) and emissions for underwater
data transmission (Kastelein et al.,
2005). However, exposure of the same
acoustic alarm to a striped dolphin
under the same conditions did not elicit
a response (Kastelein et al., 2006a),
again highlighting the importance in
understanding species differences in the
tolerance of underwater noise when
determining the potential for impacts
resulting from anthropogenic sound
exposure.
Stranding
The definition for a stranding under
title IV of the MMPA is that (A) a marine
mammal is dead and is (i) on a beach
or shore of the United States; or (ii) in
waters under the jurisdiction of the
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
United States (including any navigable
waters); or (B) a marine mammal is alive
and is (i) on a beach or shore of the
United States and is unable to return to
the water; (ii) on a beach or shore of the
United States and, although able to
return to the water, is in need of
apparent medical attention; or (iii) in
the waters under the jurisdiction of the
United States (including any navigable
waters), but is unable to return to its
natural habitat under its own power or
without assistance (16 U.S.C. 1421h).
Marine mammal strandings have been
linked to a variety of causes, such as
illness from exposure to infectious
agents, biotoxins, or parasites;
starvation; unusual oceanographic or
weather events; or anthropogenic causes
including fishery interaction, ship
strike, entrainment, entrapment, sound
exposure, or combinations of these
stressors sustained concurrently or in
series. There have been multiple events
worldwide in which marine mammals
(primarily beaked whales, or other deep
divers) have stranded coincident with
relatively nearby activities utilizing
loud sound sources (primarily military
training events), and five in which midfrequency active sonar has been more
definitively determined to have been a
contributing factor.
There are multiple theories regarding
the specific mechanisms responsible for
marine mammal strandings caused by
exposure to loud sounds. One primary
theme is the behaviorally mediated
responses of deep-diving species
(odontocetes), in which their startled
response to an acoustic disturbance (1)
affects ascent or descent rates, the time
they stay at depth or the surface, or
other regular dive patterns that are used
to physiologically manage gas formation
and absorption within their bodies, such
that the formation or growth of gas
bubbles damages tissues or causes other
injury, or (2) results in their flight to
shallow areas, enclosed bays, or other
areas considered ‘‘out of habitat,’’ in
which they become disoriented and
physiologically compromised. For more
information on marine mammal
stranding events and potential causes,
please see the Mortality and Stranding
section of NMFS Proposed Incidental
Take Regulations for the Navy’s
Training and Testing Activities in the
Hawaii-Southern California Training
and Testing Study Area (50 CFR part
218, Volume 83, No. 123, June 26,
2018).
The construction activities proposed
by Park City Wind (i.e., pile driving,
drilling, UXO/MEC detonation) do not
inherently have the potential to result in
marine mammal strandings. While
vessel strikes and UXO/MEC detonation
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
could kill or injure a marine mammals
(which may eventually strand), the
required mitigation measures would
reduce the potential for take from these
activities to de minimus levels (see
Proposed Mitigation section for more
details). As described above, no
mortality or serious injury is anticipated
or proposed to be authorized from any
Project activities.
Of the strandings documented to date
worldwide, NMFS is not aware of any
being attributed to pile driving, a single
UXO/MEC detonation of the charge
weights proposed here, or the types of
HRG equipment proposed for use during
the Project. Recently, there has been
heightened interest in HRG surveys and
their potential role in recent marine
mammals strandings along the U.S. east
coast. HRG surveys involve the use of
certain sources to image the ocean
bottom, which are very different from
seismic airguns used in oil and gas
surveys or tactical military sonar, in that
they produce much smaller impact
zones. Marine mammals may respond to
exposure to these sources by, for
example, avoiding the immediate area,
which is why offshore wind developers
have authorization to allow for Level B
(behavioral) harassment, including Park
City Wind. However, because of the
combination of lower source levels,
higher frequency, narrower beam-width
(for some sources), and other factors, the
area within which a marine mammal
might be expected to be behaviorally
disturbed by HRG sources is much
smaller (by orders of magnitude) than
the impact areas for seismic airguns or
the military sonar with which a small
number of marine mammal have been
causally associated. Specifically,
estimated harassment zones for HRG
surveys are typically less than 200m
(such as those associated with the
Project), while zones for military midfrequency active sonar or seismic airgun
surveys typically extend for several kms
ranging up to 10s of km. Further,
because of this much smaller ensonified
area, any marine mammal exposure to
HRG sources is reasonably expected to
be at significantly lower levels and
shorter duration (associated with less
severe responses), and there is no
evidence suggesting, or reason to
speculate, that marine mammals
exposed to HRG survey noise are likely
to be injured, much less strand, as a
result. Last, all but one of the small
number of marine mammal stranding
events that have been causally
associated with exposure to loud sound
sources have been deep-diving toothed
whale species (not mysticetes), which
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37635
are known to respond differently to loud
sounds.
Potential Effects of Disturbance on
Marine Mammal Fitness
The different ways that marine
mammals respond to sound are
sometimes indicators of the ultimate
effect that exposure to a given stimulus
will have on the well-being (survival,
reproduction, etc.) of an animal. There
are numerous data relating the exposure
of terrestrial mammals from sound to
effects on reproduction or survival, and
data for marine mammals continues to
grow. Several authors have reported that
disturbance stimuli may cause animals
to abandon nesting and foraging sites
(Sutherland and Crockford, 1993); may
cause animals to increase their activity
levels and suffer premature deaths or
reduced reproductive success when
their energy expenditures exceed their
energy budgets (Daan et al., 1996; Feare,
1976; Mullner et al., 2004); or may cause
animals to experience higher predation
rates when they adopt risk-prone
foraging or migratory strategies (Frid
and Dill, 2002). Each of these studies
addressed the consequences of animals
shifting from one behavioral state (e.g.,
resting or foraging) to another
behavioral state (e.g., avoidance or
escape behavior) because of human
disturbance or disturbance stimuli.
Attention is the cognitive process of
selectively concentrating on one aspect
of an animal’s environment while
ignoring other things (Posner, 1994).
Because animals (including humans)
have limited cognitive resources, there
is a limit to how much sensory
information they can process at any
time. The phenomenon called
‘‘attentional capture’’ occurs when a
stimulus (usually a stimulus that an
animal is not concentrating on or
attending to) ‘‘captures’’ an animal’s
attention. This shift in attention can
occur consciously or subconsciously
(for example, when an animal hears
sounds that it associates with the
approach of a predator) and the shift in
attention can be sudden (Dukas, 2002;
van Rij, 2007). Once a stimulus has
captured an animal’s attention, the
animal can respond by ignoring the
stimulus, assuming a ‘‘watch and wait’’
posture, or treat the stimulus as a
disturbance and respond accordingly,
which includes scanning for the source
of the stimulus or ‘‘vigilance’’
(Cowlishaw et al., 2004).
Vigilance is an adaptive behavior that
helps animals determine the presence or
absence of predators, assess their
distance from conspecifics, or to attend
cues from prey (Bednekoff and Lima,
1998; Treves, 2000). Despite those
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
37636
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
benefits, however, vigilance has a cost
of time; when animals focus their
attention on specific environmental
cues, they are not attending to other
activities such as foraging or resting.
These effects have generally not been
demonstrated for marine mammals, but
studies involving fish and terrestrial
animals have shown that increased
vigilance may substantially reduce
feeding rates (Saino, 1994; Beauchamp
and Livoreil, 1997; Fritz et al., 2002;
Purser and Radford, 2011). Animals will
spend more time being vigilant, which
may translate to less time foraging or
resting, when disturbance stimuli
approach them more directly, remain at
closer distances, have a greater group
size (e.g., multiple surface vessels), or
when they co-occur with times that an
animal perceives increased risk (e.g.,
when they are giving birth or
accompanied by a calf).
The primary mechanism by which
increased vigilance and disturbance
appear to affect the fitness of individual
animals is by disrupting an animal’s
time budget and, as a result, reducing
the time they might spend foraging and
resting (which increases an animal’s
activity rate and energy demand while
decreasing their caloric intake/energy).
In a study of northern resident killer
whales off Vancouver Island, exposure
to boat traffic was shown to reduce
foraging opportunities and increase
traveling time (Holt et al., 2021). A
simple bioenergetics model was applied
to show that the reduced foraging
opportunities equated to a decreased
energy intake of 18 percent while the
increased traveling incurred an
increased energy output of 3–4 percent,
which suggests that a management
action based on avoiding interference
with foraging might be particularly
effective.
On a related note, many animals
perform vital functions, such as feeding,
resting, traveling, and socializing, on a
diel cycle (24-hr cycle). Behavioral
reactions to noise exposure (such as
disruption of critical life functions,
displacement, or avoidance of important
habitat) are more likely to be significant
for fitness if they last more than one diel
cycle or recur on subsequent days
(Southall et al., 2007). Consequently, a
behavioral response lasting less than 1
day and not recurring on subsequent
days is not considered particularly
severe unless it could directly affect
reproduction or survival (Southall et al.,
2007). It is important to note the
difference between behavioral reactions
lasting or recurring over multiple days
and anthropogenic activities lasting or
recurring over multiple days. For
example, just because certain activities
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
last for multiple days does not
necessarily mean that individual
animals will be either exposed to those
activity-related stressors (i.e., sonar) for
multiple days or further exposed in a
manner that would result in sustained
multi-day substantive behavioral
responses. However, special attention is
warranted where longer-duration
activities overlay areas in which
animals are known to congregate for
longer durations for biologically
important behaviors.
There are few studies that directly
illustrate the impacts of disturbance on
marine mammal populations. Lusseau
and Bejder (2007) present data from
three long-term studies illustrating the
connections between disturbance from
whale-watching boats and populationlevel effects in cetaceans. In Shark Bay,
Australia, the abundance of bottlenose
dolphins was compared within adjacent
control and tourism sites over three
consecutive 4.5-year periods of
increasing tourism levels. Between the
second and third time periods, in which
tourism doubled, dolphin abundance
decreased by 15 percent in the tourism
area and did not change significantly in
the control area. In Fiordland, New
Zealand, two populations (Milford and
Doubtful Sounds) of bottlenose dolphins
with tourism levels that differed by a
factor of seven were observed and
significant increases in traveling time
and decreases in resting time were
documented for both. Consistent shortterm avoidance strategies were observed
in response to tour boats until a
threshold of disturbance was reached
(average 68 minutes between
interactions), after which the response
switched to a longer-term habitat
displacement strategy. For one
population, tourism only occurred in a
part of the home range. However,
tourism occurred throughout the home
range of the Doubtful Sound population
and once boat traffic increased beyond
the 68-minute threshold (resulting in
abandonment of their home range/
preferred habitat), reproductive success
drastically decreased (increased
stillbirths) and abundance decreased
significantly (from 67 to 56 individuals
in a short period).
In order to understand how the effects
of activities may or may not impact
species and stocks of marine mammals,
it is necessary to understand not only
what the likely disturbances are going to
be but how those disturbances may
affect the reproductive success and
survivorship of individuals and then
how those impacts to individuals
translate to population-level effects.
Following on the earlier work of a
committee of the U.S. National Research
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Council (NRC, 2005), New et al. (2014),
in an effort termed the Potential
Consequences of Disturbance (PCoD),
outline an updated conceptual model of
the relationships linking disturbance to
changes in behavior and physiology,
health, vital rates, and population
dynamics. This framework is a four-step
process progressing from changes in
individual behavior and/or physiology,
to changes in individual health, then
vital rates, and finally to populationlevel effects. In this framework,
behavioral and physiological changes
can have direct (acute) effects on vital
rates, such as when changes in habitat
use or increased stress levels raise the
probability of mother-calf separation or
predation; indirect and long-term
(chronic) effects on vital rates, such as
when changes in time/energy budgets or
increased disease susceptibility affect
health, which then affects vital rates; or
no effect to vital rates (New et al., 2014).
Since the PCoD general framework
was outlined and the relevant
supporting literature compiled, multiple
studies developing state-space energetic
models for species with extensive longterm monitoring (e.g., southern elephant
seals, North Atlantic right whales,
Ziphiidae beaked whales, and
bottlenose dolphins) have been
conducted and can be used to
effectively forecast longer-term,
population-level impacts from
behavioral changes. While these are
very specific models with very specific
data requirements that cannot yet be
applied broadly to project-specific risk
assessments for the majority of species,
they are a critical first step towards
being able to quantify the likelihood of
a population level effect. Since New et
al. (2014), several publications have
described models developed to examine
the long-term effects of environmental
or anthropogenic disturbance of foraging
on various life stages of selected species
(e.g., sperm whale, Farmer et al. (2018);
California sea lion, McHuron et al.
(2018); blue whale, Pirotta et al. (2018a);
humpback whale, Dunlop et al. (2021)).
These models continue to add to
refinement of the approaches to the
PCoD framework. Such models also
help identify what data inputs require
further investigation. Pirotta et al.
(2018b) provides a review of the PCoD
framework with details on each step of
the process and approaches to applying
real data or simulations to achieve each
step.
Despite its simplicity, there are few
complete PCoD models available for any
marine mammal species due to a lack of
data available to parameterize many of
the steps. To date, no PCoD model has
been fully parameterized with empirical
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
data (Pirotta et al., 2018a) due to the fact
they are data intensive and logistically
challenging to complete. Therefore,
most complete PCoD models include
simulations, theoretical modeling, and
expert opinion to move through the
steps. For example, PCoD models have
been developed to evaluate the effect of
wind farm construction on the North
Sea harbor porpoise populations (e.g.,
King et al., 2015; Nabe-Nielsen et al.,
2018). These models include a mix of
empirical data, expert elicitation (King
et al., 2015) and simulations of animals’
movements, energetics, and/or survival
(New et al., 2014; Nabe-Nielsen et al.,
2018).
PCoD models may also be approached
in different manners. Dunlop et al.
(2021) modeled migrating humpback
whale mother-calf pairs in response to
seismic surveys using both a forwards
and backwards approach. While a
typical forwards approach can
determine if a stressor would have
population-level consequences, Dunlop
et al. demonstrated that working
backwards through a PCoD model can
be used to assess the ‘‘worst case’’
scenario for an interaction of a target
species and stressor. This method may
be useful for future management goals
when appropriate data becomes
available to fully support the model. In
another example, harbor porpoise PCoD
model investigating the impact of
seismic surveys on harbor porpoise
included an investigation on underlying
drivers of vulnerability. Harbor porpoise
movement and foraging were modeled
for baseline periods and then for periods
with seismic surveys as well; the
models demonstrated that temporal (i.e.,
seasonal) variation in individual
energetics and their link to costs
associated with disturbances was key in
predicting population impacts
(Gallagher et al., 2021).
Behavioral change, such as
disturbance manifesting in lost foraging
time, in response to anthropogenic
activities is often assumed to indicate a
biologically significant effect on a
population of concern. However, as
described above, individuals may be
able to compensate for some types and
degrees of shifts in behavior, preserving
their health and thus their vital rates
and population dynamics. For example,
New et al. (2013) developed a model
simulating the complex social, spatial,
behavioral and motivational interactions
of coastal bottlenose dolphins in the
Moray Firth, Scotland, to assess the
biological significance of increased rate
of behavioral disruptions caused by
vessel traffic. Despite a modeled
scenario in which vessel traffic
increased from 70 to 470 vessels a year
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
(a six-fold increase in vessel traffic) in
response to the construction of a
proposed offshore renewables’ facility,
the dolphins’ behavioral time budget,
spatial distribution, motivations, and
social structure remain unchanged.
Similarly, two bottlenose dolphin
populations in Australia were also
modeled over 5 years against a number
of disturbances (Reed et al., 2020), and
results indicated that habitat/noise
disturbance had little overall impact on
population abundances in either
location, even in the most extreme
impact scenarios modeled.
By integrating different sources of
data (e.g., controlled exposure data,
activity monitoring, telemetry tracking,
and prey sampling) into a theoretical
model to predict effects from sonar on
a blue whale’s daily energy intake,
Pirotta et al. (2021) found that tagged
blue whales’ activity budgets, lunging
rates, and ranging patterns caused
variability in their predicted cost of
disturbance. This method may be useful
for future management goals when
appropriate data becomes available to
fully support the model. Harbor
porpoise movement and foraging were
modeled for baseline periods and then
for periods with seismic surveys as well;
the models demonstrated that the
seasonality of the seismic activity was
an important predictor of impact
(Gallagher et al., 2021).
In their Table 1, Keen et al. (2021)
summarize the emerging themes in
PCoD models that should be considered
when assessing the likelihood and
duration of exposure and the sensitivity
of a population to disturbance (see
Table 1 from Keen et al., 2021, below).
The themes are categorized by life
history traits (movement ecology, life
history strategy, body size, and pace of
life), disturbance source characteristics
(overlap with biologically important
areas, duration and frequency, and
nature and context), and environmental
conditions (natural variability in prey
availability and climate change). Keen et
al. (2021) then summarize how each of
these features influence an assessment,
noting, for example, that individual
animals with small home ranges have a
higher likelihood of prolonged or yearround exposure, that the effect of
disturbance is strongly influenced by
whether it overlaps with biologically
important habitats when individuals are
present, and that continuous disruption
will have a greater impact than
intermittent disruption.
Nearly all PCoD studies and experts
agree that infrequent exposures of a
single day or less are unlikely to impact
individual fitness, let alone lead to
population level effects (Booth et al.,
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37637
2016; Booth et al., 2017; Christiansen
and Lusseau 2015; Farmer et al., 2018;
Wilson et al., 2020; Harwood and Booth
2016; King et al., 2015; McHuron et al.,
2018; National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine (NAS), 2017;
New et al., 2014; Pirotta et al., 2018a;
Southall et al., 2007; Villegas-Amtmann
et al., 2015). As described through this
proposed rule, NMFS expects that any
behavioral disturbance that would occur
due to animals being exposed to
construction activity would be of a
relatively short duration, with behavior
returning to a baseline state shortly after
the acoustic stimuli ceases or the animal
moves far enough away from the source.
Given this, and NMFS’ evaluation of the
available PCoD studies, and the required
mitigation discussed later, any such
behavioral disturbance resulting from
Park City Wind’s activities is not
expected to impact individual animals’
health or have effects on individual
animals’ survival or reproduction, thus
no detrimental impacts at the
population level are anticipated. Marine
mammals may temporarily avoid the
immediate area but are not expected to
permanently abandon the area or their
migratory or foraging behavior. Impacts
to breeding, feeding, sheltering, resting,
or migration are not expected nor are
shifts in habitat use, distribution, or
foraging success.
Potential Effects From Explosive
Sources
With respect to the noise from
underwater explosives, the same
acoustic-related impacts described
above apply and are not repeated here.
Noise from explosives can cause hearing
impairment if an animal is close enough
to the sources; however, because noise
from an explosion is discrete, lasting
less than approximately 1 second, no
behavioral impacts below the TTS
threshold are anticipated considering
that Park City Wind would not detonate
more than 1 UXO/MEC per day and
only 10 during the life of the proposed
rule. This section focuses on the
pressure-related impacts of underwater
explosives, including physiological
injury and mortality.
Underwater explosive detonations
send a shock wave and sound energy
through the water and can release
gaseous by-products, create an
oscillating bubble, or cause a plume of
water to shoot up from the water
surface. The shock wave and
accompanying noise are of most concern
to marine animals. Depending on the
intensity of the shock wave and size,
location, and depth of the animal, an
animal can be injured, killed, suffer
non-lethal physical effects, experience
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
37638
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
hearing related effects with or without
behavioral responses, or exhibit
temporary behavioral responses or
tolerance from hearing the blast sound.
Generally, exposures to higher levels of
impulse and pressure levels would
result in greater impacts to an
individual animal.
Injuries resulting from a shock wave
take place at boundaries between tissues
of different densities. Different
velocities are imparted to tissues of
different densities, and this can lead to
their physical disruption. Blast effects
are greatest at the gas-liquid interface
(Landsberg, 2000). Gas-containing
organs, particularly the lungs and
gastrointestinal tract, are especially
susceptible (Goertner, 1982; Hill, 1978;
Yelverton et al., 1973). Intestinal walls
can bruise or rupture, with subsequent
hemorrhage and escape of gut contents
into the body cavity. Less severe
gastrointestinal tract injuries include
contusions, petechiae (small red or
purple spots caused by bleeding in the
skin), and slight hemorrhaging
(Yelverton et al., 1973).
Because the ears are the most
sensitive to pressure, they are the organs
most sensitive to injury (Ketten, 2000).
Sound-related damage associated with
sound energy from detonations can be
theoretically distinct from injury from
the shock wave, particularly farther
from the explosion. If a noise is audible
to an animal, it has the potential to
damage the animal’s hearing by causing
decreased sensitivity (Ketten, 1995).
Lethal impacts are those that result in
immediate death or serious debilitation
in or near an intense source and are not,
technically, pure acoustic trauma
(Ketten, 1995). Sublethal impacts
include hearing loss, which is caused by
exposures to perceptible sounds. Severe
damage (from the shock wave) to the
ears includes tympanic membrane
rupture, fracture of the ossicles, and
damage to the cochlea, hemorrhage, and
cerebrospinal fluid leakage into the
middle ear. Moderate injury implies
partial hearing loss due to tympanic
membrane rupture and blood in the
middle ear. Permanent hearing loss also
can occur when the hair cells are
damaged by one very loud event as well
as by prolonged exposure to a loud
noise or chronic exposure to noise. The
level of impact from blasts depends on
both an animal’s location and, at outer
zones, its sensitivity to the residual
noise (Ketten, 1995).
Given the mitigation measures
proposed, it is unlikely that any of the
more serious injuries or mortality
discussed above are likely to result from
any UXO/MEC detonation that Park City
Wind might need to undertake. PTS,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
TTS, and brief startle reactions are the
most likely impacts to result from this
activity, if it occurs (noting detonation
is the last method to be chosen for
removal).
Potential Effects From Vessel Strike
Vessel collisions with marine
mammals, also referred to as vessel
strikes or ship strikes, can result in
death or serious injury of the animal.
Wounds resulting from ship strike may
include massive trauma, hemorrhaging,
broken bones, or propeller lacerations
(Knowlton and Kraus, 2001). An animal
at the surface could be struck directly by
a vessel, a surfacing animal could hit
the bottom of a vessel, or an animal just
below the surface could be cut by a
vessel’s propeller. Superficial strikes
may not kill or result in the death of the
animal. Lethal interactions are typically
associated with large whales, which are
occasionally found draped across the
bulbous bow of large commercial ships
upon arrival in port. Although smaller
cetaceans are more maneuverable in
relation to large vessels than are large
whales, they may also be susceptible to
strike. The severity of injuries typically
depends on the size and speed of the
vessel (Knowlton and Kraus, 2001; Laist
et al., 2001; Vanderlaan and Taggart,
2007; Conn and Silber, 2013). Impact
forces increase with speed, as does the
probability of a strike at a given distance
(Silber et al., 2010; Gende et al., 2011).
The most vulnerable marine mammals
are those that spend extended periods of
time at the surface in order to restore
oxygen levels within their tissues after
deep dives (e.g., the sperm whale). In
addition, some baleen whales seem
generally unresponsive to vessel sound,
making them more susceptible to vessel
collisions (Nowacek et al., 2004). These
species are primarily large, slow moving
whales. Marine mammal responses to
vessels may include avoidance and
changes in dive pattern (NRC, 2003).
An examination of all known ship
strikes from all shipping sources
(civilian and military) indicates vessel
speed is a principal factor in whether a
vessel strike occurs and, if so, whether
it results in injury, serious injury, or
mortality (Knowlton and Kraus, 2001;
Laist et al., 2001; Jensen and Silber,
2003; Pace and Silber, 2005; Vanderlaan
and Taggart, 2007; Conn and Silber,
2013). In assessing records in which
vessel speed was known, Laist et al.
(2001) found a direct relationship
between the occurrence of a whale
strike and the speed of the vessel
involved in the collision. The authors
concluded that most deaths occurred
when a vessel was traveling in excess of
13 knots.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Jensen and Silber (2003) detailed 292
records of known or probable ship
strikes of all large whale species from
1975 to 2002. Of these, vessel speed at
the time of collision was reported for 58
cases. Of these 58 cases, 39 (or 67
percent) resulted in serious injury or
death (19 of those resulted in serious
injury as determined by blood in the
water, propeller gashes or severed
tailstock, and fractured skull, jaw,
vertebrae, hemorrhaging, massive
bruising or other injuries noted during
necropsy and 20 resulted in death).
Operating speeds of vessels that struck
various species of large whales ranged
from 2 to 51 knots. The majority (79
percent) of these strikes occurred at
speeds of 13 knots or greater. The
average speed that resulted in serious
injury or death was 18.6 knots. Pace and
Silber (2005) found that the probability
of death or serious injury increased
rapidly with increasing vessel speed.
Specifically, the predicted probability of
serious injury or death increased from
45 to 75 percent as vessel speed
increased from 10 to 14 knots, and
exceeded 90 percent at 17 knots. Higher
speeds during collisions result in greater
force of impact and also appear to
increase the chance of severe injuries or
death. While modeling studies have
suggested that hydrodynamic forces
pulling whales toward the vessel hull
increase with increasing speed (Clyne,
1999; Knowlton et al., 1995), this is
inconsistent with Silber et al. (2010),
which demonstrated that there is no
such relationship (i.e., hydrodynamic
forces are independent of speed).
In a separate study, Vanderlaan and
Taggart (2007) analyzed the probability
of lethal mortality of large whales at a
given speed, showing that the greatest
rate of change in the probability of a
lethal injury to a large whale as a
function of vessel speed occurs between
8.6 and 15 knots. The chances of a lethal
injury decline from approximately 80
percent at 15 knots to approximately 20
percent at 8.6 knots. At speeds below
11.8 knots, the chances of lethal injury
drop below 50 percent, while the
probability asymptotically increases
toward 100 percent above 15 knots.
The Jensen and Silber (2003) report
notes that the Large Whale Ship Strike
Database represents a minimum number
of collisions, because the vast majority
probably goes undetected or unreported.
In contrast, the Project’s personnel are
likely to detect any strike that does
occur because of the required personnel
training and lookouts, along with the
inclusion of Protected Species
Observers (as described in the Proposed
Mitigation section), and they are
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
required to report all ship strikes
involving marine mammals.
There are no known vessel strikes of
marine mammals by any offshore wind
energy vessel in the U.S. Given the
extensive mitigation and monitoring
measures (see the Proposed Mitigation
and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting
section) that would be required of Park
City Wind, NMFS believes that a vessel
strike is not likely to occur.
Potential Effects to Marine Mammal
Habitat
Park City Wind’s proposed activities
could potentially affect marine mammal
habitat through the introduction of
impacts to the prey species of marine
mammals (through noise, oceanographic
processes, or reef effects), acoustic
habitat (sound in the water column),
water quality, and biologically
important habitat for marine mammals.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Effects on Prey
Sound may affect marine mammals
through impacts on the abundance,
behavior, or distribution of prey species
(e.g., crustaceans, cephalopods, fish,
and zooplankton). Marine mammal prey
varies by species, season, and location
and, for some, is not well documented.
Here, we describe studies regarding the
effects of noise on known marine
mammal prey.
Fish utilize the soundscape and
components of sound in their
environment to perform important
functions such as foraging, predator
avoidance, mating, and spawning (e.g.,
Zelick and Mann, 1999; Fay, 2009). The
most likely effects on fishes exposed to
loud, intermittent, low-frequency
sounds are behavioral responses (i.e.,
flight or avoidance). Short duration,
sharp sounds (such as pile driving or
airguns) can cause overt or subtle
changes in fish behavior and local
distribution. The reaction of fish to
acoustic sources depends on the
physiological state of the fish, past
exposures, motivation (e.g., feeding,
spawning, migration), and other
environmental factors. Key impacts to
fishes may include behavioral
responses, hearing damage, barotrauma
(pressure-related injuries), and
mortality. While it is clear that the
behavioral responses of individual prey,
such as displacement or other changes
in distribution, can have direct impacts
on the foraging success of marine
mammals, the effects on marine
mammals of individual prey that
experience hearing damage, barotrauma,
or mortality is less clear, though
obviously population scale impacts that
meaningfully reduce the amount of prey
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
available could have more serious
impacts.
Fishes, like other vertebrates, have a
variety of different sensory systems to
glean information from ocean around
them (Astrup and Mohl, 1993; Astrup,
1999; Braun and Grande, 2008; Carroll
et al., 2017; Hawkins and Johnstone,
1978; Ladich and Popper, 2004; Ladich
and Schulz-Mirbach, 2016; Mann, 2016;
Nedwell et al., 2004; Popper et al., 2003;
Popper et al., 2005). Depending on their
hearing anatomy and peripheral sensory
structures, which vary among species,
fishes hear sounds using pressure and
particle motion sensitivity capabilities
and detect the motion of surrounding
water (Fay et al., 2008) (terrestrial
vertebrates generally only detect
pressure). Most marine fishes primarily
detect particle motion using the inner
ear and lateral line system while some
fishes possess additional morphological
adaptations or specializations that can
enhance their sensitivity to sound
pressure, such as a gas-filled swim
bladder (Braun and Grande, 2008;
Popper and Fay, 2011).
Hearing capabilities vary considerably
between different fish species with data
only available for just over 100 species
out of the 34,000 marine and freshwater
fish species (Eschmeyer and Fong,
2016). In order to better understand
acoustic impacts on fishes, fish hearing
groups are defined by species that
possess a similar continuum of
anatomical features, which result in
varying degrees of hearing sensitivity
(Popper and Hastings, 2009a). There are
four hearing groups defined for all fish
species (modified from Popper et al.,
2014) within this analysis, and they
include: fishes without a swim bladder
(e.g., flatfish, sharks, rays, etc.); fishes
with a swim bladder not involved in
hearing (e.g., salmon, cod, pollock, etc.);
fishes with a swim bladder involved in
hearing (e.g., sardines, anchovy, herring,
etc.); and fishes with a swim bladder
involved in hearing and high-frequency
hearing (e.g., shad and menhaden). Most
marine mammal fish prey species would
not be likely to perceive or hear mid- or
high-frequency sonars. While hearing
studies have not been done on sardines
and northern anchovies, it would not be
unexpected for them to have hearing
similarities to Pacific herring (up to 2–
5 kHz) (Mann et al., 2005). Currently,
less data are available to estimate the
range of best sensitivity for fishes
without a swim bladder.
In terms of physiology, multiple
scientific studies have documented a
lack of mortality or physiological effects
to fish from exposure to low- and midfrequency sonar and other sounds
(Halvorsen et al., 2012a; J216 dB SELcum. Those
with swim bladders or at the egg or
larvae life stage, mortality was possible
at >203 dB SELcum. Other studies found
that 203 dB SELcum or above caused a
physiological response in other fish
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
species (Casper et al., 2012, Halvorsen
et al., 2012a, Halvorsen et al., 2012b,
Casper et al., 2013a; Casper et al.,
2013b). However, in most fish species,
hair cells in the ear continuously
regenerate and loss of auditory function
likely is restored when damaged cells
are replaced with new cells. Halvorsen
et al. (2012a) showed that a TTS of 4–
6 dB was recoverable within 24 hours
for one species. Impacts would be most
severe when the individual fish is close
to the source and when the duration of
exposure is long. Injury caused by
barotrauma can range from slight to
severe and can cause death, and is most
likely for fish with swim bladders.
Barotrauma injuries have been
documented during controlled exposure
to impact pile driving (Halvorsen et al.,
2012b; Casper et al., 2013).
As described in the Proposed
Mitigation section below, Park City
Wind would utilize a sound attenuation
device which would reduce potential
for injury to marine mammal prey.
Other fish that experience hearing loss
as a result of exposure to impulsive
sound sources may have a reduced
ability to detect relevant sounds such as
predators, prey, or social vocalizations.
However, PTS has not been known to
occur in fishes and any hearing loss in
fish may be as temporary as the
timeframe required to repair or replace
the sensory cells that were damaged or
destroyed (Popper et al., 2005; Popper et
al., 2014; Smith et al., 2006). It is not
known if damage to auditory nerve
fibers could occur, and if so, whether
fibers would recover during this
process.
It is also possible for fish to be injured
or killed by an explosion from UXO/
MEC detonation. Physical effects from
pressure waves generated by underwater
sounds (e.g., underwater explosions)
could potentially affect fish within
proximity of training or testing
activities. The shock wave from an
underwater explosion is lethal to fish at
close range, causing massive organ and
tissue damage and internal bleeding
(Keevin and Hempen, 1997). At greater
distance from the detonation point, the
extent of mortality or injury depends on
a number of factors including fish size,
body shape, orientation, and species
(Keevin and Hempen, 1997; Wright,
1982). At the same distance from the
source, larger fish are generally less
susceptible to death or injury, elongated
forms that are round in cross-section are
less at risk than deep-bodied forms, and
fish oriented sideways to the blast suffer
the greatest impact (Edds-Walton and
Finneran, 2006; O’Keeffe, 1984;
O’Keeffe and Young, 1984; Wiley et al.,
1981; Yelverton et al., 1975). Species
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
with gas-filled organs are more
susceptible to injury and mortality than
those without them (Gaspin, 1975;
Gaspin et al., 1976; Goertner et al.,
1994). Barotrauma injuries have been
documented during controlled exposure
to impact pile driving (an impulsive
noise source, as are explosives and
airguns) (Halvorsen et al., 2012b; Casper
et al., 2013a).
Fish not killed by an explosion might
change their behavior, feeding pattern,
or distribution. Changes in behavior of
fish have been observed as a result of
sound produced by explosives, with
effect intensified in areas of hard
substrate (Wright, 1982). Stunning from
pressure waves could also temporarily
immobilize fish, making them more
susceptible to predation. The
abundances of various fish (and
invertebrates) near the detonation point
for explosives could be altered for a few
hours before animals from surrounding
areas repopulate the area. However,
these populations would likely be
replenished as waters near the
detonation point are mixed with
adjacent waters. Repeated exposure of
individual fish to sounds from
underwater explosions is not likely and
are expected to be short-term and
localized. Long-term consequences for
fish populations would not be expected.
Several studies have demonstrated that
airgun sounds might affect the
distribution and behavior of some
fishes, potentially impacting foraging
opportunities or increasing energetic
costs (e.g., Fewtrell and McCauley,
2012; Pearson et al., 1992; Skalski et al.,
1992; Santulli et al., 1999; Paxton et al.,
2017).
UXO/MEC detonations would be
dispersed in space and time; therefore,
repeated exposure of individual fishes
are unlikely. Mortality and injury effects
to fishes from explosives would be
localized around the area of a given inwater explosion but only if individual
fish and the explosive (and immediate
pressure field) were co-located at the
same time. Fishes deeper in the water
column or on the bottom would not be
affected by water surface explosions.
Repeated exposure of individual fish to
sound and energy from underwater
explosions is not likely given fish
movement patterns, especially
schooling prey species. Most acoustic
effects, if any, are expected to be shortterm and localized. Long-term
consequences for fish populations,
including key prey species within the
project area, would not be expected.
Required soft-starts would allow prey
and marine mammals to move away
from the source prior to any noise levels
that may physically injure prey and the
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
use of the noise attenuation devices
would reduce noise levels to the degree
any mortality or injury of prey is also
minimized. Use of bubble curtains, in
addition to reducing impacts to marine
mammals, for example, is a key
mitigation measure in reducing injury
and mortality of ESA-listed salmon on
the U.S. West Coast. However, we
recognize some mortality, physical
injury and hearing impairment in
marine mammal prey may occur, but we
anticipate the amount of prey impacted
in this manner is minimal compared to
overall availability. Any behavioral
responses to pile driving by marine
mammal prey are expected to be brief.
We expect that other impacts, such as
stress or masking, would occur in fish
that serve as marine mammals prey
(Popper et al., 2019); however, those
impacts would be limited to the
duration of impact pile driving and
during any UXO/MEC detonations and,
if prey were to move out the area in
response to noise, these impacts would
be minimized.
In addition to fish, prey sources such
as marine invertebrates could
potentially be impacted by noise
stressors as a result of the proposed
activities. However, most marine
invertebrates’ ability to sense sounds is
limited. Invertebrates appear to be able
to detect sounds (Pumphrey, 1950;
Frings and Frings, 1967) and are most
sensitive to low-frequency sounds
(Packard et al., 1990; Budelmann and
Williamson, 1994; Lovell et al., 2005;
Mooney et al., 2010). Data on response
of invertebrates such as squid, another
marine mammal prey species, to
anthropogenic sound is more limited
(de Soto, 2016; Sole et al., 2017). Data
suggest that cephalopods are capable of
sensing the particle motion of sounds
and detect low frequencies up to 1–1.5
kHz, depending on the species, and so
are likely to detect airgun noise (Kaifu
et al., 2008; Hu et al., 2009; Mooney et
al., 2010; Samson et al., 2014). Sole et
al. (2017) reported physiological
injuries to cuttlefish in cages placed atsea when exposed during a controlled
exposure experiment to low-frequency
sources (315 Hz, 139 to 142 dB re 1 mPa2
and 400 Hz, 139 to 141 dB re 1 mPa2).
Fewtrell and McCauley (2012) reported
squids maintained in cages displayed
startle responses and behavioral changes
when exposed to seismic airgun sonar
(136–162 re 1 mPa2·s). Jones et al. (2020)
found that when squid (Doryteuthis
pealeii) were exposed to impulse pile
driving noise, body pattern changes,
inking, jetting, and startle responses
were observed and nearly all squid
exhibited at least one response.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
However, these responses occurred
primarily during the first eight impulses
and diminished quickly, indicating
potential rapid, short-term habituation.
Cephalopods have a specialized
sensory organ inside the head called a
statocyst that may help an animal
determine its position in space
(orientation) and maintain balance
(Budelmann, 1992). Packard et al.
(1990) showed that cephalopods were
sensitive to particle motion, not sound
pressure, and Mooney et al. (2010)
demonstrated that squid statocysts act
as an accelerometer through which
particle motion of the sound field can be
detected. Auditory injuries (lesions
occurring on the statocyst sensory hair
cells) have been reported upon
controlled exposure to low-frequency
sounds, suggesting that cephalopods are
particularly sensitive to low-frequency
sound (Andre et al., 2011; Sole et al.,
2013). Behavioral responses, such as
inking and jetting, have also been
reported upon exposure to lowfrequency sound (McCauley et al., 2000;
Samson et al., 2014). Squids, like most
fish species, are likely more sensitive to
low frequency sounds and may not
perceive mid- and high-frequency
sonars. Cumulatively for squid as a prey
species, individual and population
impacts from exposure to explosives,
like fish, are not likely to be significant,
and explosive impacts would be shortterm and localized.
With regard to potential impacts on
zooplankton, McCauley et al. (2017)
found that exposure to airgun noise
resulted in significant depletion for
more than half the taxa present and that
there were two to three times more dead
zooplankton after airgun exposure
compared with controls for all taxa,
within 1 km of the airguns. However,
the authors also stated that in order to
have significant impacts on r-selected
species (i.e., those with high growth
rates and that produce many offspring)
such as plankton, the spatial or
temporal scale of impact must be large
in comparison with the ecosystem
concerned, and it is possible that the
findings reflect avoidance by
zooplankton rather than mortality
(McCauley et al., 2017). In addition, the
results of this study are inconsistent
with a large body of research that
generally finds limited spatial and
temporal impacts to zooplankton as a
result of exposure to airgun noise (e.g.,
Dalen and Knutsen, 1987; Payne, 2004;
Stanley et al., 2011). Most prior research
on this topic, which has focused on
relatively small spatial scales, has
showed minimal effects (e.g.,
Kostyuchenko, 1973; Booman et al.,
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37641
1996; S#tre and Ona, 1996; Pearson et
al., 1994; Bolle et al., 2012).
A modeling exercise was conducted
as a follow-up to the McCauley et al.
(2017) study (as recommended by
McCauley et al.), in order to assess the
potential for impacts on ocean
ecosystem dynamics and zooplankton
population dynamics (Richardson et al.,
2017). Richardson et al. (2017) found
that a full-scale airgun survey would
impact copepod abundance within the
survey area, but that effects at a regional
scale were minimal (2 percent decline
in abundance within 150 km of the
survey area and effects not discernible
over the full region). The authors also
found that recovery within the survey
area would be relatively quick (3 days
following survey completion), and
suggest that the quick recovery was due
to the fast growth rates of zooplankton,
and the dispersal and mixing of
zooplankton from both inside and
outside of the impacted region. The
authors also suggest that surveys in
areas with more dynamic ocean
circulation in comparison with the
study region and/or with deeper waters
(i.e., typical offshore wind locations)
would have less net impact on
zooplankton.
Notably, a recently described study
produced results inconsistent with
those of McCauley et al. (2017).
Researchers conducted a field and
laboratory study to assess if exposure to
airgun noise affects mortality, predator
escape response, or gene expression of
the copepod Calanus finmarchicus
(Fields et al., 2019). Immediate
mortality of copepods was significantly
higher, relative to controls, at distances
of 5 m or less from the airguns.
Mortality 1 week after the airgun blast
was significantly higher in the copepods
placed 10 m from the airgun but was not
significantly different from the controls
at a distance of 20 m from the airgun.
The increase in mortality, relative to
controls, did not exceed 30 percent at
any distance from the airgun. Moreover,
the authors caution that even this higher
mortality in the immediate vicinity of
the airguns may be more pronounced
than what would be observed in freeswimming animals due to increased
flow speed of fluid inside bags
containing the experimental animals.
There were no sub-lethal effects on the
escape performance or the sensory
threshold needed to initiate an escape
response at any of the distances from
the airgun that were tested. Whereas
McCauley et al. (2017) reported an SEL
of 156 dB at a range of 509–658 m, with
zooplankton mortality observed at that
range, Fields et al. (2019) reported an
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
37642
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
SEL of 186 dB at a range of 25 m, with
no reported mortality at that distance.
The presence of large numbers of
turbines has been shown to impact
meso- and sub-meso-scale water column
circulation, which can affect the
density, distribution, and energy
content of zooplankton and thereby,
their availability as marine mammal
prey. Topside, atmospheric wakes result
in wind speed reductions influencing
upwelling and downwelling in the
ocean while underwater structures such
as WTG and ESP foundations may cause
turbulent current wakes, which impact
circulation, stratification, mixing, and
sediment resuspension (Daewel et al.,
2022). Overall, the presence and
operation of structures such as wind
turbines are, in general, likely to result
in local and broader oceanographic
effects in the marine environment and
may disrupt marine mammal prey, such
as dense aggregations and distribution
of zooplankton through altering the
strength of tidal currents and associated
fronts, changes in stratification, primary
production, the degree of mixing, and
stratification in the water column (Chen
et al., 2021; Johnson et al., 2021;
Christiansen et al., 2022; Dorrell et al.,
2022). However, the scale of impacts is
difficult to predict and may vary from
meters to hundreds of meters for local
individual turbine impacts (Schultze et
al., 2020) to large-scale dipoles of
surface elevation changes stretching
hundreds of kilometers (Christiansen et
al., 2022).
Park City Wind intends to install up
to 130 WTG and ESP positions. Two
positions may potentially have colocated ESPs (i.e., 1 WTG and 1 ESP
foundation installed at 1 grid position),
resulting in 132 foundations with
turbine operations commencing in 2027
and all turbines being operational in
2028. As described above, there is
scientific uncertainty around the scale
of oceanographic impacts (meters to
kilometers) associated with turbine
operation. The project is located in an
area of southern New England that
experiences coastal upwelling, a
consequence of the predominant wind
direction and the orientation of the
coastline. Along the coast of Rhode
Island and southern Massachusetts,
upwelling of deeper, nutrient-rich
waters frequently leads to late summer
blooms of phytoplankton and
subsequently increased biological
productivity (Gong et al., 2010; Glenn et
al., 2004). The lease area is located
within a core winter foraging habitat for
North Atlantic right whales (Leiter et al.,
2017; Quintano-Rizzo et al., 2021);
however, prime foraging habitat on and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
near Nantucket Shoals is unlikely to be
influenced.
These potential impacts on prey could
impact the distribution of marine
mammals within the project area,
potentially necessitating additional
energy expenditure to find and capture
prey, but at the temporal and spatial
scales anticipated for this activity are
not expected to impact the reproduction
or survival of any individual marine
mammals. Although studies assessing
the impacts of offshore wind
development on marine mammals are
limited, the repopulation of wind
energy areas by harbor porpoises
(Brandt et al., 2016; Lindeboom et al.,
2011) and harbor seals (Lindeboom et
al., 2011; Russell et al., 2016) following
the installation of wind turbines are
promising. Overall, any impacts to
marine mammal foraging capabilities
due to effects on prey aggregation from
the turbine presence and operation
during the effective period of the
proposed rule is likely to be limited.
Nearby habitat that is known to support
North Atlantic right whale foraging
would be unaffected by the project’s
operation.
In general, impacts to marine mammal
prey species are expected to be
relatively minor and temporary due to
the expected short daily duration of
individual pile driving events and the
relatively small areas being affected.
The most likely impacts of prey fish
from UXO/MEC detonations, if
determined to be necessary, are injury
or mortality if they are located within
the vicinity when detonation occurs.
However, given the likely spread of any
UXOs/MECs in the project area, the low
chance of detonation (as lift-and-shift
and deflagration are the primary
removal approaches), and that this area
is not a biologically important foraging
ground, overall effects should be
minimal to marine mammal species.
NMFS does not expect HRG acoustic
sources to impact fish and most sources
are likely outside the hearing range of
the primary prey species in the project
area.
Overall, the combined impacts of
sound exposure, explosions, water
quality, and oceanographic impacts on
marine mammal habitat resulting from
the proposed activities would not be
expected to have measurable effects on
populations of marine mammal prey
species. 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Reef Effects
The presence of monopile
foundations, scour protection, and cable
protection will result in a conversion of
the existing sandy bottom habitat to a
hard bottom habitat with areas of
vertical structural relief. This could
potentially alter the existing habitat by
creating an ‘‘artificial reef effect’’ that
results in colonization by assemblages
of both sessile and mobile animals
within the new hard-bottom habitat
(Wilhelmsson et al., 2006; Reubens et
al., 2013; Bergstro¨m et al., 2014; Coates
et al., 2014). This colonization by
marine species, especially hardsubstrate preferring species, can result
in changes to the diversity, composition,
and/or biomass of the area thereby
impacting the trophic composition of
the site (Wilhelmsson et al., 2010, Krone
et al., 2013; Bergstro¨m et al., 2014,
Hooper et al., 2017; Raoux et al., 2017;
Harrison and Rousseau, 2020; Taormina
et al., 2020; Buyse et al., 2022a; ter
Hofstede et al., 2022).
Artificial structures can create
increased habitat heterogeneity
important for species diversity and
density (Langhamer, 2012). The WTG
and ESP foundations will extend
through the water column, which may
serve to increase settlement of
meroplankton or planktonic larvae on
the structures in both the pelagic and
benthic zones (Boehlert and Gill, 2010).
Fish and invertebrate species are also
likely to aggregate around the
foundations and scour protection which
could provide increased prey
availability and structural habitat
(Boehlert and Gill, 2010; Bonar et al.,
2015). Further, instances of species
previously unknown, rare, or
nonindigenous to an area have been
documented at artificial structures,
changing the composition of the food
web and possibly the attractability of
the area to new or existing predators
(Adams et al., 2014; de Mesel, 2015;
Bishop et al., 2017; Hooper et al., 2017;
Raoux et al., 2017; van Hal et al., 2017;
Degraer et al., 2020; Fernandez-Betelu et
al., 2022). Notably, there are examples
of these sites becoming dominated by
marine mammal prey species, such as
filter-feeding species and suspensionfeeding crustaceans (Andersson and
¨ hman, 2010; Slavik et al., 2019;
O
Hutchison et al., 2020; Pezy et al., 2020;
Mavraki et al., 2022).
Numerous studies have documented
significantly higher fish concentrations
including species like cod and pouting
(Trisopterus luscus), flounder
(Platichthys flesus), eelpout (Zoarces
viviparus), and eel (Anguilla anguilla)
near in-water structures than in
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
surrounding soft bottom habitat
(Langhamer and Wilhelmsson, 2009;
Bergstro¨m et al., 2013; Reubens et al.,
2013). In the German Bight portion of
the North Sea, fish were most densely
congregated near the anchorages of
jacket foundations, and the structures
extending through the water column
were thought to make it more likely that
juvenile or larval fish encounter and
settle on them (Rhode Island Coastal
Resources Management Council (RI–
CRMC), 2010; Krone et al., 2013). In
addition, fish can take advantage of the
shelter provided by these structures
while also being exposed to stronger
currents created by the structures,
which generate increased feeding
opportunities and decreased potential
for predation (Wilhelmsson et al., 2006).
The presence of the foundations and
resulting fish aggregations around the
foundations is expected to be a longterm habitat impact, but the increase in
prey availability could potentially be
beneficial for some marine mammals.
The most likely impact to marine
mammal habitat from the project is
expected to be from pile driving and
UXO/MEC detonations, which may
affect marine mammal food sources
such as forage fish and could also affect
acoustic habitat effects on marine
mammal prey (e.g., fish).
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Water Quality
Temporary and localized reduction in
water quality will occur as a result of inwater construction activities. Most of
this effect will occur during pile driving
and installation of the cables, including
auxiliary work such as dredging and
scour placement. These activities will
disturb bottom sediments and may
cause a temporary increase in
suspended sediment in the project area.
Currents should quickly dissipate any
raised total suspended sediment (TSS)
levels, and levels should return to
background levels once the project
activities in that area cease. No direct
impacts on marine mammals is
anticipated due to increased TSS and
turbidity; however, turbidity within the
water column has the potential to
reduce the level of oxygen in the water
and irritate the gills of prey fish species
in the proposed project area. However,
turbidity plumes associated with the
project would be temporary and
localized, and fish in the proposed
project area would be able to move away
from and avoid the areas where plumes
may occur. Therefore, it is expected that
the impacts on prey fish species from
turbidity, and therefore on marine
mammals, would be minimal and
temporary.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
Equipment used by Park City Wind
within the project area, including ships
and other marine vessels, potentially
aircrafts, and other equipment, are also
potential sources of by-products (e.g.,
hydrocarbons, particulate matter, heavy
metals). All equipment is properly
maintained in accordance with
applicable legal requirements. All such
operating equipment meets Federal
water quality standards, where
applicable. Given these requirements,
impacts to water quality are expected to
be minimal.
Acoustic Habitat
Acoustic habitat is the soundscape,
which encompasses all of the sound
present in a particular location and
time, as a whole when considered from
the perspective of the animals
experiencing it. Animals produce sound
for, or listen for sounds produced by,
conspecifics (communication during
feeding, mating, and other social
activities), other animals (finding prey
or avoiding predators), and the physical
environment (finding suitable habitats,
navigating). Together, sounds made by
animals and the geophysical
environment (e.g., produced by
earthquakes, lightning, wind, rain,
waves) make up the natural
contributions to the total acoustics of a
place. These acoustic conditions,
termed acoustic habitat, are one
attribute of an animal’s total habitat.
Soundscapes are also defined by, and
acoustic habitat influenced by, the total
contribution of anthropogenic sound.
This may include incidental emissions
from sources such as vessel traffic or
may be intentionally introduced to the
marine environment for data acquisition
purposes (as in the use of airgun arrays)
or for Navy training and testing
purposes (as in the use of sonar and
explosives and other acoustic sources).
Anthropogenic noise varies widely in its
frequency, content, duration, and
loudness and these characteristics
greatly influence the potential habitatmediated effects to marine mammals
(please also see the previous discussion
on Masking), which may range from
local effects for brief periods of time to
chronic effects over large areas and for
long durations. Depending on the extent
of effects to habitat, animals may alter
their communications signals (thereby
potentially expending additional
energy) or miss acoustic cues (either
conspecific or adventitious). Problems
arising from a failure to detect cues are
more likely to occur when noise stimuli
are chronic and overlap with
biologically relevant cues used for
communication, orientation, and
predator/prey detection (Francis and
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37643
Barber, 2013). For more detail on these
concepts, see Barber et al., 2009;
Pijanowski et al., 2011; Francis and
Barber, 2013; Lillis et al., 2014.
The term ‘‘listening area’’ refers to the
region of ocean over which sources of
sound can be detected by an animal at
the center of the space. Loss of
communication space concerns the area
over which a specific animal signal,
used to communicate with conspecifics
in biologically important contexts (e.g.,
foraging, mating), can be heard, in
noisier relative to quieter conditions
(Clark et al., 2009). Lost listening area
concerns the more generalized
contraction of the range over which
animals would be able to detect a
variety of signals of biological
importance, including eavesdropping on
predators and prey (Barber et al., 2009).
Such metrics do not, in and of
themselves, document fitness
consequences for the marine animals
that live in chronically noisy
environments. Long-term populationlevel consequences mediated through
changes in the ultimate survival and
reproductive success of individuals are
difficult to study, and particularly so
underwater. However, it is increasingly
well documented that aquatic species
rely on qualities of natural acoustic
habitats, with researchers quantifying
reduced detection of important
ecological cues (e.g., Francis and Barber,
2013; Slabbekoorn et al., 2010) as well
as survivorship consequences in several
species (e.g., Simpson et al., 2014;
Nedelec et al., 2014).
Sound produced from construction
activities in the project area would be
temporary and transitory. The sounds
produced during construction activities
may be widely dispersed or
concentrated in small areas for varying
periods. Any anthropogenic noise
attributed to construction activities in
the project area would be temporary and
the affected area would be expected to
immediately return to the original state
when these activities cease.
Although this proposed rulemaking
primarily covers the noise produced
from construction activities relevant to
this offshore wind facility, operational
noise was a consideration in NMFS’
analysis of the project, as all turbines
would become operational within the
effective dates of the rule (if issued). It
is expected that all turbines would be
operational in 2028. Once operational,
offshore wind turbines are known to
produce continuous, non-impulsive
underwater noise, primarily below 1
kHz (Tougaard et al., 2020; Sto¨ber and
Thomsen, 2021).
In both newer, quieter, direct-drive
systems (such as what has been
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
37644
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
proposed for use in the Project) and
older generation, geared turbine designs,
recent scientific studies indicate that
operational noise from turbines is on the
order of 110 to 125 dB re 1 mPa rootmean-square sound pressure level
(SPLrms) at an approximate distance of
50 m (Tougaard et al., 2020). Recent
measurements of operational sound
generated from wind turbines (direct
drive, 6 MW, jacket piles) at Block
Island wind farm (BIWF) indicate
average broadband levels of 119 dB at
50 m from the turbine, with levels
varying with wind speed (HDR, Inc.,
2019). Interestingly, measurements from
BIWF turbines showed operational
sound had less tonal components
compared to European measurements of
turbines with gear boxes.
Tougaard et al. (2020) further stated
that the operational noise produced by
WTGs is static in nature and lower than
noise produced by passing ships. This is
a noise source in this region to which
marine mammals are likely already
habituated. Furthermore, operational
noise levels are likely lower than those
ambient levels already present in active
shipping lanes, such that operational
noise would likely only be detected in
very close proximity to the WTG
(Thomsen et al., 2006; Tougaard et al.,
2020). Similarly, recent measurements
from a wind farm (3 MW turbines) in
China found at above 300 Hz, turbines
produced sound that was similar to
background levels (Zhang et al., 2021).
Other studies by Jansen and de Jong
(2016) and Tougaard et al. (2009)
determined that, while marine
mammals would be able to detect
operational noise from offshore wind
farms (again, based on older 2 MW
models) for several kilometers, they
expected no significant impacts on
individual survival, population
viability, marine mammal distribution,
or the behavior of the animals
considered in their study (harbor
porpoises and harbor seals).
More recently, Sto¨ber and Thomsen
(2021) used monitoring data and
modeling to estimate noise generated by
more recently developed, larger (10
MW) direct-drive WTGs. Their findings,
similar to Tougaard et al. (2020),
demonstrate that there is a trend that
operational noise increases with turbine
size. Their study predicts broadband
source levels could exceed 170 dB
SPLrms for a 10 MW WTG; however,
those noise levels were generated based
on geared turbines; newer turbines
operate with direct drive technology.
The shift from using gear boxes to direct
drive technology is expected to reduce
the levels by 10 dB. The findings in the
Sto¨ber and Thomsen (2021) study have
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
not been experimentally validated,
though the modeling (using largely
geared turbines) performed by Tougaard
et al. (2020) yields similar results for a
hypothetical 10 MW WTG. Overall,
noise from operating turbines would
raise ambient noise levels in the
immediate vicinity of the turbines;
however, the spatial extent of increased
noise levels would be limited. NMFS
proposes to require Park City Wind to
measure operational noise levels.
In addition, Madsen et al. (2006b)
found the intensity of noise generated
by operational wind turbines to be
much less than the noises present
during construction, although this
observation was based on a single
turbine with a maximum power of 2
MW. Other studies by Jansen and de
Jong (2016) and Tougaard et al. (2009)
determined that, while marine
mammals would be able to detect
operational noise from offshore wind
farms (again, based on older 2 MW
models) for several thousand kilometer,
they expected no significant impacts on
individual survival, population
viability, marine mammal distribution,
or the behavior of the animals
considered in their study (harbor
porpoises and harbor seals).
More recently, Sto¨ber and Thomsen
(2021) used monitoring data and
modeling to estimate noise generated by
more recently developed, larger (10
MW) direct-drive WTGs. Their findings,
similar to Tougaard et al. (2020),
demonstrate that there is a trend that
operational noise increases with turbine
size. Their study found noise levels
could exceed 170 (to 177 dB re 1 mPa
SPLrms for a 10 MW WTG); however,
those noise levels were generated by
geared turbines, but newer turbines
operate with direct drive technology.
The shift from using gear boxes to direct
drive technology is expected to reduce
the sound level by 10 dB. The findings
in the Sto¨ber and Thomsen (2021) study
have not been validated. Park City Wind
did not request, and NMFS is not
proposing to authorize, take incidental
to operational noise from WTGs.
Therefore, the topic is not discussed or
analyzed further herein.
Estimated Take of Marine Mammals
This section provides an estimate of
the number of incidental takes proposed
for authorization through the
regulations, which will inform both
NMFS’ consideration of ‘‘small
numbers’’ and the negligible impact
determination.
Harassment is the only type of take
expected to result from these activities.
Except with respect to certain activities
not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as any act
of pursuit, torment, or annoyance,
which has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild (Level A harassment)
or has the potential to disturb a marine
mammal or marine mammal stock in the
wild by causing disruption of behavioral
patterns, including, but not limited to,
migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering (Level B
harassment).
Authorized takes would primarily be
by Level B harassment, as noise from
pile driving, drilling, HRG surveys, and
UXO/MEC detonations could result in
behavioral disturbance of marine
mammals that qualifies as take. Impacts
such as masking and TTS can contribute
to the disruption of behavioral patterns
and are accounted for within those takes
proposed for authorization. There is also
some potential for auditory injury (Level
A harassment) of all marine mammals
except North Atlantic right whales.
However, the amount of Level A
harassment that Park City Wind
requested, and NMFS proposes to
authorize, is low. While NMFS is
proposing to authorize Level A
harassment and Level B harassment, the
proposed mitigation and monitoring
measures are expected to minimize the
amount and severity of such taking to
the extent practicable (see Proposed
Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring
and Reporting).
As described previously, no serious
injury or mortality is anticipated or
proposed to be authorized incidental to
the specified activities. Even without
mitigation, both pile driving activities
and HRG surveys would not have the
potential to directly cause marine
mammal mortality or serious injury.
However, NMFS is proposing measures
to more comprehensively reduce
impacts to marine mammal species.
While, in general, mortality and serious
injury of marine mammals could occur
from vessel strikes or UXO/MEC
detonation if an animal is close enough
to the source, the mitigation and
monitoring measures contained within
this proposed rule would avoid vessel
strikes and the potential for marine
mammals to be close enough to any
UXO/MEC detonation to incur mortality
or non-auditory injury (see Proposed
Mitigation section). No other activities
have the potential to result in mortality
or serious injury.
For acoustic impacts, we estimate take
by considering: (1) acoustic thresholds
above which 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
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
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.
As described below, there are
multiple methods available to predict
density or occurrence and, for each
species and activity, the largest value
resulting from the three take estimation
methods described below (i.e., densitybased, PSO-based, or mean group size)
was carried forward as the amount of
take proposed for authorization, by
Level B harassment. The amount of take
proposed for authorization, by Level A
harassment, reflects the density-based
exposure estimates and, for some
species and activities, consideration of
other data such as mean group size.
Below, we describe NMFS’ acoustic
thresholds, acoustic and exposure
modeling methodologies, marine
mammal density calculation
methodology, occurrence information,
and the modeling and methodologies
applied to estimate take for each of the
Project’s proposed construction
activities. NMFS has carefully
considered all information and analysis
presented by Park City Wind, as well as
all other applicable information and,
based on the best available science,
concurs that the Project’s estimates of
the types and amounts of take for each
species and stock are reasonable, and is
proposing to authorize the amount
requested. NMFS notes the take
estimates described herein for
foundation installation can be
considered conservative as the estimates
do not reflect the implementation of
clearance and shutdown zones for any
marine mammal species or stock.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
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 (Level B
harassment) or to incur PTS of some
degree (Level A harassment). A
summary of all NMFS’ thresholds can
be found at https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/
marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.
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, ambient
noise, and the receiving animal’s
hearing, motivation, experience,
demography, behavior at time of
exposure, 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
the received sound pressure levels
(SPLRMS) of 120 dB for continuous
sources (e.g., vibratory pile-driving,
drilling) and above the received SPLRMS
160 dB for non-explosive impulsive or
intermittent sources (e.g., impact pile
driving, scientific sonar). Generally
speaking, Level B harassment take
estimates based on these behavioral
harassment thresholds are expected to
include any likely takes by TTS as, in
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37645
most cases, the likelihood of TTS occurs
at distances from the source less than
those at which behavioral harassment is
likely. TTS of a sufficient degree can
manifest as behavioral harassment, as
reduced hearing sensitivity and the
potential reduced opportunities to
detect important signals (conspecific
communication, predators, prey) may
result in changes in behavioral patterns
that would not otherwise occur.
The proposed Project’s construction
activities include the use of continuous
(e.g., vibratory pile driving, drilling) and
impulsive or intermittent sources (e.g.,
impact pile driving, some HRG acoustic
sources); therefore, the 120 and 160 dB
re 1 mPa (rms) thresholds are applicable
to our analysis. Level B harassment
thresholds associated with UXO/MEC
detonations are addressed in the
Explosives Source Thresholds section
below.
Level A Harassment
NMFS’ Technical Guidance for
Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic
Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing
(Version 2.0; Technical Guidance)
(NMFS, 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).
As dual metrics, NMFS considers onset
of PTS (Level A harassment) to have
occurred when either one of the two
metrics is exceeded (i.e., metric
resulting in the largest isopleth). As
described above, Park City Wind’s
proposed activities include the use of
both impulsive and non-impulsive
sources. NMFS’ thresholds identifying
the onset of PTS are provided in Table
7. 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.
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
37646
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 7—PERMANENT THRESHOLD SHIFT (PTS) ONSET THRESHOLDS *
[NMFS, 2018]
PTS onset thresholds *
(received level)
Hearing group
Impulsive
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans ......................................
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans ......................................
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans .....................................
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater) .............................
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
1:
3:
5:
7:
Lp,0-pk,flat:
Lp,0-pk,flat:
Lp,0-pk,flat:
Lp,0-pk,flat:
219
230
202
218
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 ................
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
2:
4:
4:
8:
LE,p, LF,24h: 199 dB.
LE,p, MF,24h: 198 dB.
LE,p, HF,24h: 198 dB.
LE,p,PW,24h: 201 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 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.
Explosives Source Thresholds
indicated in Table 8 to predict the onset
of PTS and TTS during UXO/MEC
detonation. For a single detonation
(within a 24-hour period), NMFS relies
on the TTS onset threshold to assess the
Based on the best scientific
information available, NMFS uses the
acoustic and pressure thresholds
potential for Level B harassment. The
proposed rule is conditioned such that
Park City Wind would limit detonations
to one per day and would be limited to
daylight hours only.
TABLE 8—PTS ONSET, TTS ONSET, FOR UNDERWATER EXPLOSIVES
[NMFS, 2018]
Hearing group
PTS impulsive thresholds
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans .......................
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans .......................
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans ......................
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater) ...............
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
TTS impulsive thresholds
1: Lpk,flat: 219 dB; LE,LF,24h: 183 dB .........
4: Lpk,flat: 230 dB; LE,MF,24h: 185 dB .........
7: Lpk,flat: 202 dB; LE,HF,24h: 155 dB .........
10: Lpk,flat: 218 dB; LE,PW,24h: 185 dB ......
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
2: Lpk,flat: 213 dB LE,LF,24h: 168 dB.
5: Lpk,flat: 224 dB; LE,MF,24h: 170 dB.
8: Lpk,flat: 196 dB; LE,HF,24h: 140 dB.
11: Lpk,flat: 212 dB; LE,PW,24h: 170 dB.
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS/TTS onset.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 μPa, and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of 1μPa2s.
In this table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI, 2013). However, ANSI defines peak
sound pressure as incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ‘‘flat’’ is being included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted within the overall marine mammal generalized hearing range. The
subscript associated with cumulative sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF,
MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The cumulative sound exposure level
thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for
action proponents to indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be exceeded.
Additional thresholds for nonauditory injury to lung and
gastrointestinal (GI) tracts from the blast
shock wave and/or onset of high peak
pressures are also relevant (at relatively
close ranges) as UXO/MEC detonations,
in general, have potential to result in
mortality and non-auditory injury
(Table 9). Marine mammal lung injury
criteria have been developed by the U.S.
Navy (DoN (U.S. Department of the
Navy), 2017) and are based on the mass
of the animal and the depth at which it
is present in the water column due to
blast pressure. This means that specific
decibel levels for each hearing group are
not provided and instead, the criteria
are presented as equations that allow for
incorporation of specific mass and
depth values. The GI tract injury
threshold is based on peak pressure.
The modified Goertner equations below
represent the potential onset of lung
injury and GI tract injury (Table 9).
TABLE 9—LUNG AND G.I. TRACT INJURY THRESHOLDS
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
[DoN, 2017]
Mortality
(severe lung injury) *
Hearing group
All Marine Mammals ...........................
Cell 1: Modified Goertner model;
Equation 1.
Slight lung injury *
Cell 2: Modified Goertner model;
Equation 2.
G.I. tract injury
Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 237 dB.
* Lung injury (severe and slight) thresholds are dependent on animal mass (Recommendation: Table C.9 from DoN (2017) based on adult and/
or calf/pup mass by species).
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 μPa. In this table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI, 2013). However, ANSI defines peak sound pressure as incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent
for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the subscript ‘‘flat’’ is being included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted
within the overall marine mammal generalized hearing range.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
37647
Modified Goertner Equations for severe and slight lung injury (pascal-second):
Equation 1: 103M1/3(1 + D/10.1)1/6 Pa-s.
Equation 2: 47.5M1/3(1 + D/10.1)1/6 Pa-s.
M animal (adult and/or calf/pup) mass (kg) (Table C.9 in DoN, 2017).
D animal depth (meters).
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Below, we describe the assumptions
and methodologies used to estimate
take, in consideration of acoustic
thresholds and appropriate marine
mammals density and occurrence
information, for WTG and ESP
foundation installation, UXO/MEC
detonation, and HRG surveys. Resulting
distances to thresholds, densities used,
activity-specific exposure estimates (as
relevant to the analysis), and activityspecific take estimates can be found in
each activity subsection below. At the
end of this section, we present the
amount of annual and 5-year take that
Park City Wind requested, and NMFS
proposes to authorize, from all activities
combined.
Acoustic and Exposure Modeling
The predominant underwater noise
associated with the construction of the
Project results from impact and
vibratory pile driving and drilling. Park
City Wind employed JASCO Applied
Sciences (USA) Inc. (JASCO) to conduct
acoustic modeling to better understand
sound fields produced during these
activities (Ku¨sel et al., 2022). The basic
modeling approach is to characterize the
sounds produced by the source, and
determine how the sounds propagate
within the surrounding water column.
For impact pile driving, JASCO
conducted sophisticated source and
propagation modeling (as described
below). For vibratory pile driving and
drilling activities, JASCO applied in situ
data to estimate source levels and
applied a general practical spreading
loss (15logR) assumption. To assess the
potential for take from impact pile
driving, JASCO also conducted animal
movement modeling to estimate take;
JASCO estimated species-specific
exposure probability by considering the
range- and depth-dependent sound
fields in relation to animal movement in
simulated representative construction
scenarios. To assess the potential for
take from vibratory pile driving and
drilling, exposure modeling was not
conducted. More details on these
acoustic source modeling, propagation
modeling and exposure modeling
methods are described below.
JASCO’s Pile Driving Source Model
(PDSM), a physical model of pile
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
vibration and near-field sound radiation
(MacGillivray, 2014), was used in
conjunction with the GRL, Inc. Wave
Equation Analysis of Pile Driving
(GRLWEAP) 2010 wave equation model
(Pile Dynamics, 2010) to predict source
levels associated with impact pile
driving activities (WTG and ESP
foundation installation). The PDSM
physical model computes the
underwater vibration and sound
radiation of a pile by solving the
theoretical equations of motion for axial
and radial vibrations of a cylindrical
shell. This model is used to estimate the
energy distribution per frequency
(source spectrum) at a close distance
from the source (10 m). Piles are
modeled as a vertical installation using
a finite-difference structural model of
pile vibration based on thin-shell
theory. To model the sound emissions
from the piles, the force of the pile
driving hammers also had to be
modeled. The force at the top of each
monopile and jacket foundation pile
was computed using the GRLWEAP
2010 wave equation model (GRLWEAP;
Pile Dynamics, 2010), which includes a
large database of simulated hammers.
The forcing functions from GRLWEAP
were used as inputs to the finite
difference model to compute the
resulting pile vibrations (see Figures 13–
15 in Appendix A of Park City Wind’s
ITA application for the computed
forcing functions). The sound radiating
from the pile itself was simulated using
a vertical array of discrete point sources.
These models account for several
parameters that describe the operation—
pile type, material, size, and length—the
pile driving equipment, and
approximate pile penetration depth. The
model assumed direct contact between
the representative hammers, helmets,
and piles (i.e., no cushioning material).
For both jacket and monopile
foundation models, the piles are
assumed to be vertical and driven to a
penetration depth of 50 m and 40 m,
respectively.
Park City Wind would use at least two
noise abatement systems (NAS) during
all pile driving and drilling associated
with foundation installations and UXO/
MEC detonations, such as a double
bubble curtain or single bubble curtain
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and an encapsulated bubble or foam
sleeve, to reduce sound levels. NAS,
such as bubble curtains, are sometimes
used to decrease the sound levels
radiated from a source. Hence,
hypothetical broadband attenuation
levels of 0 dB, 6 dB, 10 dB, and 12 dB
were incorporated into the foundation
source models to gauge effects on the
ranges to thresholds given these levels
of attenuation (Appendix G of the ITA
application). Although four attenuation
levels were evaluated, Park City Wind
and NMFS anticipate that the noise
attenuation system ultimately chosen
will be capable of reliably reducing
source levels by 10 dB; therefore, this
assumption was carried forward in this
analysis for monopile and jacket
foundation pile driving installation,
drilling activities, and UXO/MEC
detonations. See the Proposed
Mitigation section for more information
regarding the justification for the 10-dB
assumption.
In addition to considering noise
abatement, the amount of sound
generated during pile driving varies
with the energy required to drive piles
to a desired depth and depends on the
sediment resistance encountered.
Sediment types with greater resistance
require hammers that deliver higher
energy strikes and/or an increased
number of strikes relative to
installations in softer sediment.
Maximum sound levels usually occur
during the last stage of impact pile
driving where the greatest resistance is
encountered (Betke, 2008). Key
modeling assumptions for the
monopiles and pin piles are listed in
Table 10 (additional modeling details
and input parameters can be found in
Ku¨sel et al. (2022)). Hammer energy
schedules for monopiles (12-m) and pin
piles (4-m) are provided in Table 11,
respectively, and the resulting
broadband source level comparisons of
the 12-m and 13-monopiles are
presented in Table 12. Decidecade
spectral source levels for each pile type,
hammer energy, and modeled location
for summer sound speed profiles can be
found in Appendix A of Park City
Wind’s ITA application (Figures 16 to
18).
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
37648
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 10—KEY PILING ASSUMPTIONS USED IN THE SOURCE MODELING
Maximum impact
hammer energy
(kJ)
Foundation type
12-m Monopile 1 ...............................................................................
4-m Jacket Pin Pile 2 3 .....................................................................
Wall
thickness
(mm)
6,000
3,500
Pile
length
(m)
200
100
Seabed
penetration
depth
(m)
95
100
Number
per day
40
50
1–2
4
1A
12-m monopile using 6,000 kJ was considered representative of the other monopile approaches as the 13-m is unlikely to occur.
foundations each require the installation of three to four jacket securing piles, known as pin piles.
3 The bottom-frame foundation is similar to the jacket foundation, with the same maximum 4-m pile diameter, but with shorter piles and
shallower penetration and was therefore not modeled separately in the acoustic assessment. It is assumed that the potential acoustic impact of
the bottom-frame foundation installation is equivalent to or less than that predicted for the jacket foundation.
2 Jacket
TABLE 11—HAMMER ENERGY SCHEDULES FOR MONOPILES AND PIN PILES USED IN SOURCE MODELING
12-m monopile 5000 kJ hammer
13-m monopile 5000 kJ
hammer
12-m monopile 6000 kJ
hammer
4-m pin pile 3500 kJ
hammer
13-m monopile 6000 kJ
hammer 1
Energy level
(kJ)
Strike
count
Energy level
(kJ)
Strike
count
Energy level
(kJ)
Strike
count
Energy level
(kJ)
Strike
count
Energy level
(kJ)
1,000 ....................................
1,000 ....................................
2,000 ....................................
3,000 ....................................
5,000 ....................................
Total .....................................
Strike Rate ...........................
690 .............
1,930 ..........
1,910 ..........
1,502 ..........
398 .............
6,430 ..........
30.0 bpm ....
1,000 ..........
1,000 ..........
2,000 ..........
3,000 ..........
5,000 ..........
Total ...........
Strike Rate
745 .............
2,095 ..........
2,100 ..........
1,475 ..........
555 .............
6,970 ..........
30.0 bpm ....
1,000 ..........
2,000 ..........
3,000 ..........
45,000 ........
6,000 ..........
Total ...........
Strike Rate
750 .............
1,250 ..........
1,000 ..........
1000 ...........
500 .............
4,500 ..........
25.0 bpm ....
525 .............
525 .............
1000 ...........
3,500 ..........
3,500 ..........
Total ...........
Strike Rate
875 .............
1,925 ..........
2,165 ..........
3,445 ..........
1,395 ..........
9,805 ..........
30.0 bpm ....
1,000 ..........
2,000 ..........
3,000 ..........
4,500 ..........
6,000 ..........
Total ...........
Strike Rate
Strike
count
850
1,375
1,100
1,100
550
4,975
27.6 bpm.
1 Due to the unlikely event Park City Wind installs a 13-m pile with a 6,000 kJ hammer, source levels were modeled to estimate the distances to mitigation zones;
however, exposure modeling was not conducted for this scenario.
TABLE 12—BROADBAND IMPACT PILE DRIVING SOURCE LEVEL COMPARISONS BETWEEN THE 12-m AND 13-m MONOPILES
Hammer energy level
(kJ)
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,500
6,000
12-m monopile
13-m monopile
Source level
(dB SPL)
Source level
(dB SPL)
..........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
For vibratory pile driving and drilling,
source level modeling to estimate sound
exposure levels was conducted based on
extrapolations of source level data from
smaller piles. Received SEL levels at 10
m for smaller, round steel piles driven
with vibratory hammers were plotted as
a function of pile diameter and fitted
with a power function and then
extrapolated for a 13-m diameter pile.
While this method was applied to
221.94
223.30
224.55
226.31
227.32
estimate SEL, the power function fit
method described above for the received
SPL at 10 m is poor, so an alternative
approach to estimate SPL was derived.
Noting that animals are not expected to
experience a behavioral response at
distances greater than 50 km (Dunlop et
al. 2017a, 2017b), Park City Wind
calculated the source level necessary to
produce a received level of 120 dB at 50
km assuming practical spreading loss
Source level
difference
(dB)
222.27
223.43
225.52
226.09
228.56
0.34
0.14
0.96
0.22
1.23
(15logR) resulting in a source level of
190.5 dB SPL. The drilling source level
was estimated based on drilling data
collected in the Alaska Chukchi and
Beaufort Sea (Austin et al., 2018).
Resulting source levels assuming 10-dB
attenuation from use of noise abatement
(e.g., double bubble curtain) can be
found in Table 13.
TABLE 13—ASSUMED SOURCE LEVELS FOR VIBRATORY PILE DRIVING AND DRILLING OF FOUNDATION PILES
Source level SEL
(dB)
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Activity
Vibratory driving (13-m piles) ..................................................................................................................
Drilling ......................................................................................................................................................
Source level SPL
(dB)
1 188
190.5
N/A
2 183.3
1 Extrapolation
2 Source
of data resulted in a source level (SEL) of 198 dB.
level reported in Austin et al. (2018) is 193.3 dB SPL, based on a measured received level of 141.8 dB at 1 km.
After calculating source levels, Park
City Wind used propagation models to
estimate distances to NMFS’ harassment
thresholds. The propagation of sound
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
through the environment can be
modeled by predicting the acoustic
propagation loss—a measure, in
decibels, of the decrease in sound level
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
between a source and a receiver some
distance away. Geometric spreading of
acoustic waves is the predominant way
by which propagation loss occurs.
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Propagation loss also happens when the
sound is absorbed and scattered by the
seawater, and absorbed, scattered, and
reflected at the water surface and within
the seabed. Propagation loss depends on
the acoustic properties of the ocean and
seabed and its value changes with
frequency. Acoustic propagation
modeling for impact pile driving
applied JASCO’s Marine Operations
Noise Model (MONM) and Full Wave
Range Dependent Acoustic Model
(FWRAM) that combine the outputs of
the source model with the spatial and
temporal environmental context (e.g.,
location, oceanographic conditions, and
seabed type) to estimate sound fields.
The lower frequency bands were
modeled using MONM–RAM, which is
based on the parabolic equation method
of acoustic propagation modeling. For
higher frequencies, additional losses
resulting from absorption were added to
the transmission loss model. See
Appendix F in Park City Wind’s
application for a more detailed
description of JASCO’s propagation
models.
Sounds produced by installation of
the proposed monopiles were modeled
at two sites (M1 and M2) for the 12-m
diameter monopile foundations—M1 in
the northwest section of the SWDA in
44 m water depth and M2 in the
southeast section of the SWDA at 52 m
water depth. Acoustic propagation
modeling was conducted for 4-m
diameter jacket foundation piles
assuming a site in the central area of the
SWDA at 53 m water depth. Modeling
locations are shown in Figure 7 of the
ITA application. These locations were
chosen based on the phasing plans of
the Project, which involves the
installation of 12-m diameter monopiles
in Phase 1 and 13-m diameter
monopiles in Phase 2, with jacket
foundations planned for both phases.
The 13-m diameter piles were only
considered for modeling of the source
functions for comparison with the 12-m
diameter piles, which showed minimal
difference in the forcing function and
source spectra output for the two sizes.
As the 12-m monopile represents the
maximum size monopile for Phase 1 of
the Project and the average size
monopile for Phase 2, propagation
modeling continued with the 12 m
monopile.
Due to seasonal changes in the water
column, sound propagation is likely to
differ at different times of the year. The
speed of sound in seawater depends on
the temperature T (degree Celsius),
salinity S (parts per thousand (ppt)), and
depth D (m) and can be described using
sound speed profiles. Oftentimes, a
homogeneous or mixed layer of constant
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
velocity is present in the first few
meters. It corresponds to the mixing of
surface water through surface agitation.
There can also be other features, such as
a surface channel, which corresponds to
sound velocity increasing from the
surface down. This channel is often due
to a shallow isothermal layer appearing
in winter conditions, but can also be
caused by water that is very cold at the
surface. In a negative sound gradient,
the sound speed decreases with depth,
which results in sound refracting
downwards, which may result in
increased bottom losses with distance
from the source. In a positive sound
gradient, as is predominantly present in
the winter season, sound speed
increases with depth and the sound is,
therefore, refracted upwards, which can
aid in long distance sound propagation.
Acoustic propagation modeling for
impact pile driving foundations was
conducted using an average sound
speed profile for a summer period given
this would be when Park City Wind
would conduct the majority, if not all of
its foundation installation work.
FWRAM computes pressure waveforms
via Fourier synthesis of the modeled
acoustic transfer function in closely
spaced frequency bands. Examples of
decidecade spectral levels for each
foundation pile type, hammer energy,
and modeled location, using average
summer sound speed profile are
provided in Ku¨sel et al. (2022).
Resulting distances to NMFS’
harassment thresholds for impact
driving can be found in the WTG and
ESP Foundation Installation subsection
below.
For vibratory pile driving and drilling
during foundation installation, Park City
Wind assumed a simple practical
spreading loss (15logR). Resulting
distances to NMFS’ harassment
thresholds for these activities can be
found in the activity-specific
subsections below.
As described previously, Park City
Wind has also identified the potential
need to detonate up to 10 UXOs/MECs
during the first two years of
construction. Park City Wind did not
conduct independent acoustic and
propagation modeling for this activity
but instead relied on a publicly
available modeling report prepared by
JASCO for the Revolution Wind project
(Hannay and Zykov, 2022) which is
geographically adjacent to the Project
area. The water depths considered in
the acoustic modeling study (i.e., 12 m,
20 m, 30 m, 45 m) are relevant to the
Project areas that may require UXO/
MEC detonation, although the export
cable route for New England Wind
comes to shore northeast of Cape Cod
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37649
Island and not into Narragansett Bay, as
was considered in the modeling study.
The modeled SEL from Revolution
Wind are mostly transferable to similar
depth sites over the Project area, with
the possible exception of the shallowest
site (12 m) that is located in a
constrained channel in Narragansett Bay
with nearby islands blocking sound
propagation in some directions. In
addition, Park City Wind and NMFS
acknowledge the bathymetry considered
in the Revolution Wind UXO/MEC
study slightly varies from the Project
area; however, the effects to propagation
are likely minimal. Moreover, Park City
Wind would be required to conduct
sound field verification during any
UXO/MEC detonation and any
subsequent detonations would be
subject to mitigation dependent upon
the results of that acoustic monitoring
effort (e.g., changes to mitigation zone
sizes may occur). Overall, the results
from Hanney and Zykov (2022) are
applicable to the Park City Wind
project. The resulting distances to
NMFS’ harassment thresholds and
estimate take from UXO/MEC
detonation can be found in the UXO/
MEC subsection below.
To estimate the probability of
exposure of animals to sound above
NMFS’ harassment thresholds during
impact pile driving for foundation
installation, JASCO’s Animal
Simulation Model Including Noise
Exposure (JASMINE) was used to
integrate the sound fields generated
from the source and propagation models
described above with species-typical
behavioral parameters (e.g., dive
patterns). Sound exposure models, such
as JASMINE, use simulated animals
(animats) to sample the predicted 3–D
sound fields with movement rules
derived from animal observations.
Animats that exceed NMFS’ acoustic
thresholds are identified and the range
for the exceedances determined. The
output of the simulation is the exposure
history for each animat within the
simulation. An individual animat’s
sound exposure levels are summed over
a specific duration, (24 hours), to
determine its total received acoustic
energy (SEL) and maximum received PK
and SPL. These received levels are then
compared to the threshold criteria
within each analysis period.
The combined history of all animats
gives a probability density function of
exposure during the project. The
number of animals expected to exceed
the regulatory thresholds is determined
by scaling the number of predicted
animat exposures by the species-specific
density of animals in the area. By
programming animats to behave like
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
37650
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
marine species that may be present near
the Project area, the sound fields are
sampled in a manner similar to that
expected for real animals. The
parameters used for forecasting realistic
behaviors (e.g., diving, foraging, and
surface times) were determined and
interpreted from marine species studies
(e.g., tagging studies) where available, or
reasonably extrapolated from related
species (Ku¨sel et al., 2022).
For modeled animals that have
received enough acoustic energy to
exceed a given harassment threshold,
the exposure range for each animal is
defined as the closest point of approach
(CPA) to the source made by that animal
while it moved throughout the modeled
sound field, accumulating received
acoustic energy. The CPA for each of the
species-specific animats during a
simulation is recorded and then the
CPA distance that accounts for 95
percent of the animats that exceed an
acoustic impact threshold is
determined. The ER95% (95 percent
exposure radial distance) is the
horizontal distance that includes 95
percent of the CPAs of animats
exceeding a given impact threshold. The
ER95% ranges are species-specific rather
than categorized only by any functional
hearing group, which allows for the
incorporation of more species-specific
biological parameters (e.g., dive
durations, swim speeds, etc.) for
assessing the potential for PTS from
impact pile driving.
Park City Wind also calculated
acoustic ranges which represent the
distance to a harassment threshold
based on sound propagation through the
environment independent of any
receiver. As described above, applying
animal movement and behavior within
the modeled noise fields allows for a
more realistic indication of the
distances at which PTS acoustic
thresholds are reached that considers
the accumulation of sound over
different durations. The use of acoustic
ranges (R95%) to the Level A harassment
SELcum metric thresholds to assess the
potential for PTS is considered an
overly conservative method as it does
not account for animal movement and
behavior and therefore assumes that
animals are essentially stationary at that
distance for the entire duration of the
pile installation, a scenario that does not
reflect realistic animal behavior. The
acoustic ranges to the SELcum Level A
harassment thresholds for impact pile
driving can be found in Park City
Wind’s ITA application but will not be
discussed further in this analysis.
However, because NMFS Level A
harassment (PTS dBpeak) and Level B
harassment (SPL) thresholds refer to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
instantaneous exposures, acoustic
ranges are more relevant to the analysis.
Also, because animat modeling was not
conducted for vibratory pile driving or
drilling, acoustic range is used to assess
Level A harassment (dB SEL). Acoustic
ranges to the Level A harassment (dB
peak), Level A harassment (dB SEL;
vibratory pile driving and drilling only),
and Level B harassment threshold for
each activity are provided in the WTG
and ESP Foundation Installation
subsection below. The differences
between exposure ranges and acoustic
ranges for Level B harassment are
minimal given it is an instantaneous
method.
Density and Occurrence
In this section, we provide the
information about marine mammal
density, presence, and group dynamics
that informed the take calculations for
all activities. Park City Wind applied
the 2022 Duke University Marine
Geospatial Ecology Laboratory Habitatbased Marine Mammal Density Models
for the U.S. Atlantic (Duke Model,
Roberts et al., 2016; Roberts and Halpin,
2022) to estimate take from foundation
installation, HRG surveys, and UXO/
MEC detonations (please see each
activity subsection below for the
resulting densities). The models
estimate absolute density (individuals/
100 km2) by statistically correlating
sightings reported on shipboard and
aerial surveys with oceanographic
conditions. For most marine mammal
species, densities are provided on a
monthly basis. Where monthly densities
are not available (e.g., pilot whales),
annual densities are provided.
Moreover, some species are represented
as guilds (e.g., seals (representing
Phocidae spp., primarily comprised of
harbor and gray seals), pilot whales
(representing short-finned and longfinned pilot whales), and beaked whales
(representing Mesoplodon spp.)).
The Duke habitat-based density
models delineate species’ density into 5
x 5 km (3.1 x 3.1 mi) grid cells. Park
City Wind calculated monthly densities
for each species using grid cells within
the lease area and a perimeter around
the lease area that represented the
expected ensonified area to NMFS’
harassment thresholds for each soundproducing activity. All 5 x 5 km grid
cells in the models that fell partially or
fully within the analysis polygon were
considered in the calculations.
For impact pile driving, the perimeter
size from the edge of the lease area was
selected as the largest 10 dB-attenuated
(due to use of sound attenuation
device(s)) exposure range calculated
based on installation of a 12-m pile
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
using a 6,000 kJ hammer (6.2 km). For
vibratory pile driving and drilling,
densities from grid cells within a 50-km
and 16.6-km perimeter (representing
distances to the Level B harassment
isopleths for each activity), respectively,
were applied to the calculations. For
UXO/MEC detonations, Park City Wind
used the largest SEL-based TTS-onset
acoustic ranges across all hearing groups
and applied it to the moderate UXO/
MEC risk areas, resulting in a 14.1-km
perimeter for the shallow water segment
of the OECC and a 13.8-km density
perimeter for the deep water segment of
the OECC as well as the SWDA. For
HRG surveys, Park City Wind applied
all grid cells within the survey corridor.
No buffer was applied given the small
distance to Level B harassment (<200 m)
during surveys compared to the grid cell
size in the Duke density models (5 x 5
km).
Densities were computed monthly for
each species where monthly densities
were available. For the pilot whale guild
(i.e., long-finned and short-finned),
monthly densities are unavailable so
annual mean densities were used
instead. Additionally, the models
provide density for pilot whales as a
guild that includes both species. To
obtain density estimates for long-finned
and short-finned pilot whales, the guild
density was scaled by the relative stock
sizes based on the best available
abundance estimate from NOAA
Fisheries SARs (NOAA Fisheries,
2021b). Similarly, gray and harbor seal
densities were scaled by each of their
relative abundances, as found in the
NOAA Fisheries SARs (NOAA
Fisheries, 2021b). Although harp seals
are not common in the project area, Park
City Wind conservatively applied the
resulting gray seal densities to harp
seals. These scaled and surrogate
densities were carried forward to the
exposure and take estimates. Please see
the activity-specific subsections below
for resulting densities.
The equation below, using pilot
whales as an example, shows how
abundance scaling is applied to
compute density for pilot whales and
seals.
Dshort-finned = Dboth × (Nshort-finned/
(Nshort-finned + Nlong-finned))
Where D represents density and N
represents abundance.
For some species and activities,
AMAPPS data from 2010–2019
shipboard distance sampling surveys
(Palka et al., 2021) and observational
data collected during previous site
assessment surveys in the project area
indicate that the density-based exposure
estimates may be insufficient to account
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
for the number of individuals of a
species that may be encountered during
the planned activities. This is
particularly true for uncommon or rare
species with very low densities in the
models. Hence, consideration of other
data is required to ensure the potential
for take is adequately assessed.
For uncommon species, the predicted
densities from the Duke models are very
low and the resulting density-based
exposure estimate is less than a single
animal or a typical group size for the
species. In such cases, the take request
is based on the species’ average group
size (Table 14). The mean group sizes
used to correct Level B take estimates,
as shown in Table 14, for modeled
cetacean species were derived from
AMAPPS data from 2010–2019 NE
shipboard distance sampling surveys
(Palka et al., 2021) and informed by data
from 2018–2021 HRG surveys
conducted by the Proponent (Vineyard
Wind, 2018, 2020a, 2020c, 2021a). Mean
group size was calculated as the number
of individuals divided by the number of
groups from Table 6–5 of Palka et al.
(2021), which summarizes the 2010–
2019 AMAPPS NE shipboard distance
surveys. Summer sightings (June 1 to
August 31) were chosen for these
calculations because many species were
not observed during fall surveys, and
surveys were not conducted during
spring or winter. When site assessment
survey data showed a larger mean group
size than was shown by the AMAPPS
data, the site assessment survey group
size was applied to take calculations.
In cases where the exposure estimate
was less than the mean group size, it
was assumed that if one group member
were to be exposed, then it is reasonable
to expect that all animals in the same
group could receive a similar level of
sound exposure. Therefore, for species
for which the annual number of
predicted exposures above threshold
was less than the mean group size, the
annual number of expected takes was
increased to the mean group size
rounded up to the nearest integer.
Correcting for group size for these
species is used as a conservative
measure to ensure all animals in a group
are accounted for in the take request.
As described previously, densitybased exposure calculations were not
conducted for species considered rare in
the project area. There are few to zero
sightings of these species in the sources
used above to calculate group size for
the modeled species, so an alternative
method had to be developed. Group size
calculations for rare species used
sighting data from the Ocean
Biodiversity Information System
database (OBIS, 2021). All records for
each of the rare species were extracted
from the OBIS database and then
filtered to include only the area from
approximately Cape Hatteras to the Gulf
of Maine (35° N to 43° N) and from the
coast (76° W) out to the continental
shelf edge (66° W) to provide a more
precise estimate of potential group size
in the SWDA than would be expected
using all OBIS records. The OBIS data
were further filtered to remove
stranding data, because the group size of
stranded animals does not necessarily
reflect the group size of free-ranging
animals. The one exception to this was
the hooded seal—all records of this
species in this area from the OBIS
database were of single, stranded
individuals, and thus a group size of
one was used. This number is likely
reflective of any free-swimming hooded
seal that would occur in the area
because this is an Arctic species and
only single vagrant animals would be
expected. Finally, data from digital
aerial surveys were filtered out of this
larger dataset because, although useful
37651
in determining presence/absence, these
data provide no information on group
size. The ‘‘individualCount’’ variable in
the OBIS data was used to calculate
minimum, maximum, and average
group sizes for these rare species (Table
16 in the ITA application).
For many of these rare species, in
particular the delphinids, maximum
group sizes can be in the hundreds or
even up to thousands of animals.
However, because these animals are rare
in the WEA as it is not their preferred
habitat, Park City Wind assumed that
they would be unlikely to form such
large aggregations in this area. Thus, the
average group size (rounded up to a
whole number) was used in the take
calculations for these species. Group
sizes relevant to the SWDA can be
informed by PSO sightings during site
characterization surveys (Table 15). For
example, white-beaked dolphins were
recorded in both 2019 and 2020 during
HRG surveys in this area (Vineyard
Wind, 2019, 2020) with the sighting of
white-beaked dolphins in 2019
consisting of 30 animals. Other rare
species encountered in the survey area
during previous HRG surveys include
false killer whales in 2019 (5
individuals) and 2021 (1 individual)
(Vineyard Wind, 2020c, 2020b) and
killer whales in 2022 (2 individuals;
data not yet submitted). For these
species the take estimates use the
observed group size from PSO sightings.
Additional detail regarding the
density and occurrence as well as the
assumptions and methodology used to
estimate take for specific activities is
included in the activity-specific
subsections below and in Section 6.1 of
the ITA application. Average group
sizes used in take estimates, where
applicable, for all activities are provided
in Tables 14 and 15.
TABLE 14—AVERAGE MARINE MAMMAL GROUP SIZES USED FOR COMMON AND UNCOMMON SPECIES IN TAKE ESTIMATE
CALCULATIONS
Number of
groups
(AMAPPS
data) a
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Species
North Atlantic right whale d ...........................................................
Fin whale d ....................................................................................
Humpback whale ..........................................................................
Minke whale ..................................................................................
Sei whale d ....................................................................................
Sperm whale d ...............................................................................
Atlantic spotted dolphin .................................................................
Atlantic white-sided dolphin ..........................................................
Bottlenose dolphin, offshore .........................................................
Common dolphin ...........................................................................
Long-finned pilot whale .................................................................
Short-finned pilot whale ................................................................
Risso’s dolphin ..............................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00047
2
345
157
32
20
298
60
3
345
444
41
230
486
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Number of
animals
(AMAPPS
data) a
Mean group
size
(AMAPPS
data) a
4
533
370
32
28
491
1,760
61
3,865
19,802
666
2,050
3,131
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
2.0
1.5
2.4
1.0
1.4
1.6
29.3
20.3
11.2
44.6
16.2
8.9
6.4
Mean group
size
(PSO data) b
1.5 ....................
1.6 ....................
1.5 ....................
1.1 ....................
1.0 ....................
1.3 ....................
Not observed ....
27.5 ..................
17.9 ..................
14.0 ..................
5.6 ....................
Not observed ....
Not observed ....
08JNP2
Group size
used in
Level B
take
correction c
2
2
3
2
2
2
30
28
18
45
17
9
7
37652
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 14—AVERAGE MARINE MAMMAL GROUP SIZES USED FOR COMMON AND UNCOMMON SPECIES IN TAKE ESTIMATE
CALCULATIONS—Continued
Number of
animals
(AMAPPS
data) a
Number of
groups
(AMAPPS
data) a
Species
Harbor porpoise ............................................................................
Gray seal .......................................................................................
Harbor seal ...................................................................................
Harp seal .......................................................................................
4
145
145
145
Mean group
size
(AMAPPS
data) a
6
202
202
202
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.4
Mean group
size
(PSO data) b
1.3
1.2
2.0
Not
Group size
used in
Level B
take
correction c
....................
....................
....................
observed ....
2
2
2
2
a Mean group size for cetaceans from 2010–2019 AMAPPS NE shipboard distance sampling surveys (Table 6–5 of Palka et al. (2021)), and
for seals from 2010–2013 AMAPPS NE aerial surveys for all seals because most were not identified to species (Table 19.1 of Palka et al.
(2017)).
b Mean group size from 2018–2021 PSO sightings data from 2018–2021 HRG surveys conducted by the Proponent (Vineyard Wind, 2018,
2020a, 2020c, 2021a). Highlighted blue cells show values that were higher for PSO data than for AMAPPS data.
c Group size used for Level B take correction is higher of AMAPPS data and PSO data rounded up to an integer.
d Listed as Endangered under the ESA.
TABLE 15—AVERAGE MARINE MAMMAL GROUP SIZES USED FOR RARE SPECIES IN TAKE ESTIMATE CALCULATIONS
Minimum
group size
(OBIS)
Species
Blue whale a .................................................................................
Dwarf sperm whale ......................................................................
Pygmy sperm whale ....................................................................
Cuvier’s beaked whale .................................................................
Blainville’s beaked whale .............................................................
Gervais’ beaked whale ................................................................
Sowerby’s beaked whale .............................................................
True’s beaked whale ....................................................................
Northern bottlenose whale ...........................................................
Clymene dolphin ..........................................................................
False killer whale b .......................................................................
Fraser’s dolphin ...........................................................................
Killer whale b ................................................................................
Melon-headed whale ....................................................................
Pan-tropical spotted dolphin ........................................................
Pygmy killer whale .......................................................................
Rough-toothed dolphin .................................................................
Spinner dolphin ............................................................................
Striped dolphin .............................................................................
White-beaked dolphin b ................................................................
Hooded seal c ...............................................................................
Maximum
group size
(OBIS)
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
2
2
2
1
75
1
20
3
2
3
1
1
1
1
2
5
3
10
4
12
10
5
7
1,000
30
250
40
210
300
10
45
170
500
200
1
Mean
group size
(OBIS)
1.0
1.7
1.3
2.8
3.3
3.5
3.5
2.9
3.7
166.8
6.3
191.7
7.3
108.8
59.3
4.5
13.1
50.4
63.8
13.5
1.0
Observed
group size
(PSO reports)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5
NA
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
30
NA
Group size
used in take
estimates
1
2
2
3
4
4
4
3
4
167
5
192
2
109
60
5
14
51
64
30
1
a Listed
as Endangered under the ESA.
group size for these species from 2018–2021 PSO sightings data from 2018–2021 HRG surveys conducted by the Proponent (Vineyard Wind, 2018, 2020a, 2020c, 2021a).
c All records of hooded seals in the OBIS database for this region were strandings of single animals.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
b Mean
WTG and ESP Foundation Installation
Here, we describe the results from the
acoustic, exposure, and take estimate
methodologies outlined above for WTG
and ESP installation activities that have
the potential to result in harassment of
marine mammals: pile driving and
drilling. We present exposure ranges to
Level A harassment (SEL) from impact
driving and acoustic ranges to Level A
harassment and Level B harassment
thresholds, densities, exposure
estimates and take estimates following
the aforementioned assumptions (e.g.,
construction and hammer schedules).
As previously described, JASCO
integrated the results from acoustic
source and propagation modeling into
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
an animal movement model to calculate
exposure ranges for 17 marine mammal
species considered common in the
project area. The resulting ranges
represent the distances at which marine
mammals may incur Level A
harassment (i.e., PTS). The exposure
ranges also influence the development
of mitigation and harassment zone sizes.
While the first year of Schedule A
includes the potential installation of 13m monopiles using a 6,000 kJ hammer,
this specific configuration was not
modeled beyond acoustic source
modeling because initial source
modeling showed minimal difference
between the 12-m and 13-m monopiles.
Therefore, Park City Wind modeled the
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
12-m monopile with 6,000 kJ hammer
energy which was assumed to be a
reasonable replacement in exposure
calculations. Park City Wind assumed
that all Phase 2 foundations are jackets
as their modeling results found that
jacket foundations are the most
impactful in terms of the Level A
cumulative sound exposure metric.
Thus, the assumption of all jacket
foundations provide an envelope for an
up to 13-m monopile installed with a
5,000 or 6,000 kJ hammer. Table 16
provides exposure ranges for impact
pile driving 12-m and 13-m monopiles
and jacket foundations, assuming 10 dB
attenuation (also see Tables 21–27 in
Park City Wind’s ITA application).
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
37653
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 16—EXPOSURE RANGES (ER95%, km) TO MARINE MAMMAL LEVEL A HARASSMENT (SEL) THRESHOLDS DURING
IMPACT PILE DRIVING 12-m AND 13-m MONOPILES AND 4-m PIN PILES, ASSUMING 10 dB ATTENUATION 1
12-m monopile
5,000 kJ hammer
(km)
13-m monopile
6,000 kJ hammer
(km)
4-m pin
piles
5,000 kJ hammer
(km)
3,500 kJ
hammer
(km)
Marine mammal species
one
pile/day
North Atlantic right whale .......................................
Fin whale ................................................................
Humpback whale ...................................................
Minke whale ...........................................................
Sei whale ...............................................................
Sperm whale ..........................................................
Atlantic spotted dolphin ..........................................
Atlantic white sided dolphin ...................................
Bottlenose dolphin .................................................
Common dolphin ....................................................
Long-finned pilot whale ..........................................
Short-finned pilot whale .........................................
Risso’s dolphin .......................................................
Harbor porpoise .....................................................
Gray seal ................................................................
Harbor seal ............................................................
Harp seal ................................................................
1.84
2.37
2.76
1.50
1.95
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.01
0
1.55
0.51
0.21
0.15
two
piles/day
one
pile/day
2.34
2.79
3.44
1.67
2.04
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.01
1.60
0.56
0.21
0.31
two
piles/day
2.93
3.31
3.81
2.40
2.47
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.01
0.02
2.26
0.84
0.43
0.25
one
pile/day
3.16
3.90
4.62
2.59
3.08
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.01
2.30
1.01
0.63
0.41
two
piles/day
2.26
2.56
2.87
1.50
1.66
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.01
1.51
0.59
0.16
0.09
2.53
3.14
3.66
1.65
2.31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.01
1.50
0.57
0.19
0.32
four piles/
day
2.54
4.07
4.49
1.83
2.84
<0.01
0
0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0
0.01
1.77
1.31
0.32
0.28
1 The exposure ranges presented here represent the assumption that the pile would be fully installed with an impact hammer. Hence, for piles
that are set with a vibratory hammer, these distances can be considered an overestimate since fewer strikes would be required to install the pile.
Park City Wind estimates approximately 70 of the 132 foundations installed would require use of a vibratory hammer to set the pile.
As described above, JASCO also
calculated acoustic ranges which
represent distances to NMFS’
harassment isopleths independent of
movement of a receiver. Acoustic ranges
are a better representation of distances
to NMFS’ instantaneous harassment
thresholds (i.e., PTS dB peak, and Level
B harassment) and can also be used for
PTS dB SEL when animal movement
modeling is not conducted. As
described previously, the distances to
the PTS dB SEL threshold are likely an
overestimate as it assumes an animal
remains at the distance for the entire
duration of pile driving. Presented
below are the distances to the PTS (dB
peak) threshold for impact pile driving,
PTS (dB peak and dB SEL) for vibratory
pile driving and drilling, and Level B
harassment (SPL) thresholds for all
installation methods during WTG and
ESP foundation installation. Table 17
identifies the inputs Park City Wind
applied to the User Spreadsheet. Full
details on the inputs into the User
Spreadsheet can also be found in
Appendix B and C in Park City Wind’s
Application Update Report.
TABLE 17—NMFS USER SPREADSHEET INPUTS
Source A
Source B
Vibratory pile driving
Drilling
Spreadsheet tab used
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Source Level (Single Strike/shot SEL/rms) ..........................................................................................
Weighting Factor Adjustment (kHz) ......................................................................................................
(a) Number of strikes in 1 h .................................................................................................................
(b) Number of piles per day .................................................................................................................
(c) Activity Duration (h) within 24-h period ...........................................................................................
Propagation (xLogR) .............................................................................................................................
Distance of source level measurement (m) .........................................................................................
Acoustic ranges to the Level A
harassment threshold and Level B
harassment thresholds are in Tables 18
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
and 19, respectively. Mean monthly
density estimates for pile driving and
drilling, in consideration of the
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
188
2.5
n/a
2
24
15
10
183.3 dB SPL.
2.5.
n/a.
n/a.
24.
15.
10.
applicable perimeter for each type, are
provided in Tables 20, 21, and 22
below.
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
37654
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 18—ACOUSTIC RANGES, IN METERS, TO LEVEL A HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS DURING PILE DRIVING AND DRILLING,
ASSUMING 10 dB ATTENUATION
Distances to Level A harassment thresholds (m)
Pile
installed
Install
method
Hammer
energy
(kJ)
Activity duration
(minutes)
Low-frequency cetacean
219 Lp,pk
Drilling ...
12-m ......
12-m ......
13-m ......
4-m ........
13-m ......
Drilling ........
Impact ........
Impact ........
Impact ........
Impact ........
Vibratory .....
N/A
5,000
6,000
5,000
3,500
N/A
1,440 (24 hours) ..
n/a .......................
n/a .......................
n/a .......................
n/a .......................
60 ........................
7.4
11
11
14
2
18.4
High-frequency
cetaceans
Mid-frequency cetacean
Phocids
199 LE,24hr
230 Lp,pk
198 LE,24hr
202 Lp,pk
173 LE,24hr
218 Lp,pk
201 LE,24hr
174.3
..................
..................
..................
..................
430.9
..................
3
3
5
..................
..................
15.4
..................
..................
..................
..................
38.2
..................
230
230
290
139
..................
257.7
..................
..................
..................
..................
637.1
..................
14
14
16
2
..................
105.9
..................
..................
..................
..................
261.9
TABLE 19—ACOUSTIC RANGES (R95%), IN METERS, TO LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLDS DURING PILE DRIVING AND
DRILLING, ASSUMING 10 dB ATTENUATION
Distance to
Level B
harassment
(km)
Hammer energy
(kJ)
Pile installed
Install method
Drilling ...............................................................
12-m ..................................................................
12-m ..................................................................
13-m ..................................................................
4-m ....................................................................
13-m ..................................................................
Drilling ...............................................................
Impact ...............................................................
Impact ...............................................................
Impact ...............................................................
Impact ...............................................................
Vibratory ...........................................................
N/A
5,000
6,000
5,000
3,500
N/A
16.6
4.24
5.83
4.64
3.64
50
TABLE 20—MEAN MONTHLY MARINE MAMMAL DENSITY ESTIMATES (ANIMALS/100 km2) FOR IMPACT PILE DRIVING
CONSIDERING A 6.2-km BUFFER AROUND THE LEASE AREA a
Species
North Atlantic right whale b
Fin whale b .........................
Humpback whale ...............
Minke whale ......................
Sei whale b ........................
Sperm whale b ...................
Atlantic spotted dolphin .....
Atlantic white-sided dolphin
Bottlenose dolphin, offshore ..............................
Common dolphin ...............
Long-finned pilot whale c ...
Short-finned pilot whale c ..
Risso’s dolphin ..................
Harbor porpoise ................
Gray seal d .........................
Harbor seal d .....................
Harp seal d .........................
Annual
mean
May–
Dec
mean
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
July
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
0.356
0.212
0.03
0.108
0.039
0.031
0.001
2.093
0.427
0.168
0.022
0.134
0.021
0.012
0
1.248
0.431
0.106
0.042
0.132
0.044
0.013
0.001
0.853
0.459
0.163
0.15
0.798
0.111
0.003
0.003
1.315
0.289
0.27
0.298
1.717
0.194
0.013
0.017
3.362
0.048
0.249
0.314
1.63
0.053
0.029
0.024
3.041
0.021
0.443
0.175
0.689
0.013
0.039
0.031
1.392
0.018
0.37
0.12
0.468
0.011
0.109
0.055
0.728
0.027
0.234
0.167
0.529
0.019
0.066
0.281
1.655
0.05
0.057
0.243
0.474
0.037
0.063
0.425
2.486
0.062
0.05
0.191
0.051
0.079
0.031
0.185
1.786
0.174
0.138
0.028
0.073
0.063
0.021
0.019
2.473
0.197
0.205
0.148
0.567
0.057
0.036
0.087
1.869
0.086
0.226
0.192
0.704
0.059
0.046
0.13
2.115
0.515
7.365
0.142
0.105
0.044
10.065
5.756
12.932
5.756
0.113
2.509
0.142
0.105
0.004
10.857
6.123
13.758
6.123
0.06
1.896
0.142
0.105
0.002
10.353
4.627
10.395
4.627
0.158
3.288
0.142
0.105
0.018
8.936
3.434
7.714
3.434
0.832
6.357
0.142
0.105
0.097
6.826
5.122
11.507
5.122
1.39
14.269
0.142
0.105
0.047
0.895
0.757
1.7
0.757
1.51
10.568
0.142
0.105
0.067
0.804
0.076
0.171
0.076
1.702
14.668
0.142
0.105
0.126
0.776
0.083
0.186
0.083
1.511
26.713
0.142
0.105
0.156
0.919
0.214
0.482
0.214
1.36
23.434
0.142
0.105
0.085
1.225
0.505
1.134
0.505
1.278
11.174
0.142
0.105
0.122
1.373
1.844
4.143
1.844
1.141
10.937
0.142
0.105
0.183
5.683
5.002
11.237
5.002
0.964
11.098
0.142
0.105
0.079
4.893
2.795
6.28
2.795
1.341
14.765
0.142
0.105
0.111
2.313
1.7
3.82
1.7
a Density
estimates are calculated from the 2022 Duke Habitat-Based Marine Mammal Density Models (Roberts et al., 2016; Roberts and Halpin, 2022).
as Endangered under the ESA.
and short-finned pilot whale densities are the annual pilot whale guild density scaled by their relative abundances.
d Gray and harbor seal densities are the seals guild density scaled by their relative abundances; gray seals are used as a surrogate for harp seals.
b Listed
c Long-
TABLE 21—MEAN MONTHLY MARINE MAMMAL DENSITY ESTIMATES (ANIMALS/100 km2) FOR VIBRATORY PILE DRIVING
CONSIDERING A 50-km PERIMETER AROUND THE LEASE AREA a
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Species
North Atlantic right whale b
Fin whale b .........................
Humpback whale ...............
Minke whale ......................
Sei whale b ........................
Sperm whale b ...................
Atlantic spotted dolphin .....
Atlantic white-sided dolphin
Bottlenose dolphin, offshore ..............................
Common dolphin ...............
Long-finned pilot whale c ...
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Annual
mean
May–
Dec
mean
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
July
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
0.542
0.196
0.037
0.106
0.031
0.031
0.002
2.383
0.649
0.159
0.03
0.121
0.023
0.018
0
1.677
0.566
0.138
0.044
0.137
0.044
0.017
0.001
1.143
0.507
0.168
0.165
0.666
0.121
0.004
0.005
1.607
0.316
0.259
0.273
1.343
0.181
0.014
0.067
3.174
0.08
0.247
0.301
1.213
0.058
0.029
0.164
3.324
0.051
0.39
0.161
0.524
0.016
0.039
0.049
1.463
0.031
0.322
0.099
0.319
0.009
0.111
0.08
0.533
0.043
0.243
0.129
0.357
0.015
0.054
0.432
1.311
0.054
0.088
0.185
0.393
0.034
0.04
0.948
2.197
0.113
0.059
0.168
0.051
0.076
0.029
0.228
1.74
0.34
0.13
0.04
0.079
0.059
0.027
0.026
2.434
0.274
0.2
0.136
0.442
0.056
0.035
0.167
1.916
0.129
0.217
0.169
0.535
0.056
0.043
0.249
2.022
0.666
9.886
0.165
0.208
4.821
0.165
0.121
3.803
0.165
0.276
5.177
0.165
1.081
8.627
0.165
1.8
17.737
0.165
1.871
12.807
0.165
1.902
14.696
0.165
1.94
22.88
0.165
1.896
29.545
0.165
1.825
17.768
0.165
1.421
14.652
0.165
1.251
13.533
0.165
1.717
17.339
0.165
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
37655
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 21—MEAN MONTHLY MARINE MAMMAL DENSITY ESTIMATES (ANIMALS/100 km2) FOR VIBRATORY PILE DRIVING
CONSIDERING A 50-km PERIMETER AROUND THE LEASE AREA a—Continued
Species
Jan
Feb
Short-finned pilot whale c ..
Risso’s dolphin ..................
Harbor porpoise ................
Gray seal d .........................
Harbor seal d .....................
Harp seal d .........................
0.122
0.102
7.134
5.859
13.164
5.859
0.122
0.021
7.874
5.46
12.268
5.46
Mar
0.122
0.008
7.54
4.518
10.15
4.518
Apr
May
Jun
0.122
0.038
6.884
4.932
11.081
4.932
0.122
0.214
4.851
7.239
16.265
7.239
0.122
0.207
1.409
5.389
12.108
5.389
July
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
0.122
0.272
1.315
1.57
3.528
1.57
0.122
0.446
1.002
1.3
2.921
1.3
0.122
0.587
0.851
1.512
3.397
1.512
0.122
0.294
1.137
2.863
6.432
2.863
0.122
0.182
1.376
3.463
7.781
3.463
Dec
0.122
0.215
4.459
5.24
11.773
5.24
Annual
mean
0.122
0.215
3.819
4.112
9.239
4.112
May–
Dec
mean
0.122
0.302
2.05
3.572
8.026
3.572
a Density
estimates are calculated from the 2022 Duke Habitat-Based Marine Mammal Density Models (Roberts et al., 2016; Roberts and Halpin, 2022).
as Endangered under the ESA.
and short-finned pilot whale densities are the annual pilot whale guild density scaled by their relative abundances.
d Gray and harbor seal densities are the seals guild density scaled by their relative abundances; gray seals are used as a surrogate for harp seals.
b Listed
c Long-
TABLE 22—MEAN MONTHLY MARINE MAMMAL DENSITY ESTIMATES (ANIMALS/100 km2) FOR DRILLING CONSIDERING A
16.6-km PERIMETER AROUND THE LEASE AREA a
Species
North Atlantic right whale b
Fin whale b .........................
Humpback whale ...............
Minke whale ......................
Sei whale b ........................
Sperm whale b ...................
Atlantic spotted dolphin .....
Atlantic white-sided dolphin
Bottlenose dolphin, offshore ..............................
Common dolphin ...............
Long-finned pilot whale c ...
Short-finned pilot whale c ..
Risso’s dolphin ..................
Harbor porpoise ................
Gray seal d .........................
Harbor seal d .....................
Harp seal d .........................
Annual
mean
May–
Dec
mean
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
July
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
0.419
0.216
0.032
0.118
0.038
0.031
0.001
2.04
0.497
0.164
0.025
0.141
0.022
0.012
0
1.251
0.48
0.111
0.043
0.141
0.045
0.013
0.001
0.872
0.484
0.164
0.147
0.807
0.114
0.003
0.003
1.339
0.29
0.274
0.284
1.706
0.191
0.014
0.02
3.281
0.05
0.26
0.297
1.594
0.052
0.027
0.029
3.002
0.023
0.421
0.166
0.683
0.013
0.038
0.032
1.396
0.019
0.342
0.116
0.448
0.01
0.116
0.054
0.709
0.029
0.222
0.16
0.484
0.018
0.068
0.27
1.629
0.052
0.06
0.222
0.453
0.036
0.05
0.48
2.36
0.076
0.053
0.184
0.054
0.08
0.031
0.178
1.786
0.227
0.142
0.032
0.082
0.067
0.021
0.019
2.411
0.221
0.203
0.142
0.559
0.057
0.035
0.09
1.84
0.096
0.222
0.183
0.688
0.059
0.046
0.135
2.072
0.48
7.13
0.139
0.102
0.045
9.722
6.084
13.67
6.084
0.112
2.538
0.139
0.102
0.004
10.5
6.137
13.788
6.137
0.061
1.988
0.139
0.102
0.002
9.999
4.495
10.099
4.495
0.161
3.375
0.139
0.102
0.019
8.702
3.63
8.157
3.63
0.813
6.36
0.139
0.102
0.101
6.457
5.259
11.816
5.259
1.356
13.828
0.139
0.102
0.054
1.041
1.171
2.63
1.171
1.47
10.656
0.139
0.102
0.075
0.988
0.151
0.34
0.151
1.633
14.298
0.139
0.102
0.141
0.95
0.154
0.346
0.154
1.488
24.73
0.139
0.102
0.177
1.043
0.327
0.736
0.327
1.353
23.023
0.139
0.102
0.097
1.274
0.655
1.472
0.655
1.268
11.7
0.139
0.102
0.123
1.435
2.078
4.67
2.078
1.076
11.063
0.139
0.102
0.177
5.798
4.937
11.091
4.937
0.939
10.891
0.139
0.102
0.085
4.826
2.923
6.568
2.923
1.307
14.457
0.139
0.102
0.118
2.373
1.842
4.138
1.842
a Density
estimates are calculated from the 2022 Duke Habitat-Based Marine Mammal Density Models (Roberts et al., 2016; Roberts and Halpin, 2022).
as Endangered under the ESA.
and short-finned pilot whale densities are the annual pilot whale guild density scaled by their relative abundances.
d Gray and harbor seal densities are the seals guild density scaled by their relative abundances; gray seals are used as a surrogate for harp seals.
b Listed
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
c Long-
To estimate take from foundation
installation activities, Park City Wind
used two pile installation construction
schedules (Table 2 above; also see
Tables 2 and 3 in Application Update
Report). Overall, Construction Schedule
A (Schedule A) assumes 52 days of
foundation installation activities would
occur between May and December in
2026 (Year 2) to install 89 monopiles
and 2 jacket foundations and 35 days of
foundation installation activities would
occur in 2027 (Year 3) to install 18
monopiles and 24 jacket foundations.
As previously described, Park City
accounted for 133 piles to be installed
in its modeling despite a maximum of
132 foundations actually being
installed. In total, based on Schedule A,
87 days of foundation installation
activities would occur over 2 years to
complete the Project. Construction
Schedule B (Schedule B) assumes 38
days of foundation installation activities
would occur between May and
December in 2026 (Year 2) to install 55
monopiles and 3 jacket foundations, 53
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
days of foundation installation activities
would occur in 2027 (Year 3) to install
53 jackets, and 22 days of foundation
installation activities would occur in
2028 (Year 4) to install 22 jackets. In
total, based on Schedule B, 113 days of
foundation installation activities would
occur over 3 years to complete the
Project.
Due to the extended duration of
Schedule B, the total amount of Level B
harassment from foundation installation
activities is greater than Schedule A
over the 5-year effective period of the
proposed rule. The total 5-year take by
Level B harassment in this proposed
rule is therefore generated based on
Schedule B. However, annual take
estimates assume the yearly worst case
scenario exposures for each species for
each year from either Construction
Schedule A or B. That is, annual take by
Level B harassment due to foundation
installation activities may use either
Schedule A or B, whichever was more.
As previously described, Park City
accounted for 133 piles to be installed
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
in its modeling despite a maximum of
132 foundations actually being installed
to complete the Project.
Park City Wind considered three
foundation installation techniques when
estimating take: impact pile driving,
vibratory pile driving (to set the pile),
and drilling (to break up any obstacles
should the pile encounter obstructions).
Of these, Level A harassment (PTS) has
the potential to occur from impact pile
driving only. As shown in Table 18,
vibratory pile driving and drilling
produce very small Level A harassment
zone sizes that consider static receivers
over the duration of the time period
considered in the model (e.g., a harbor
porpoise would have to remain at 637
m from the pile for 24-hours). For
vibratory pile driving, the duration
considered was relatively short (60
minutes); however, this represents
vibratory driving over two piles in
which there are several hours in
between events and the resulting
distances are comparatively small (e.g.,
460 m for low-frequency cetaceans (i.e.,
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
37656
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
baleen whales)). Moreover, the
implementation of clearance and shut
down zones would further reduce the
potential for PTS from these activities.
For these reasons, Park City Wind has
concluded, and NMFS agrees, the
potential for PTS to occur from
vibratory pile driving or drilling is
discountable. For this reason, Park City
Wind carried forward the PTS exposure
estimates from impact pile driving and
no take by Level A harassment was
considered for vibratory pile driving or
drilling. The maximum take by Level A
harassment proposed for authorization
from the foundation activities (i.e.,
impact pile driving) is in Table 23.
To estimate the amount of Level B
(behavioral) harassment that may occur
incidental to foundation installation,
Park City Wind considered all three
installation methods. As described
above, Park City Wind conducted
exposure modeling to estimate the
number of exposures that may occur
from impact pile driving. The results of
the exposure modeling and amount of
take Park City Wind requested from this
activity is provided in sections 3 and 4
of the Application Update Report.
Separately, Park City Wind applied a
more traditional approach to estimate
take from vibratory driving and drilling
wherein:
Take = density × area ensonified ×
number of days of activity
As shown in Tables 20 and 21,
densities for vibratory pile driving and
drilling were calculated on a monthly
basis. Park City Wind then considered
the number of days either activity
would occur per month and per
schedule (see Tables 2 and 3 in
Application Update Report). Take was
estimated for each activity independent
of each other. That is, Park City Wind
calculated take for vibratory driving 70
foundations over 45 days for Schedule
A and 54 days for Schedule B. The
resulting monthly and annual take can
be found in Tables 18–20 of Park City
Wind’s Application Update Report.
Separately, Park City Wind calculated
take considering drilling for 48
foundations over 48 days for both
Schedule A and Schedule B. The
resulting monthly and annual take can
be found in Tables 21–23 of Park City
Wind’s Application Update Report.
To avoid overestimating take, the
amount of take derived when
considering impact driving, vibratory
driving, and drilling independently
were not summed to produce the
amount of annual take Park City Wind
requested. Instead, Park City Wind
appropriately deducted the take from
drilling when vibratory pile driving and
drilling would occur on the same day.
This is because the area for vibratory
pile driving is much larger than drilling
(50 km vs 16.6 km) and the amount of
take estimated for vibratory pile driving
adequately covers potential take from
drilling activities. However, because
take from impact pile driving was
modeled based on the number of piles
while vibratory/drilling takes were
based on the number of days of activity,
Park City Wind added the take estimates
from impact pile driving all piles to the
take estimates from vibratory pile
driving/drilling (with the appropriate
discounting) to produce their annual
and total take requests. However, this is
an overestimate of take as impact and
vibratory and/or drilling could occur on
the same day. That is, via this method,
the amount of take requested represents
take associated with more than 132
foundations. Hence, NMFS has reduced
the amount of take, by Level B
harassment, proposed for authorization.
The amount of Level B harassment
take NMFS proposes to authorize
represents the amount of take from
impact driving on days when only
impact driving could occur plus the
amount of take from vibratory or drilling
on the days that either of those activities
could occur to avoid double counting.
We were able to reduce the amount of
take from impact pile driving by
reducing the amount proportional to the
percentage of days when only impact
pile driving would occur. For example,
Park City Wind identified that impact
pile driving would occur over 52 days
in Year 2 (2026) according to Schedule
A. However, Park City Wind has
predicted that only 7 of those 52 days
(approximately 13 percent) would
contain impact pile driving only (i.e., no
vibratory pile driving and/or drilling).
Hence, for Year 2 (2026) Schedule A,
NMFS only included 13 percent of the
estimated impact pile driving exposures
calculated. As an example, Park City
Wind estimated 9 exposures of fin
whales in Year 2 (2026), Schedule A
from impact pile driving. NMFS carried
forward 2 (13 percent of 9) exposures
into the take estimates from foundation
installation.
Table 24 provides the annual take by
Level B harassment calculated using
this method from impact pile driving for
both Schedule A and, separately,
Schedule B. Table 25 identifies the
amount of take for vibratory pile driving
and drilling foundation installation
activities after removing drilling takes
when drilling would occur on the same
day as vibratory pile driving (to avoid
double counting). The annual take
amounts represent the highest value
between both Schedule A and Schedule
B while the maximum 3-year take
estimates represent the sum of take
calculated for each year in Schedule B.
NMFS retained Park City Wind’s request
for Level A harassment from all impact
pile driving activities as no Level A
harassment from vibratory pile driving
or drilling is anticipated (Table 23).
Table 26 identifies the amount of take
for all foundation installation activities
combined (i.e., the sum of Tables 23
through 26) that was carried forward in
the take tables for this proposed rule.
TABLE 23—HIGHEST ANNUAL EXPOSURE ESTIMATES AND ANNUAL AMOUNT OF TAKE PROPOSED FOR AUTHORIZATION BY
LEVEL A HARASSMENT FROM IMPACT PILE DRIVING ASSOCIATED WITH WTG AND ESP TOTAL INSTALLATION EVENTS
FOR CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE A AND B, ASSUMING 10 dB OF NOISE ATTENUATION
Year 2 (2026)
Species
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Exposures
North Atlantic right whale a b ............................................
Fin whale a .......................................................................
Humpback whale .............................................................
Minke whale .....................................................................
Sei whale a .......................................................................
Sperm whale a ..................................................................
Atlantic spotted dolphin c ..................................................
Atlantic white sided dolphin .............................................
Bottlenose dolphin, offshore ............................................
Common dolphin ..............................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Proposed
takes
1.94
8.95
8.11
30.92
0.95
<0.01
0
0.01
0.01
0.17
Fmt 4701
Year 3 (2027)
0
9
9
31
1
1
0
1
1
8
Sfmt 4702
Exposures
Proposed
takes
3.6
19.97
15.9
84.14
1.88
<0.01
0
0.21
0.2
2.18
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
Year 4 (2028)
0
20
16
85
2
1
0
1
1
3
08JNP2
Exposures
1.68
8.13
6.85
37.2
0.91
<0.01
0
0.09
0.08
0.94
Proposed
takes
0
9
7
38
1
1
0
1
1
1
37657
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 23—HIGHEST ANNUAL EXPOSURE ESTIMATES AND ANNUAL AMOUNT OF TAKE PROPOSED FOR AUTHORIZATION BY
LEVEL A HARASSMENT FROM IMPACT PILE DRIVING ASSOCIATED WITH WTG AND ESP TOTAL INSTALLATION EVENTS
FOR CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE A AND B, ASSUMING 10 dB OF NOISE ATTENUATION—Continued
Year 2 (2026)
Species
Exposures
Long-finned pilot whale d ..................................................
Short-finned pilot whale ...................................................
Risso’s dolphin .................................................................
Harbor porpoise ...............................................................
Gray seal ..........................................................................
Harbor seal ......................................................................
Harp seal ..........................................................................
a Listed as Endangered under the ESA.
b Level A harassment exposures were estimated
Year 3 (2027)
Proposed
takes
<0.01
<0.01
0.04
70.65
1.09
2.51
1.05
Proposed
takes
Exposures
1
1
1
71
2
3
2
Year 4 (2028)
0.03
<0.01
0.04
135.47
2.43
6.82
2.13
Exposures
1
1
1
136
3
7
3
Proposed
takes
0.01
0
0.02
59.89
1.13
3.17
0.99
1
0
1
60
2
4
1
for this species, but due to mitigation measures, no Level A harassment takes are expected
or requested.
TABLE 24—ANNUAL AND TOTAL AMOUNT OF TAKE, BY LEVEL B HARASSMENT, PROPOSED FOR AUTHORIZATION FROM IMPACT PILE DRIVING ASSOCIATED WITH WTG AND ESP TOTAL INSTALLATION EVENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
A AND B, ASSUMING 10 dB OF NOISE ATTENUATION
Schedule A
Species
Year 2
(2026)
Fin whale a .......................................................................
Minke whale .....................................................................
Humpback whale .............................................................
North Atlantic right whale a ..............................................
Sei whale a .......................................................................
Atlantic white sided dolphin .............................................
Atlantic spotted dolphin ....................................................
Common dolphin ..............................................................
Bottlenose dolphin, offshore ............................................
Risso’s dolphin .................................................................
Long-finned pilot whale ....................................................
Short-finned pilot whale ...................................................
Sperm whale a ..................................................................
Harbor porpoise ...............................................................
Gray seal ..........................................................................
Harbor seal ......................................................................
Harp seal ..........................................................................
Schedule B
Year 3
(2027)
2.29
12.79
1.62
0.67
0.40
36.21
4.04
495.87
19.52
1.48
2.56
1.88
0.67
28.00
6.86
16.29
7.94
Year 2
(2026)
1.49
10.63
1.14
0.57
0.34
32.46
3.43
497.78
18.29
1.26
2.29
1.71
0.57
25.60
4.80
13.14
6.40
Year 3
(2027)
2.39
14.74
1.66
0.74
0.37
35.55
5.53
425.69
18.42
1.29
3.13
1.66
0.55
25.05
5.53
14.18
7.00
3.94
40.89
2.91
1.25
0.62
97.96
6.23
1,381.64
59.98
3.11
6.85
5.19
1.45
61.64
4.36
20.55
9.34
Year 4
(2028)
2.18
23.72
1.64
0.82
0.55
55.63
8.18
783.74
32.45
1.91
4.64
3.00
0.82
35.72
2.73
12.54
5.73
Maximum
3-year
total take,
Schedule
Bb
8.52
79.35
6.20
2.80
1.54
189.14
19.93
2,591.07
110.85
6.31
14.62
9.85
2.82
122.42
12.61
47.27
22.07
a Listed
as Endangered under the ESA.
construction schedule B has the highest total take by Level B harassment for impact pile driving, this column represents the sum of the
Schedule B take numbers only and not the sum of the preceding columns within this table.
b As
TABLE 25—MAXIMUM ANNUAL AND 3-YEAR VIBRATORY PILE DRIVING AND DRILLING ESTIMATED TAKE BETWEEN
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE A AND B, BY LEVEL B HARASSMENT, ASSUMING 10 dB OF NOISE ATTENUATION
Year 2
(2026) b
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Species
North Atlantic right whale a ..............................................................................
Fin whale a .......................................................................................................
Humpback whale .............................................................................................
Minke whale .....................................................................................................
Sei whale a .......................................................................................................
Sperm whale a ..................................................................................................
Atlantic spotted dolphin ...................................................................................
Atlantic white-sided dolphin .............................................................................
Bottlenose dolphin, offshore ............................................................................
Common dolphin ..............................................................................................
Long-finned pilot whale ....................................................................................
Short-finned pilot whale ...................................................................................
Risso’s dolphin .................................................................................................
Harbor porpoise ...............................................................................................
Gray seal .........................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Year 3
(2027)
92
470
285
878
47
111
491
2,716
3,269
32,787
291
215
622
2,078
3,587
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
103
567
324
988
50
137
624
3,037
3,931
39,645
345
255
798
2,366
4,170
08JNP2
Year 4
(2028) c
47
202
139
449
27
41
178
1,373
1,404
13,437
126
93
235
959
1,986
Maximum
3-year take,
Schedule B d
236
1,210
726
2,256
119
277
1,231
6,927
8,419
82,661
743
547
1,612
5,268
9,683
37658
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 25—MAXIMUM ANNUAL AND 3-YEAR VIBRATORY PILE DRIVING AND DRILLING ESTIMATED TAKE BETWEEN
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE A AND B, BY LEVEL B HARASSMENT, ASSUMING 10 dB OF NOISE ATTENUATION—Continued
Year 2
(2026) b
Species
Harbor seal ......................................................................................................
Harp seal .........................................................................................................
Year 3
(2027)
8,058
3,587
9,366
4170
Year 4
(2028) c
Maximum
3-year take,
Schedule B d
4,462
1,986
21,755
9,683
a Listed
as Endangered under the ESA.
2 is from Construction Schedule A.
c Year 4 is from Construction Schedule B only, there is no third year of foundation installation under Schedule A.
d As construction Schedule B has the highest total take by Level B harassment for vibratory or drilling, the ‘‘all years combined’’ is the sum of
the Schedule B take numbers and not the sum of the preceding columns within this table.
b Year
TABLE 26—TAKES PROPOSED FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR ALL FOUNDATION INSTALLATION ACTIVITIES COMBINED, PER
YEAR, CARRIED FORWARD TO THE TOTAL TAKE ESTIMATES CONSIDERING ALL ACTIVITIES
Year 2 (2026)
Species
Level A
harassment
a0
North Atlantic right whale ...............................
Fin whale ........................................................
Humpback whale ...........................................
Minke whale ...................................................
Sei whale .......................................................
Sperm whale ..................................................
Atlantic spotted dolphin ..................................
Atlantic white sided dolphin ...........................
Bottlenose dolphin, offshore ..........................
Common dolphin ............................................
Long-finned pilot whale ..................................
Short-finned pilot whale .................................
Risso’s dolphin ...............................................
Harbor porpoise .............................................
Gray seal ........................................................
Harbor seal ....................................................
Harp seal ........................................................
a9
a9
a 31
a1
a1
a0
a1
a1
b8
a1
a1
a1
a 71
a2
a3
a2
Year 3 (2027)
Level B
harassment a c e
Level A
harassment
93
472
287
b c e 893
47
112
b c e 497
2,752
3,289
33,283
b c e 294
217
623
2,106
3,594
8,074
3,595
Year 4 (2028)
Level B
harassment b d f
b0
104
571
327
1029
51
138
630
3,135
3,991
41,027
352
260
801
2,428
4,175
9,387
4,179
b 20
b 16
b 85
b2
b1
b0
b1
b1
b3
b1
a1
b1
b 136
b3
b7
b3
Level A
harassment
b0
b9
b7
b 38
b1
b1
b0
b1
b1
b1
b1
b0
b1
b 60
b2
b4
b1
Level B
harassment b d f
48
204
141
473
48
42
186
1,429
1,436
14,221
131
96
237
995
1,989
4,475
1,992
a Impact
pile driving, Construction Schedule A (double counting of impact and vibratory days removed for Level B harassment proposed take
numbers).
b Impact pile driving, Construction Schedule B (double counting of impact and vibratory days removed for Level B harassment proposed take
numbers).
c Vibratory pile setting, Construction Schedule A.
d Vibratory pile setting, Construction Schedule B.
e Drilling, Construction Schedule A (double counting of vibratory and drilling days removed).
f Drilling, Construction Schedule B (double counting of vibratory and drilling days removed).
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
UXO/MEC Detonations
Park City Wind may detonate up to 10
UXO/MECs within the proposed project
area with no more than six in 2025
(Year 1) and four in 2026 (Year 2); no
more than one detonation per 24-hour
period would occur. Park City Wind
adopted the U.S. Navy’s charge weight
bins (E4, E6, E8, E10, and E12—see
Table 27) to determine potential impacts
to marine mammals from UXO/MEC
detonation. As described previously,
Park City Wind applied modeling
results from the Revolution Wind
project to its analysis. The exact type
and net explosive weight of UXO/MECs
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
that may be detonated are not known at
this time. However, based on the results
of a UXO/MECs desktop study (Mills,
2021), Park City Wind does not expect
that 10 of the largest charge weight (bin
E12) UXO/MECs will be present, but a
combination of different sizes.
Mortality and non-auditory injury to
lung and gastrointestinal organs were
considered in the modeling study
(Hannay and Zykov, 2022). As
described, peak pressure and acoustic
impulse levels and effects threshold
exceedance zones depend only on
charge weight, water depth, animal
mass, and submersion depth. The
maximum distance to gastrointestinal
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
injury (1 percent of exposed animals)
due to peak pressure for detonating an
E12-size UXO/MEC at all sites assuming
10 dB of attenuation is 125 m (Hannay
and Zykov, 2022). The maximum
distance modeled to the onset of lung
injury due to detonating an E12-size
UXO/MEC assuming 10 dB of
attenuation is 237 m for baleen whales,
330 m for pilot and minke whales, 448
m for beaked whales, 606 m for
delphinids, Kogia, and pinnipeds, and
648 m for harbor porpoise (Table 27).
Assuming 10 dB of attenuation, the
impulse-based maximum distance to the
onset of mortality is 353 m (porpoises)
(Table 27).
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
37659
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 27—UXO/MEC IMPULSE EXCEEDANCE DISTANCES (METERS) FOR MARINE MAMMALS FOR THE DETONATION OF AN
E12 UXO/MEC, FOR ONSET OF LUNG INJURY AND MORTALITY AT VARIOUS DEPTHS ASSUMING 10 dB ATTENUATION
12 m water depth
20 m water depth
30 m water depth
45 m water depth
Marine mammal group
Calf/pup
Adult
Calf/pup
Adult
Calf/pup
Adult
Calf/pup
Adult
Onset of Lung Injury
Baleen whales and Sperm whale ....................
Pilot and Minke whales ....................................
Beaked whales .................................................
Dolphins, Kogia, and Pinnipeds .......................
Porpoises .........................................................
151
192
250
347
377
73
103
171
241
260
204
272
366
508
541
80
126
237
351
381
226
310
413
557
594
81
131
267
400
429
237
330
448
606
648
78
132
282
429
465
34
58
127
198
215
109
157
220
308
330
31
57
132
211
231
108
162
234
332
353
29
50
135
224
243
Onset of mortality
Baleen whales and Sperm whale ....................
Pilot and Minke whales ....................................
Beaked whales .................................................
Dolphins, Kogia, and Pinnipeds .......................
Porpoises .........................................................
Given that Park City Wind would be
limited to detonating UXO/MECs during
daytime and be required to employ a
minimum of four PSOs to visually
monitor for marine mammals, including
those on an aircraft when the clearance
zone is larger than 5 km, in concert with
acoustic monitoring efforts, it is
reasonable to assume that marine
mammals would be reliably detected
within the zones identified above (a
maximum distance of approximately
90
120
161
228
248
34
56
105
154
167
105
150
206
285
307
648 m (2,126 feet) of the UXO/MEC
being detonated) and that mitigation
would be employed to avoid take by
mortality or non-auditory injury.
Therefore, the potential for mortality or
non-auditory injury is de minimis (i.e.,
too minimal or minor for further
concern) and not discussed further.
It is not currently known how easily
the size and charge weights of UXO/
MECs can be identified in the field. Park
City Wind must demonstrate to NMFS
that it is able to accurately identify
charge weights in the field prior to
detonation otherwise the largest charge
weight, E12, will be assumed and the
appropriate associated mitigation and
monitoring measures implemented.
Table 28 contains the maximum (R95
percent) modeled distances by Hannay
and Zykov (2022) to PTS and TTS
thresholds during UXO/MEC detonation
for each charge weight bin.
TABLE 28—MAXIMUM DISTANCES (R95%) IN METERS TO PTS AND TTS THRESHOLDS (SEL) DURING UXO/MEC
DETONATION, ASSUMING 10 dB OF ATTENUATION a
Charge weight bins
Marine mammal hearing group
E4
(2.3 kg)
E6
(9.1 kg)
E8
(45.5 kg)
E10
(227 kg)
E12
(454 kg)
Distance to PTS-onset
Low-frequency cetaceans ....................................................
Mid-frequency cetaceans .....................................................
High-frequency cetaceans ...................................................
Phocid pinnipeds ..................................................................
552
<50
1820
182
982
75
2,950
357
1,730
156
3,710
690
2,970
337
5,390
1,220
3,780
461
6,200
1,600
4,680
773
7,960
2,350
7,490
1,240
10,300
6,490
10,500
2,120
12,900
7.610
11,900
2,550
14,100
7,020
Distance to TTS-onset
Low-frequency cetaceans ....................................................
Mid-frequency cetaceans .....................................................
High-frequency cetaceans ...................................................
Phocid pinnipeds ..................................................................
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
a Hannay
2,820
453
6,140
1,470
and Zykov, 2022.
To estimate the amount of take that
may occur incidental to UXO/MEC
detonation, Park City Wind calculated
monthly densities for each species at the
shallow portion of the OECC
(representing the 12 m depth location;
using a 14.1-km buffer) and the
combined deepwater segment of the
OECC and SWDA (20 m–45 m depths;
using a 13.8-km buffer). As a
conservative approach, the month with
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
the highest density among the areas of
interest for each species was carried
forward to the exposure calculations
(i.e., assumed all UXO/MECs would be
detonated in the month with the greatest
average monthly density). In some cases
where monthly densities were
unavailable, annual densities were used
instead for some species (i.e., blue
whales, pilot whale spp.). Additionally,
the pilot whale guild, harbor seals, gray
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
seals, and harp seals were scaled
following the same approach described
above. The resulting maximum density
was multiplied by the number of UXOs/
MECs estimated at each of the depths to
calculate total estimated exposures.
Table 29 provides the maximum
species-specific densities for the Project
and resulting take calculations using the
described approach. As described
above, Park City Wind based the amount
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
37660
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
of take proposed for authorization on
the number of exposures estimated
assuming 10 dB attenuation using a
NAS, NAS would be required during all
detonations.
TABLE 29—MAXIMUM MONTHLY MARINE MAMMAL DENSITIES (INDIVIDUALS/100 km2) WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA WITH
UXO/MEC DETONATION ASSOCIATED LEVEL A HARASSMENT (PTS) AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT (TTS SEL) EXPOSURE ASSUMING 10 dB ATTENUATION, AND ESTIMATED TAKE
Species
Shallow OECC
maximum
monthly
density
(individual/
100 km2)
Deep OECC
maximum
monthly
density
(individual/
100 km2)
0.116
0.007
0.04
0.129
0.034
0.002
0.013
0.051
0.158
0.35
0
0
0.01
1.772
24.506
55.059
24.506
0.707
0.425
0.297
1.72
0.191
0.112
0.448
3.278
1.631
24.845
0.135
0.1
0.176
10.608
13.647
30.662
13.647
North Atlantic right whale a ..........................................
Fin whale a ...................................................................
Humpback whale .........................................................
Minke whale .................................................................
Sei whale a ...................................................................
Sperm whale a ..............................................................
Atlantic Spotted dolphin ...............................................
Atlantic White-sided dolphin ........................................
Bottlenose dolphin, Offshore .......................................
Common dolphin ..........................................................
Pilot whales, Long-finned .............................................
Pilot whales, Short-finned ............................................
Risso’s dolphin .............................................................
Harbor porpoise ...........................................................
Gray seal ......................................................................
Harbor seal ..................................................................
Harp seal ......................................................................
a Denotes
2025 Estimated take
2026 Estimated take
Level A
harassment
Level B
harassment
Level A
harassment
Level B
harassment
0
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
56
8
17
8
14
7
5
28
4
1
1
3
2
19
1
1
1
217
146
328
146
0
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
51
4
8
4
13
7
5
27
3
1
1
3
2
19
1
1
1
193
80
179
80
species listed under the Endangered Species Act.
HRG Surveys
Park City Wind’s proposed HRG
survey activity includes the use of
impulsive sources (i.e., boomers,
sparkers) that have the potential to
harass marine mammals. The list of
equipment proposed is in Table 3 (see
Detailed Description of Specific
Activities).
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 noise from certain
HRG acoustic sources. Based primarily
on the characteristics of the signals
produced by the acoustic sources
planned for use, Level A harassment is
neither anticipated nor proposed to be
authorized. Therefore, the potential for
Level A harassment is not evaluated
further in this document. Park City
Wind did not request, and NMFS is not
proposing to authorize, take by Level A
harassment incidental to HRG surveys.
No serious injury or mortality is
anticipated to result from HRG survey
activities.
Specific to HRG surveys, in order to
better consider the narrower and
directional beams of the sources, NMFS
has developed a tool, available at
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
national/marine-mammal-protection/
marine-mammal-acoustic-technicalguidance, for determining the distances
at which sound pressure level (SPLrms)
generated from HRG surveys reach the
160 dB threshold. The equations in the
tool consider water depth, frequencydependent absorption and some
directionality to refine estimated
ensonified zones. Park City Wind used
NMFS’ methodology with additional
modifications to incorporate a seawater
absorption formula and account for
energy emitted outside of the primary
beam of the source. For sources
operating with different beam widths,
the beam width associated with
operational characteristics reported in
Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) were
used (Li and Koessler, 2022).
The isopleth distances corresponding
to the Level B harassment threshold for
each type of HRG equipment with the
potential to result in harassment of
marine mammals were calculated per
NOAA Fisheries’ Interim
Recommendation for Sound Source
Level and Propagation Analysis for High
Resolution Geophysical Sources. The
distances to the 160 dB RMS re 1 mPa
isopleth for Level B harassment are
presented in Table 30. Please refer to
Appendix I in Li and Koessler (2022) for
a full description of the methodology
and formulas used to calculate distances
to the Level B harassment threshold.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
TABLE 30—DISTANCES CORRESPONDING TO THE LEVEL B HARASSMENT THRESHOLD FOR HRG EQUIPMENT
HRG survey equipment
Equipment type
Applied Acoustics AA251 Boomer ...............................................................
GeoMarine Geo Spark 2000 (400 tip) .........................................................
SBP: Boomer ........
SBP: Sparker ........
The survey activities that have the
potential to result in Level B harassment
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
(160 dB SPL) include the noise
produced by Applied Acoustics AA251
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Horizontal distance
(m) to Level B
harassment threshold
178
141
Ensonified area
(km2)
28.58
22.62
Boomer or GeoMarine Geo Spark 2000
(400 tip) (Table 30), of which the
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
37661
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Applied Acoustics AA251 Boomer
results in the greatest calculated
distance to the Level B harassment
criteria at 178 m (584 ft). Park City Wind
has applied the estimated distance of
178 m (584 ft) to the 160 dBRMS90
percent re 1 mPa Level B harassment
criteria as the basis for determining
potential take from all HRG sources. All
noise-producing survey equipment is
assumed to be operated concurrently.
Three vessels are assumed to be
operating concurrently.
The total area ensonified was
estimated by considering the distance of
the daily vessel track line (determined
using the estimated average speed of the
vessel and the 24-hour operational
period within each of the corresponding
survey segments) and the longest
horizontal distance to the relevant
acoustic threshold from an HRG sound
source (full formula in section 6.6 of the
ITA application). Using the larger
distance of 178 m (164 ft) to the
160 dBRMS90 percent re 1 mPa Level B
harassment isopleth (Table 30), the
estimated daily vessel track of
approximately 80 km (49.7 mi) per
vessel for 24-hour operations, inclusive
of an additional circular area to account
for radial distance at the start and end
of a 24-hour cycle, estimates of the total
area ensonified to the Level B
harassment threshold per day of HRG
surveys were calculated (Table 30).
Exposure calculations assumed that
there would be 25 days of HRG
surveying per year over each of the 5
years. As described in the ITA
application, density data were mapped
within the boundary of the Project Area
using geographic information systems,
these data were updated based on the
revised data from the Duke Model.
Because the exact dates of HRG surveys
are unknown, the highest density month
for each species was used and carried
forward in the take calculations (Table
31).
The calculated exposure estimates
based on the exposure modeling
methodology described above were
compared with the best available
information on marine mammal group
sizes. Group sizes used for HRG take
estimates were the same as those used
for impact pile driving take estimation
(Section 6.1.2 in the ITA application).
Park City Wind also used data collected
by Protected Species Observers (PSOs)
on survey vessels operating during HRG
surveys in 2020–2021 from their nearby
Vineyard Wind project area (Tables 14
and 15). It was determined that the
calculated number of potential takes by
Level B harassment based on the
exposure modeling methodology above
may be underestimates for some species
and therefore warranted adjustment
using group size to ensure conservatism
in the take numbers proposed for
authorization. Despite the relatively
small modeled Level B harassment zone
(178 m) for HRG survey activities, it was
determined that adjustments to the
requested numbers of take by Level B
harassment for some dolphin species
was warranted to be conservative (see
below).
For certain species for which the
density-based methodology described
above may result in potential
underestimates of take and Park City
Wind’s PSO sightings data were
relatively low, adjustments to the
exposure estimates were made based on
the best available information on marine
mammal group sizes to ensure
conservatism. For species with densities
too low in the region to provide
meaningful modeled exposure estimates
(i.e., rare species), the take request is
based on the average group size (Table
31). For species not considered rare in
the Project Area, but AMAPP data or
Park City Wind PSO data show a higher
group size level than the Duke Model,
then the take proposed for authorization
by Level B harassment was adjusted to
one group size per day of HRG surveys
(Table 31).
For species considered rare but that
still have the small potential for
occurrence in the Project area, takes
proposed for authorization by Level B
harassment during HRG surveys were
requested by Park City Wind. This
occurred for white-beaked dolphin,
killer whale, and false killer whale. Park
City Wind based their takes proposed
for authorization on these species by
using one group size per year in 3 of 5
years for species. Group sizes used were
based on PSO observations during
previous HRG surveys.
TABLE 31—MARINE MAMMAL DENSITIES USED IN EXPOSURE ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATED TAKES BY LEVEL B
HARASSMENT FROM HRG SURVEYS
Maximum
monthly
density a
(No./100 km2)
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Species
North Atlantic right whale b ..................................................
Fin whale b ...........................................................................
Humpback whale .................................................................
Minke whale .........................................................................
Sei whale b ...........................................................................
Sperm whale b h ....................................................................
Atlantic spotted dolphin h .....................................................
Atlantic white-sided dolphin h ...............................................
Bottlenose dolphin, offshore h ..............................................
Common dolphin c ................................................................
Long-finned pilot whale d h ...................................................
Short-finned pilot whale d h ...................................................
Risso’s dolphin h ...................................................................
False Killer whale i ...............................................................
Killer whale i .........................................................................
White-beaked dolphin i .........................................................
Harbor porpoise ...................................................................
Gray seal e ...........................................................................
Harbor seal e ........................................................................
Harp seal e ...........................................................................
Annual
exposure
using the
boomer f
0.567
0.436
0.323
1.704
0.193
0.111
0.404
3.406
1.753
28.314
0.149
0.11
0.187
N/A
N/A
N/A
10.974
27.901
62.687
27.901
Annual
exposure
using the
sparker g
4.05
3.11
2.31
12.17
1.38
0.79
2.88
24.34
12.53
202.3
1.06
0.78
1.34
N/A
N/A
N/A
78.41
199.35
447.89
199.35
Requested
annual take
3.21
2.47
1.83
9.64
1.09
0.62
2.28
19.26
9.92
160.13
0.84
0.62
1.06
N/A
N/A
N/A
62.07
157.8
354.54
157.8
a Cetacean
density values from the Duke Model.
as Endangered under the ESA.
c Take rounded up to one group size.
d Long- and short-finned pilot whale densities are the annual pilot whale guild density scaled by their relative abundances.
b Listed
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
5
4
3
13
2
2
30
28
18
203
17
9
7
5
2
30
79
200
448
200
Requested
5-year
total take
25
20
15
65
10
10
150
140
90
1,015
85
45
35
15
6
90
395
1,000
2,240
1,000
37662
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
e Gray and harbor seal densities are the seals guild density scaled by their relative abundances; gray seals are used as a surrogate for harp
seals.
f Applied Acoustics AA251 boomer.
g GeoMarine Geo Spark 2000.
h Annual take by Level B harassment is rounded up to one group size.
i Rare species total take estimates are based on the assumption that a group would be seen every other year; hence, the 5-yr total is less than
the sum of each year.
For species considered rare but still
have the slight potential for occurrence
in the Project area, Park City Wind
requested an amount of annual take
assuming one group size of that species
may be harassed in any given year.
However, a group is anticipated to occur
only every other year; hence the total
amount of take of the 5 years is less than
the sum of the annual take across all 5years. As described above, takes for
these species are based on PSO sighting
group sizes or on group size from OBIS
data. NMFS concurs with this
assessment and is proposing to
authorize takes by Level A harassment
and/or Level B harassment for these rare
species (Table 32).
NMFS recognizes that schedules may
shift due to a number of planning and
logistical constraints such that take may
be redistributed throughout the 5 years.
However, the total 5-year total amount
of take for each species, shown in Table
33, and the maximum amount of take in
any one year (Table 34) would not be
exceeded.
The amount of take that Park City
Wind requested, and NMFS proposes to
authorize, is considered conservative.
NMFS does not typically authorize take
of rare species in these circumstances;
however, given the amount of
foundation installation activities that
Park City Wind is proposing to
undertake (i.e., installation of up to 130
WTG and ESP positions), the large
harassment zone sizes estimated from
foundation installation, the duration of
the foundation installation (up to 3
years), that marine mammal distribution
is changing and that foundation
installation is not scheduled to begin
until 2026, NMFS is proposing to issue
take for rare species. The one exception
is the request for take of beluga whales.
Total Take Across All Activities
The amount of Level A harassment
and Level B harassment NMFS proposes
to authorize incidental to all Project
activities combined (i.e., pile driving
and drilling to install WTG and ESP
foundations, UXO/MEC detonations,
and HRG surveys are shown in Table 32.
The annual amount of take that is
expected to occur in each year based on
Park City Wind’s current schedules is
provided in Table 32. The Year 1 take
estimates include HRG surveys and
UXO/MEC detonations. Year 2 take
includes all activities occurring: WTG
and ESP foundation installation, HRG
surveys, and UXO/MEC detonation.
Year 3 includes WTG and ESP
foundation installation and HRG
surveys. Year 4 take includes WTG and
ESP foundation installation (assuming
construction schedule B) and HRG
surveys. Year 5 take includes HRG
surveys only.
For common and uncommon, though
not ‘‘rare,’’ species where the exposure
estimate was less than the mean group
size, it was assumed that if one group
member was exposed, then the entire
group would be. For species where the
annual number of predicted exposures
was less than the mean group size, the
annual take was increased to the mean
group size rounded up to the nearest
integer. The only species this applied to
are the sei whale, Atlantic spotted
dolphin, Risso’s dolphin, and sperm
whale. Because pile driving would
occur over either 2 or 3 years, the mean
group size rule was carried over from
each of the annual take estimates to the
total take estimates for the entire
construction schedule to account for the
possibility that a single exposure could
occur in every year of a given
construction schedule.
There is no beluga whale stock in the
U.S. Atlantic and the potential for a
beluga whale to occur is incredibly
unlikely. Hence, NMFS is not proposing
to authorize take of beluga whales.
For the species for which modeling
was conducted, the take estimates are
considered conservative for a number of
reasons. The amount of take proposed to
be authorized assumes the worst case
scenario with respect to project design
and schedules. As described in the
Description of Specific Activities
section, Park City Wind may use
suction-buckets to install bottom-frame
WTG and ESP foundations. Should Park
City Wind use these foundations, take
would not occur as noise levels would
not be elevated to the degree there is a
potential for take (i.e., no pile driving is
involved with installing suction
buckets). All calculated take
incorporated the highest densities for
any given species in any given month.
The amount of proposed Level A
harassment does not fully account for
the likelihood that marine mammals
would avoid a stimulus when possible
before the individual accumulates
enough acoustic energy to potentially
cause auditory injury, or the
effectiveness of the proposed
monitoring and mitigation measures
(with exception of North Atlantic right
whales given the enhanced mitigation
measures proposed for this species).
Finally, the amount of take proposed to
be authorized for foundation installation
is primarily based on vibratory pile
driving and drilling zones (50 km and
16.6 km, respectively) in which Park
City Wind used simplistic calculations
(density × area × number of days of
activity) to estimate take that are
inherently conservative.
TABLE 32—PROPOSED LEVEL A HARASSMENT AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT TAKES FOR ALL ACTIVITIES PROPOSED TO BE
CONDUCTED ANNUALLY FOR THE PROJECT OVER 5 YEARS a b
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Year 1
Species
Level A
harassment
North Atlantic right whale c ........................
Blue whale c d ............................................
Fin whale c ................................................
Humpback whale .......................................
Minke whale ..............................................
Sei whale c .................................................
Sperm whale c ...........................................
Dwarf sperm whale d .................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
Year 2
Level B
harassment
0
0
1
1
4
1
1
0
PO 00000
Level A
harassment
19
0
1
8
41
6
3
0
Frm 00058
Year 3
Level B
harassment
0
1
10
10
34
2
2
2
111
2
483
295
933
52
115
2
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Level A
harassment
0
1
20
16
85
2
1
2
Year 4
Level B
harassment
109
2
575
330
1,042
53
140
2
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
Level A
harassment
0
1
9
7
38
1
1
2
08JNP2
Year 5
Level B
harassment
53
2
208
114
486
30
44
2
Level A
harassment
Level B
harassment
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
4
3
13
2
2
0
37663
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 32—PROPOSED LEVEL A HARASSMENT AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT TAKES FOR ALL ACTIVITIES PROPOSED TO BE
CONDUCTED ANNUALLY FOR THE PROJECT OVER 5 YEARS a b—Continued
Year 1
Species
Level A
harassment
Pygmy sperm whale d ...............................
Cuvier’s beaked whale d ............................
Blainville’s beaked whale d ........................
Gervais’ beaked whale d ...........................
Sowerby’s beaked whale d ........................
True’s beaked whale d ...............................
Northern bottlenose whale d ......................
Atlantic spotted dolphin d ...........................
Atlantic white-sided dolphin ......................
Bottlenose dolphin, offshore .....................
Clymene dolphin d .....................................
Common dolphin .......................................
Long-finned pilot whale e ...........................
Short-finned pilot whale ............................
Risso’s dolphin ..........................................
False killer whale d ....................................
Fraser’s dolphin d ......................................
Killer whale d ..............................................
Melon-headed whale d ...............................
Pantropical Spotted dolphin d ....................
Pygmy killer whale d ..................................
Rough-toothed dolphin d ............................
Spinner dolphin d .......................................
Striped dolphin d ........................................
White-beaked dolphin d .............................
Harbor porpoise ........................................
Gray seal ...................................................
Harbor seal ................................................
Harp seal ...................................................
Hooded seal d ............................................
Year 2
Level B
harassment
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
56
8
17
8
0
Level A
harassment
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
31
20
0
222
18
10
8
5
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
296
346
776
346
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
9
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
122
6
11
6
0
Year 3
Level B
harassment
2
3
4
4
4
3
4
528
2,783
3,309
167
33,505
312
227
631
10
192
4
109
60
5
14
51
64
60
2,378
3,874
8,701
3,875
1
Level A
harassment
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
3
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
136
3
7
3
0
Year 4
Level B
harassment
2
3
4
4
4
3
4
660
3,163
4,009
167
41,230
369
269
808
10
192
4
109
60
5
14
51
64
60
2,507
4,375
9,835
4,379
1
Level A
harassment
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
2
4
1
0
Year 5
Level B
harassment
2
3
4
4
4
3
4
216
1,457
1,454
167
14,424
148
105
244
10
192
4
109
60
5
14
51
64
60
1,074
2,189
4,923
2,192
1
Level A
harassment
Level B
harassment
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
28
18
0
203
17
9
7
5
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
79
200
448
200
0
a The
final rule and LOA, if issued, would be effective from March 27, 2025–March 26, 2030
b For days when pile installation includes both vibratory setting and drilling, only the vibratory setting Level B takes are included (because more takes are predicted
for this activity) and not the drilling Level B takes to avoid double counting. For the purpose of this take request, Year 1 is assumed to be 2025. These dates reflect
the currently projected construction start year and are subject to change because exact project start dates and construction schedules are not currently available.
c Listed as Endangered under the ESA.
d Rare species in the project area. Rare species total take estimates for the project are based on the assumption that a group would be seen every other year;
hence, the 5-yr total is less than the sum of all years combined.
e Level B take estimate increased to 1 average group size in Year 1 and Year 3 for construction Schedule B.
TABLE 33—TOTAL 5-YEAR PROPOSED TAKES OF MARINE MAMMALS (BY LEVEL A HARASSMENT AND LEVEL B
HARASSMENT) FOR ALL ACTIVITIES PROPOSED TO BE CONDUCTED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Species
Total Level A harassment
North Atlantic right whale b ......................................................................................
Blue whale b c ...........................................................................................................
Fin whale b ...............................................................................................................
Humpback whale .....................................................................................................
Minke whale .............................................................................................................
Sei whale b ...............................................................................................................
Sperm whale b ..........................................................................................................
Dwarf sperm whale c ................................................................................................
Pygmy sperm whale c ..............................................................................................
Cuvier’s beaked whale c ..........................................................................................
Blainville’s beaked whale c .......................................................................................
Gervais’ beaked whale c ..........................................................................................
Sowerby’s beaked whale c .......................................................................................
True’s beaked whale c .............................................................................................
Northern bottlenose whale c .....................................................................................
Atlantic spotted dolphin ...........................................................................................
Atlantic white-sided dolphin .....................................................................................
Bottlenose dolphin, offshore ....................................................................................
Clymene dolphin c ....................................................................................................
Common dolphin ......................................................................................................
Long-finned pilot whale ............................................................................................
Short-finned pilot whale ...........................................................................................
Risso’s dolphin .........................................................................................................
False killer whale c ...................................................................................................
Fraser’s dolphin c .....................................................................................................
Killer whale c ............................................................................................................
Melon-headed whale c .............................................................................................
Pantropical Spotted dolphin c ...................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
0
2
37
31
155
6
3
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
3
0
10
3
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
Total Level B harassment a
293
4
1,256
759
2,457
140
294
4
4
6
8
8
8
6
12
1,406
7,263
8,627
334
86,306
847
607
1,656
25
384
10
218
120
37664
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 33—TOTAL 5-YEAR PROPOSED TAKES OF MARINE MAMMALS (BY LEVEL A HARASSMENT AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT) FOR ALL ACTIVITIES PROPOSED TO BE CONDUCTED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT—Continued
Species
Total Level A harassment
Pygmy killer whale c .................................................................................................
Rough-toothed dolphin c ..........................................................................................
Spinner dolphin c ......................................................................................................
Striped dolphin c .......................................................................................................
White-beaked dolphin c ............................................................................................
Harbor porpoise .......................................................................................................
Gray seal .................................................................................................................
Harbor seal ..............................................................................................................
Harp seal .................................................................................................................
Hooded seal c ...........................................................................................................
Total Level B harassment a
0
0
0
0
0
352
17
37
17
0
10
28
102
128
150
6,197
10,924
24,551
10,933
3
a For days when pile installation includes both vibratory setting and drilling, only the vibratory setting Level B takes are included (because more
takes are predicted for this activity) and not the drilling Level B takes to avoid double counting.
b Listed as Endangered under the ESA.
c Rare species in the project area. Rare species total take estimates are based on the assumption that a group would be seen every other
year during 3 years of construction. Additionally, white-beaked dolphins, false killer whale, and killer whale had one group size per year accounted for in 3 of 5 years for HRG surveys. Hence, the 5-yr total is less than the sum of all years combined, as described in Sections 6.1.2 and
6.8.2 of the ITA application.
To inform both the negligible impact
analysis and the small numbers
determination, NMFS assesses the
maximum number of takes of marine
mammals that could occur within any
given year. In this calculation, the
maximum estimated number of Level A
harassment takes in any one year is
summed with the maximum estimated
number of Level B harassment takes in
any one year for each species to yield
the highest number of estimated take
that could occur in any year (Table 34).
Table 34 also depicts the number of
takes proposed relative to the
abundance of each stock. The takes
enumerated here represent daily
instances of take, not necessarily
individual marine mammals taken. One
take represents a day in which an
animal was exposed to noise above the
associated harassment threshold at least
once. Some takes represent a brief
exposure above a threshold, while in
some cases takes could represent a
longer, or repeated, exposure of one
individual animal above a threshold
within a 24-hour period. Whether or not
every take assigned to a species
represents a different individual
depends on the daily and seasonal
movement patterns of the species in the
area. For example, activity areas with
continuous activities (all or nearly every
day) overlapping known feeding areas
(where animals are known to remain for
days or weeks on end) or areas where
species with small home ranges live
(e.g., some pinnipeds) are more likely to
result in repeated takes to some
individuals. Alternatively, activities far
out in the deep ocean or takes to
nomadic species where individuals
move over the population’s range
without spatial or temporal consistency
represent circumstances where repeat
takes of the same individuals are less
likely. In other words, for example, 100
takes could represent 100 individuals
each taken on one day within the year,
or it could represent 5 individuals each
taken on 20 days within the year, or
some other combination depending on
the activity, whether there are
biologically important areas in the
project area, and the daily and seasonal
movement patterns of the species of
marine mammals exposed. Where
information to better contextualize the
enumerated takes for a given species is
available, it is discussed in the
Negligible Impact Analysis and
Determination and/or Small Numbers
sections, as appropriate.
TABLE 34—MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PROPOSED TAKES (LEVEL A HARASSMENT AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT) THAT COULD
OCCUR IN ANY ONE YEAR OF THE PROJECT RELATIVE TO STOCK POPULATION SIZE
NMFS stock
abundance b
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Species
North Atlantic right whale c ...................................................
Blue whale c d .......................................................................
Fin whale c ............................................................................
Humpback whale .................................................................
Minke whale .........................................................................
Sei whale c ...........................................................................
Sperm whale c ......................................................................
Dwarf sperm whale d ............................................................
Pygmy sperm whale d ..........................................................
Cuvier’s beaked whale d ......................................................
Blainville’s beaked whale d ...................................................
Gervais’ beaked whale d ......................................................
Sowerby’s beaked whale d ...................................................
True’s beaked whaled ..........................................................
Northern bottlenose whale d e ..............................................
Atlantic spotted dolphin ........................................................
Atlantic white-sided dolphin .................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Maximum
annual
Level A
harassment
338
402
6,802
1,396
21,968
6,292
4,349
7,750
7,750
5,744
10,107
5,744
10,107
10,107
UNK
39,921
93,233
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Maximum
annual
Level B
harassment
0
1
20
16
85
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
111
2
575
330
1,042
53
140
2
2
3
4
4
4
3
4
660
3,163
08JNP2
Maximum
annual take
111
3
595
346
1,127
55
142
4
4
3
4
4
4
3
4
661
3,165
Percent stock
taken based
on maximum
annual take a
32.8
0.7
8.7
24.8
5.1
0.9
3.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
UNK
1.7
3.4
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
37665
TABLE 34—MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PROPOSED TAKES (LEVEL A HARASSMENT AND LEVEL B HARASSMENT) THAT COULD
OCCUR IN ANY ONE YEAR OF THE PROJECT RELATIVE TO STOCK POPULATION SIZE—Continued
NMFS stock
abundance b
Species
Bottlenose dolphin, offshore ................................................
Clymene dolphin d ................................................................
Common dolphin ..................................................................
Long-finned pilot whale ........................................................
Short-finned pilot whale .......................................................
Risso’s dolphin .....................................................................
False killer whale d e .............................................................
Fraser’s dolphin d .................................................................
Killer whale d e ......................................................................
Melon-headed whale d .........................................................
Pantropical Spotted dolphin d ...............................................
Pygmy killer whale d .............................................................
Rough-toothed dolphin d ......................................................
Spinner dolphin d ..................................................................
Striped dolphin d ...................................................................
White-beaked dolphin d e ......................................................
Harbor porpoise ...................................................................
Gray seal ..............................................................................
Harbor seal ..........................................................................
Harp seal ..............................................................................
Hooded seal d .......................................................................
Maximum
annual
Level A
harassment
62,851
4,237
172,897
39,215
28,924
35,215
1,791
UNK
UNK
UNK
6,593
UNK
136
4,102
67,036
536,016
95,543
27,300
61,336
7,600,000
UNK
Maximum
annual
Level B
harassment
2
0
9
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
136
8
17
8
0
4,009
167
41,230
369
269
808
10
192
4
109
60
5
14
51
64
60
2,507
4,375
9,835
4,379
1
Maximum
annual take
4,011
167
41,239
371
271
810
10
192
4
109
60
5
14
51
64
60
2,643
4,383
9,852
4,387
1
Percent stock
taken based
on maximum
annual take a
6.4
3.9
23.9
0.9
0.9
2.3
0.6
UNK
UNK
UNK
0.9
UNK
10.3
1.2
0.1
0.0
2.8
16.1
16.1
<0.1
<0.1
a The values in this column represent the assumption that each take proposed to be authorized would occur to a unique individual. Given the
scope of work proposed, this is highly unlikely for species common to the project area (e.g., North Atlantic right whales, humpback whales) such
that the actual percentage of the population taken is less than the percentages identified here.
b Using the most recent stock assessment report (SAR) at time of publication, the draft 2022 (Hayes et al., 2023).
c Listed as Endangered under the ESA.
d Rare species in the project area. The number of Level A harassment and Level B harassment takes calculated for rare species is based on
the mean group size assuming a 3 year construction schedule (all rare species) and encounters during HRG surveys for white-beaked dolphin,
killer whale, and false killer whale.
e Take for these species is based on PSO sighting group sizes; for all other rare species the group size is from OBIS data.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Proposed Mitigation
In order to promulgate a rulemaking
under section 101(a)(5)(A) 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 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, we carefully consider two
primary factors:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
(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,
impact on operations, and, in the case
of a military readiness activity,
personnel safety, practicality of
implementation, and impact on the
effectiveness of the military readiness
activity.
The mitigation strategies described
below are consistent with those required
and successfully implemented under
previous incidental take authorizations
issued in association with in-water
construction activities (e.g., soft-start,
establishing shutdown zones).
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Additional measures have also been
incorporated to account for the fact that
the proposed construction activities
would occur offshore. Modeling was
performed to estimate harassment
zones, which were used to inform
mitigation measures for the project’s
activities to minimize Level A
harassment and Level B harassment to
the extent practicable, while providing
estimates of the areas within which
Level B harassment might occur.
Generally speaking, the mitigation
measures considered and proposed here
fall into three categories: temporal
(seasonal and daily) work restrictions,
real-time measures (shutdown,
clearance, and vessel strike avoidance),
and noise attenuation/reduction
measures. Seasonal work restrictions are
designed to avoid or minimize
operations when marine mammals are
concentrated or engaged in behaviors
that make them more susceptible or
make impacts more likely in order to
reduce both the number and severity of
potential takes, and are effective in
reducing both chronic (longer-term) and
acute effects. Real-time measures, such
as implementation of shutdown and
pre-clearance zones and vessel strike
avoidance measures, are intended to
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
37666
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
reduce the probability or severity of
harassment by taking steps in real time
once a higher-risk scenario is identified
(e.g., once animals are detected within
an impact zone). Noise attenuation
measures, such as bubble curtains, are
intended to reduce the noise at the
source, which reduces both acute
impacts, as well as the contribution to
aggregate and cumulative noise that may
result in longer term chronic impacts.
Below, we briefly describe training,
coordination, and vessel strike
avoidance measures that apply to all
activity types, and then in the following
subsections we describe the measures
that apply specifically to monopile
foundation and jacket foundation
installation, HRG surveys, and UXO/
MEC detonation. Details on specific
requirements can be found in the Part
217—Regulations Governing The Taking
And Importing Of Marine Mammals at
the end of this proposed rulemaking.
Training and Coordination
NMFS requires the Park City Wind
employees and contractors conducting
activities on the water and all vessel
captains and crew are trained in marine
mammal detection and identification,
communication protocols, and reporting
to minimize impacts on marine
mammals and support Park City Wind’s
compliance with the mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements.
All relevant personnel and the marine
mammal monitoring team(s) would be
required to participate in joint, onboard
briefings that would be led by Park City
Wind personnel and the Lead PSO prior
to the beginning of project activities.
The briefing would be repeated
whenever new relevant personnel (e.g.,
new PSOs, acoustic source operators,
relevant crew) join the operation before
work commences. During this training,
Park City Wind would be required to
instruct all project personnel regarding
the authority of the marine mammal
monitoring team(s). For example, the
HRG acoustic equipment operator, pile
driving personnel, etc., would be
required to immediately comply with
any call for a delay or shutdown by the
Lead PSO. Any disagreement between
the Lead PSO and the project personnel
would only be discussed after delay or
shutdown has occurred. More
information on vessel crew training
requirements can be found in the Vessel
Strike Avoidance Measures sections
below.
Protected Species Observers and PAM
Operator Training
Park City Wind would employ NMFSapproved PSOs and PAM operators. The
PSO field team and PAM team would
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
have a lead member (designated as the
‘‘Lead PSO’’ or ‘‘PAM Lead’’) who
would have prior experience observing
or acoustically detecting, respectively,
mysticetes, odontocetes, and pinnipeds
in the northwestern Atlantic Ocean.
Any remaining PSOs and PAM
operators must have previous
experience observing marine mammals
and must have the ability to work with
all required and relevant software and
equipment. New and/or inexperienced
PSOs would be paired with an
experienced PSO to ensure that the
quality of marine mammal observations
and data recording is kept consistent.
Additional information on the roles and
requirements of the PAM operators
(section 4.1.1.2) and PSOs (section
4.1.1.3) can be found in Park City
Wind’s supplemental Protected Species
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
(PSMMP) on NMFS’ website at https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/
incidental-take-authorization-park-citywind-llc-construction-new-englandwind-offshore-wind. Park City Wind
would be required to request PSO and
PAM operator approvals 60-day prior to
those personnel commencing work.
Prior to the start of activities, a
briefing would be conducted between
the supervisors, the crew, the PSO/PAM
team, the environmental compliance
monitors, and Park City Wind
personnel. This briefing would be to
establish the responsibilities of each
participating party, to define the chains
of command, to discuss communication
procedures, to provide an overview of
the monitoring purposes, and to review
the operational procedures. The
designated PSO (i.e., Lead PSO) would
oversee the training, the environmental
compliance monitors, the PSOs, and
other tasks specifically related to
monitoring. For more information on
the need and use of PSO and PAM
personnel, please see Proposed
Monitoring and Reporting.
North Atlantic Right Whale Awareness
Monitoring
Park City Wind must use available
sources of information on North
Atlantic right whale presence, including
monitoring of the Right Whale Sightings
Advisory System, WhaleAlert app, and
Coast Guard VHF Channel 16
throughout each day to receive
notifications of any sightings, and
information associated with any
regulatory management actions (e.g.,
establishment of a zone identifying the
need to reduce vessel speeds).
Maintaining daily awareness and
coordination affords increased
protection of North Atlantic right
whales by understanding North Atlantic
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
right whale presence in the area through
ongoing visual and passive acoustic
monitoring efforts and opportunities
(outside of Park City Wind’s efforts),
and allows for planning reduced vessel
speeds and construction activities,
when practicable, to minimize potential
impacts on North Atlantic right whales.
Vessel Strike Avoidance Measures
This proposed rule contains
numerous vessel strike avoidance
measures that reduce the risk that a
vessel and marine mammal could
collide. Vessel strikes are one of the
most common ways that marine
mammals are seriously injured or killed
by human activities; therefore,
enhanced mitigation and monitoring
measures are required to avoid vessel
strikes. While many of these measures
are proactive intending to avoid the
heavy use of vessels during times when
marine mammals of particular concern
may be in the area, several are reactive
and occur when a marine mammal is
sighted by project personnel. The exact
requirements we propose are described
generally here and, in detail, in the
regulation text at the end of this
proposed rule. Park City Wind will be
required to comply with these measures,
except under circumstances when doing
so would create an imminent and
serious threat to a person or vessel, or
to the extent that a vessel is unable to
maneuver and, because of the inability
to maneuver, the vessel cannot comply.
Prior to the start of in-water
construction activities, vessel operators
and crews would receive training about
marine mammals and other protected
species known or with the potential to
occur in the project area, making
observations in all weather conditions,
and vessel strike avoidance measures. In
addition, training would include
information and resources available
regarding applicable Federal laws and
regulations for protected species. Park
City Wind would provide
documentation of training to NMFS.
While underway, Park City Wind
would be required to monitor for and
maintain a safe distance from marine
mammals, and operate vessels in a
manner that reduces the potential for
vessel strike. Regardless of the vessel’s
size, all vessel operators, crews, and
dedicated visual observers (i.e., PSO or
trained crew member) would maintain a
vigilant watch for all marine mammals
and slow down, stop their vessel, or
alter course (as appropriate) to avoid
striking any marine mammal. The
dedicated visual observer, equipped
with suitable monitoring technology
(e.g., binoculars, night vision devices),
would be located at an appropriate
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
vantage point for ensuring vessels are
maintaining required vessel separation
distances from marine mammals (e.g.,
500 m from NARWs). All Park City
Wind-related vessels would comply
with existing NMFS vessel speed
restrictions for NARWs (50 CFR
224.105; including in areas designated
as SMAs, DMAs, or Slow Zones) and
required procedures for operating
vessels around NARWs and other
marine mammals. If a vessel is traveling
at greater than 10 kn, in addition to the
required dedicated visual observer, Park
City Wind would monitor the transit
corridor in real-time with PAM prior to
and during transits. To maintain
awareness of NARW presence in the
project area, vessel operators, crew
members, and PSOs would monitor
VHF Channel 16, WhaleAlert, the Right
Whale Sighting Advisory System
(RWSAS), and the PAM system. Any
NARW or large whale detection would
be immediately communicated to PSOs,
PAM operators, and all vessel captains.
All vessels would be equipped with an
Automatic Identification System (AIS)
and Park City Wind must report all
Maritime Mobile Service Identify
(MMSI) numbers to NMFS Office of
Protected Resources prior to initiating
in-water activities. Park City Wind
would submit a NMFS-approved North
Atlantic right whale vessel strike
avoidance plan 180 days prior to
commencement of vessel use.
Compliance with these proposed
measures would reduce the likelihood
of vessel strike by increasing awareness
of marine mammal presence in the
project area (e.g., monitoring,
communication), reducing vessel speed
when marine mammals are detected (by
PSOs, PAM, and/or through another
source, e.g., RWSAS), and maintaining
separation distances when marine
mammals are encountered. While visual
monitoring is useful, reducing vessel
speed is one of the most effective,
feasible options available to minimize
the likelihood of a vessel strike and, if
a strike does occur, decrease the
potential for serious injury or lethal
outcomes. Numerous studies have
indicated that slowing the speed of
vessels reduces the risk of lethal vessel
collisions, particularly in areas where
right whales are abundant and vessel
traffic is common and otherwise
traveling at high speeds (Vanderlaan
and Taggart, 2007; Conn and Silber,
2013; Van der Hoop et al., 2014; Martin
et al., 2015; Crum et al., 2019).
In 2021, NMFS released the North
Atlantic Right Whale Vessel Speed Rule
Assessment documenting a reduction in
observed right whale serious injuries
and mortalities resulting from vessel
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
strikes since implementation of the
speed rule in 2008 (50 CFR 224.105).
Project vessels would be required to
reduce speed in the presence of marine
mammals and, because reducing speed
has been shown to decrease the
likelihood of vessel strike and the
implementation of other measures
described herein, NMFS considers the
potential for vessel strike to be de
minimis. Park City Wind has not
requested, and NMFS does not propose
to authorize, take from vessel strikes.
Seasonal and Daily Restrictions
As described above, an effective
measure for reducing the magnitude and
severity of impacts from an activity is to
implement time/area restrictions in
places where marine mammals are
concentrated, engaged in biologically
important behaviors, and/or present in
sensitive life stages. The temporal
restrictions proposed here are built
around the protection of North Atlantic
right whales. The highest densities of
North Atlantic right whales in the
project area are expected during the
months of January through April. While
lower than January through April,
densities remain high in May and
December. Park City Wind proposed to
not conduct foundation installation
during January through April 30;
however, NMFS is proposing additional
mitigation measures during May and
December. Park City Wind did not
assume any vibratory pile driving would
occur in May or December when
estimating take but they did not
specifically propose that activity during
these months would be restricted.
NMFS, however, is proposing to restrict
vibratory pile driving, which Park City
Wind estimates to have 50-km Level B
harassment zones, in May and
December given that North Atlantic
right whale densities remain high in the
project area during this time.
Foundation installation activities must
not be planned in December; except for
in the event of unforeseen
circumstances (e.g., delays resulting in a
few piles needing to be installed in
December to remain on schedule) and
with NMFS advance approval and
vibratory pile driving in May was not
proposed and is restricted. As with
foundation installation, NMFS is
similarly proposing to restrict UXO/
MEC detonations December through
May; except for with NMFS’ advanced
approval on the condition that Park City
Wind provides justification for the
proposed detonation. NMFS is requiring
this seasonal work restriction to
minimize the North Atlantic right
whales risk of exposure to noise
incidental to foundation installation and
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37667
UXO/MEC detonation. These seasonal
work restrictions are expected to greatly
reduce the number of takes of North
Atlantic right whales. These seasonal
restrictions also afford protection to
other marine mammals that are known
to use the project area with greater
frequency during winter months,
including other baleen whales.
On a daily basis, no more than two
monopile foundations or four pin piles
may be installed per day and no more
than one UXO/MEC may be detonated
per 24-hr period. Moreover, detonations
may only occur during daylight hours.
No more than one pile may be installed
at a given time (i.e., concurrent/
simultaneous pile driving and drilling
may not occur).
Park City Wind has proposed to
conduct foundation installation
activities that may result in the
harassment of marine mammals during
reduced visibility conditions and
initiate pile driving during nighttime
when detection of marine mammals is
visually challenging. As described in
the Proposed Monitoring and Reporting
section, effective marine mammal
detection occurs when dual monitoring
methods (visual and acoustic) are
employed. Park City Wind has not yet
demonstrated to NMFS that the
equipment (e.g., night vision devices,
IR/thermal camera) they propose to use
during reduced visibility conditions,
including nighttime, are adequate to
monitor marine mammals, particularly
large whales, to distances necessary to
ensure mitigation measures are
effective. Therefore, at this time, NMFS
has not determined if initiating pile
driving at night should occur. NMFS
will provide Park City Wind the
opportunity to submit a monitoring plan
considering pile driving activities
during times of reduced visibility,
including nighttime (Nighttime
Monitoring Plan), and NMFS will make
a decision on whether to authorize Park
City Wind to conduct pile driving and
drilling in reduced visibility conditions,
including nighttime, at the final rule
stage, if issued.
Given the very small harassment
zones resulting from HRG surveys and
that the best available science indicates
that any harassment from HRG surveys,
should a marine mammal be exposed,
would manifest in minor behavioral
harassment only (e.g., potentially some
avoidance of the vessel), NMFS is not
proposing any seasonal and daily
restrictions for HRG surveys.
Noise Attenuation Systems
Park City Wind would employ noise
abatement systems (NAS), also known
as noise attenuation systems, during all
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
37668
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
foundation installation activities (i.e.,
pile driving and drilling) to reduce the
sound pressure levels that are
transmitted through the water in an
effort to reduce ranges to acoustic
thresholds and minimize any acoustic
impacts resulting from foundation
installation. Park City Wind would be
required to employ a big double bubble
curtain, other technology capable of
achieving a 10-dB sound level
reduction, or a combination of two or
more NAS capable of achieving a 10-dB
sound level reduction during these
activities as well as the adjustment of
operational protocols to minimize noise
levels. Noise attenuation devices would
also be required during any UXO/MEC
detonation.
Two categories of NAS exist: primary
and secondary. A primary NAS would
be used to reduce the level of noise
produced by foundation installation
activities at the source, typically
through adjustments on to the
equipment (e.g., hammer strike
parameters). Primary NAS are still
evolving and will be considered for use
during mitigation efforts when the NAS
has been demonstrated as effective in
commercial projects. However, as
primary NAS are not fully effective at
eliminating noise, a secondary NAS
would be employed. The secondary
NAS is a device or group of devices that
would reduce noise as it was
transmitted through the water away
from the pile, typically through a
physical barrier that would reflect or
absorb sound waves and therefore,
reduce the distance the higher energy
sound propagates through the water
column. Together, these systems must
reduce noise levels to the lowest level
practicable with the goal of not
exceeding measured ranges to Level A
harassment and Level B harassment
isopleths corresponding to those
modeled assuming 10-dB sound
attenuation, pending results of Sound
Field Verification (SFV; see Sound Field
Verification section below and Part
217—Regulations Governing The Taking
And Importing Of Marine Mammals).
Noise abatement systems, such as
bubble curtains, are used to decrease the
sound levels radiated from a source.
Bubbles create a local impedance
change that acts as a barrier to sound
transmission. The size of the bubbles
determines their effective frequency
band, with larger bubbles needed for
lower frequencies. There are a variety of
bubble curtain systems, confined or
unconfined bubbles, and some with
encapsulated bubbles or panels.
Attenuation levels also vary by type of
system, frequency band, and location.
Small bubble curtains have been
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
measured to reduce sound levels but
effective attenuation is highly
dependent on depth of water, current,
and configuration and operation of the
curtain (Austin et al., 2016; Koschinski
and Lu¨demann, 2013). Bubble curtains
vary in terms of the sizes of the bubbles
and those with larger bubbles tend to
perform a bit better and more reliably,
particularly when deployed with two
separate rings (Bellmann, 2014;
Koschinski and Lu¨demann, 2013; Nehls
et al., 2016). Encapsulated bubble
systems (e.g., Hydro Sound Dampers
(HSDs)), can be effective within their
targeted frequency ranges (e.g., 100–800
Hz), and when used in conjunction with
a bubble curtain appear to create the
greatest attenuation. The literature
presents a wide array of observed
attenuation results for bubble curtains.
The variability in attenuation levels is
the result of variation in design as well
as differences in site conditions and
difficulty in properly installing and
operating in-water attenuation devices.
Secondary NAS that may be used by
Park City Wind include a big bubble
curtain (BBC), a hydro-sound damper,
or an AdBm Helmholz resonator
(Elzinga et al., 2019). If a single system
is used, it must be a double big bubble
curtain (dBBC). Other dual systems (e.g.,
noise mitigation screens, hydro-sound
damper, AdBm Helmholz resonator)
may also be used, although many of
these are in their early stages of
development and field tests to evaluate
performance and effectiveness have not
been completed. Should the research
and development phase of these newer
systems demonstrate effectiveness, as
part of adaptive management, Park City
Wind may submit data on the
effectiveness of these systems and
request approval from NMFS to use
them during foundation installation and
UXO/MEC detonation activities
The literature presents a wide array of
observed attenuation results for bubble
curtains. The variability in attenuation
levels is the result of variation in design
as well as differences in site conditions
and difficulty in properly installing and
operating in-water attenuation devices.
Da¨hne et al. (2017) found that single
bubble curtains that reduce sound levels
by 7 to 10 dB reduced the overall sound
level by approximately 12 dB when
combined as a double bubble curtain for
6-m steel monopiles in the North Sea.
During installation of monopiles
(consisting of approximately 8-m in
diameter) for more than 150 WTGs in
comparable water depths (>25 m) and
conditions in Europe indicate that
attenuation of 10 dB is readily achieved
(Bellmann, 2019; Bellmann et al., 2020)
using single BBCs for noise attenuation.
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
If a bubble curtain is used (single or
double), Park City Wind would be
required to maintain the following
operational performance standards: the
bubble curtain(s) must distribute air
bubbles using a target air flow rate of at
least 0.5 m3/(min*m) and must
distribute bubbles around 100 percent of
the piling perimeter for the full depth of
the water column. The lowest bubble
ring must be in contact with the seafloor
for the full circumference of the ring,
and the weights attached to the bottom
ring must ensure 100-percent seafloor
contact; no parts of the ring or other
objects should prevent full seafloor
contact. Park City Wind must require
that construction contractors train
personnel in the proper balancing of
airflow to the bubble ring and must
require that construction contractors
submit an inspection/performance
report for approval by Park City Wind
within 72 hours following the
performance test. Corrections to the
attenuation device to meet the
performance standards must occur prior
to use during foundation installation
activities and UXO/MEC detonation. If
Park City Wind uses a noise mitigation
device in addition to a BBC, similar
quality control measures would be
required.
Noise abatement devices are not
required during HRG surveys as they are
not practicable to implement nor would
be effective. However, Park City Wind
would be required to make efforts to
minimize source levels by using the
lowest energy settings on equipment
that has the potential to result in
harassment of marine mammals (e.g.,
sparkers, boomers) and turn off
equipment when not actively surveying.
Overall, minimizing the amount and
duration of noise in the ocean from any
of Park City Wind’s activities through
use of all means necessary (e.g., noise
abatement, turning off power) will effect
the least practicable adverse impact on
marine mammals.
Clearance and Shutdown Zones
NMFS is proposing to require the
establishment of both clearance and
shutdown zones during all foundation
installation activities that have the
potential to result in harassment of
marine mammals (i.e., pile driving and
drilling) and HRG surveys. The purpose
of ‘‘clearance’’ of a particular zone is to
prevent or minimize potential instances
of auditory injury and more severe
behavioral disturbances by delaying the
commencement of an activity if marine
mammals are near the activity. The
purpose of a shutdown is to prevent a
specific acute impact, such as auditory
injury or severe behavioral disturbance
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
of sensitive species, by halting the
activity.
Prior to the start of conducting
activities that can harass marine
mammals (foundation installation, HRG
surveys, or UXO/MEC detonation), Park
City Wind would ensure designated
areas are clear of marine mammals prior
to commencing activities to minimize
the potential for and degree of
harassment. Once pile driving or
drilling activity begins, any marine
mammal entering the shutdown zone
(Tables 35 and 36) would trigger pile
driving to cease (unless shutdown is not
practicable due to imminent risk of
injury or loss of life to an individual or
risk of damage to a vessel that creates
risk of injury or loss of life for
individuals). Because UXO/MEC
detonations are instantaneous, no
shutdown is possible; therefore, there
are clearance zones but no shutdown
zones for UXO/MEC detonations (Table
38).
All clearance zones during foundation
installation and UXO/MEC detonations
would be monitored by NMFSapproved PSOs and PAM operators.
PSOs must visually monitor clearance
zones for marine mammals for a
minimum of 60 minutes prior to
commencing the activity. During HRG
surveys, PSO(s) must visually monitor
clearance zones for 30 minutes prior to
commencing survey activities when
using sources that may result in the
harassment of marine mammals (e.g.,
sparker, boomers, CHIRPs). In addition
to PSOs, at least one PAM operator must
review data from at least 24 hours prior
to foundation installation and UXO/
MEC detonation and actively monitor
hydrophones for 60 minutes prior to
commencement of these activities. Prior
to initiating soft-start procedures for
impact pile driving, all clearance zones
must be confirmed to be free of marine
mammals for at least 30 minutes
immediately prior to commencing
activities. In addition, pile driving will
be delayed upon a confirmed PAM
detection of a North Atlantic right
whale, if the PAM detection is
confirmed to have been located within
the North Atlantic right whale PAM
Clearance zone (Tables 35 and 36). Any
large whale sighted by a PSO within the
North Atlantic right whale PSO
Clearance Zone that cannot be identified
to species must be treated as if it were
a North Atlantic right whale.
In addition to the clearance and
shutdown zones that would be
monitored both visually and
acoustically, NMFS is proposing to
establish a minimum visibility zone
during foundation installation activities
to ensure both visual and acoustic
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
methods are used in tandem to detect
marine mammals resulting in maximum
detection capability. No minimum
visibility zone is proposed for UXO/
MEC detonation as the entire visual
clearance zone must be clear given the
potential for lung and GI injury. The
minimum visibility zone for foundation
installation activities (pile driving and
drilling) would extend from the location
of the pile being driven out to 3.2 km
(3,200 m). This value corresponds to
just greater than the modeled maximum
ER95 percent distances to the Level A
harassment threshold for North Atlantic
right whales, assuming 10 dB of
attenuation. The entire minimum
visibility zone must be visible for a full
30 minutes immediately prior to
commencing pile driving, drilling, and
UXO/MEC detonation.
If a North Atlantic right whale is
detected during the clearance period,
regardless of distance from the pile
being installed, pile driving and drilling
must not begin until 30 minutes has
passed since the last sighting (12,000
meters during UXO/MEC detonations,
Table 38). The clearance zone may also
only be declared clear if no confirmed
North Atlantic right whale acoustic
detections (in addition to visual) have
occurred during the clearance
monitoring period. Any large whale
sighted by a PSO or acoustically
detected by a PAM operator that cannot
be identified as a non-North Atlantic
right whale must be treated as if it were
a North Atlantic right whale.
As described above, JASCO
conducted source level monitoring for
the installation of 13-m monopiles to
inform the development of mitigation
zones. JASCO conducted a scaling
exercise in which the largest 10 dB
attenuated, modeled SEL exposure
ranges (between one pile per day or two
piles per day results) for the 13 m
monopile with a 5,000 kJ hammer
scenario was scaled by the percentage
increase between the largest 10 dB
attenuated, modeled SEL exposure
ranges of the 12 m monopile with a
5,000 kJ hammer scenario versus a 6,000
kJ hammer scenario for each hearing
group:
Percentage increase = (a¥b)/a
Alternative mitigation zone = (c ×
Percentage increase) + c
where a is the 12 m monopile with a
5,000 kJ hammer exposure range, b is
the 12 m monopile with a 6,000 kJ
hammer exposure range, and c is the 13
m monopile with a 5,000 kJ hammer
exposure range. The results informed
the shutdown zones in the unlikely case
a 13-m pile is installed with hammer
energy between 5,000 to 6,000 kJ.
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37669
Proposed clearance and shutdown
zones have been developed in
consideration of modeled distances to
relevant PTS thresholds with respect to
minimizing the potential for take by
Level A harassment. All proposed
clearance and shutdown zones for large
whales are larger than the largest
modeled exposure range (ER95 percent)
distances to thresholds corresponding to
Level A harassment (SEL and peak). If
a marine mammal is observed entering
or within the respective shutdown zone
(Tables 35 and 36) after foundation
installation has begun, the PSO will
request a temporary cessation of those
activities. If feasible, Park City Wind
will stop those activities immediately.
In situations when shutdown is called
for but it is determined that a shutdown
is not practicable due to imminent risk
of injury or loss of life to an individual
or pile instability, reduced hammer
energy must be implemented when the
lead engineer determines it is
practicable. Specifically, pile refusal or
pile instability could result in not being
able to shut down pile driving
immediately. Pile refusal occurs when
the pile driving sensors indicate the pile
is approaching refusal, and a shut-down
would lead to a stuck pile. Pile
instability occurs when the pile is
unstable and unable to stay standing if
the piling vessel were to ‘‘let go’’.
During these periods of instability, the
lead engineer may determine a
shutdown is not feasible because the
shutdown combined with impending
weather conditions may require the
piling vessel to ‘‘let go’’, which then
poses an imminent risk of injury or loss
of life to an individual or risk of damage
to a vessel that creates risk for
individuals. In these situations, Park
City Wind must reduce hammer energy
to the lowest level practicable.
The lead engineer must evaluate the
following to determine if a shutdown is
safe and practicable:
a. Use of site-specific soil data and
real-time hammer log information to
judge whether a stoppage would risk
causing piling refusal at re-start of
piling;
b. Confirmation that pile penetration
is deep enough to secure pile stability
in the interim situation, taking into
account weather statistics for the
relevant season and the current weather
forecast; and
c. Determination by the lead engineer
on duty will be made for each pile as
the installation progresses and not for
the site as a whole.
If it is determined that shutdown is
not feasible, the reason must be
documented and reported (see
regulatory text).
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
37670
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Subsequent restart of the equipment
can be initiated if the animal has been
observed exiting its respective
shutdown zone within 30 minutes of the
shutdown, or, after an additional time
period has elapsed with no further
sighting (i.e., 15 minutes for small
odontocetes and 30 minutes for all other
species).
Foundation installation will not be
initiated if the clearance zones cannot
be adequately monitored (i.e., if they are
obscured by fog, inclement weather,
poor lighting conditions) for a 30
minute period prior to the
commencement of soft-start, as
determined by the Lead PSO. If light is
insufficient, the lead PSO will call for
a delay until the Clearance zone is
visible in all directions. If a soft-start
has been initiated before the onset of
inclement weather, pile driving
activities may continue through these
periods if deemed necessary to ensure
human safety and/or the integrity of the
Project. PAM operators would review
data from at least 24 hours prior to pile
driving and actively monitor
hydrophones for 60 minutes
immediately prior to pile driving.
odontocetes and 30 minutes for all other
marine mammal species).
During HRG surveys, Park City Wind
would be required to implement a 30minute clearance period of the clearance
zones (Table 37) immediately prior to
the commencing of the survey, or when
there is more than a 30-minute break in
survey activities and PSOs have not
been actively monitoring. The clearance
zones would be monitored by PSOs,
using the appropriate visual technology.
If a marine mammal is observed within
a clearance zone during the clearance
period, ramp-up (described below) may
not begin until the animal(s) has been
observed voluntarily exiting its
respective clearance 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). In any
case when the clearance process has
begun in conditions with good
visibility, including via the use of night
vision equipment (IR/thermal camera),
and the Lead PSO has determined that
the clearance zones are clear of marine
mammals, survey operations would be
allowed to commence (i.e., no delay is
required) despite periods of inclement
weather and/or loss of daylight.
Once the survey has commenced,
Park City Wind would be required to
shut down SBPs if a marine mammal
enters a respective shutdown zone
(Table 37). In cases when the shutdown
zones become obscured for brief periods
due to inclement weather, survey
operations would be allowed to
continue (i.e., no shutdown is required)
so long as no marine mammals have
been detected. The use of SBPs will not
be allowed to commence or resume
until the animal(s) has been confirmed
to have left the shutdown zone or until
a full 15 minutes (for small odontocetes
and seals) or 30 minutes (for all other
marine mammals) have elapsed with no
further sighting.
The shutdown requirement would be
waived for small delphinids of the
following genera: Delphinus, Stenella,
Lagenorhynchus, and Tursiops.
Specifically, if a delphinid from the
specified genera is visually detected
approaching the vessel (i.e., to bow-ride)
or towed equipment, shutdown would
not be required. Furthermore, if there is
uncertainty regarding identification of a
marine mammal species (i.e., whether
the observed marine mammal(s) belongs
to one of the delphinid genera for which
shutdown is waived), the PSOs would
use their best professional judgment in
making the decision to call for a
shutdown. Shutdown would be required
if a delphinid that belongs to a genus
other than those specified is detected in
the shutdown zone.
If a SBP is shut down for reasons
other than mitigation (e.g., mechanical
difficulty) for less than 30 minutes, it
would be allowed to be activated again
without ramp-up only if PSOs
maintained constant observation and no
additional detections of any marine
mammal occurred within the respective
shutdown zones. If a SBP was shut
down for a period longer than 30
minutes, then all clearance and ramp-up
procedures would be required, as
previously described.
TABLE 35—MONOPILE INSTALLATION CLEARANCE AND SHUTDOWN ZONES IN METERS
PSO clearance
zone 1
Species
PSO
shutdown
zone
PAM
clearance
zone
PAM
shutdown
zone for 12-m
monopile
at 5,000 kJ
PAM
shutdown
zone for 13-m
monopile
at 6,000 kJ 2
PAM
monitoring
zone 4
Vessel
separation
distance
Impact Pile Driving
North Atlantic right whale ........................................
Other baleen whales and sperm whales .................
Small whales and dolphins 3 ....................................
Harbor porpoise .......................................................
Seals ........................................................................
distance 1
Any
...
4,700 .................
200 ....................
2,300 .................
1,100 .................
Any distance 1 ...
4,700 .................
200 ....................
2,300 .................
1,100 .................
5 5,600
5 4,700
5 5,500
4,700
200
2,300
1,100
4,700
200
2,300
1,100
5,500
200
2,300
1,100
12,000
12,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
500
100
50
50
50
4,500
4,700
200
2,300
1,400
n/a
n/a
200
n/a
n/a
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
500
100
50
50
50
Vibratory Pile Driving and Drilling
North Atlantic right whale ........................................
Other baleen whales and sperm whale ..................
Small whales and dolphins 3 ....................................
Harbor porpoise .......................................................
Seals ........................................................................
Any distance ......
4,700 .................
200 ....................
2,300 .................
1,400 .................
Any distance ......
4,700 .................
200 ....................
2,300 .................
1,400 .................
4,500
4,700
200
2,300
1,400
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
1 Park
City Wind has elected to set their minimum visibility for North Atlantic right whales as ‘‘any distance’’, above the minimum required by NMFS.
the unlikely event that a 13-m monopile would need to be installed at 6,000 kJ, the alternative PAM shutdown zone would be applied. This zone is set equal to
the maximum, scaled up Level A zone for large whales during impact pile driving (see Table 16).
3 Park City Wind had proposed a minimum clearance and shut down of 50 m in their application. However, this would likely be inside of the NAS and, due to the
loud noise levels generated by foundation installation activities, NMFS has increased these distances to 200 m.
4 The PAM Monitoring Zone represents the distance at which marine mammals must be able to be acoustically detected.
5 For piles installed between May 1–May 15 and November 1–December 31, the PAM clearance and shutdown zone is 10km.
2 In
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
37671
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 36—JACKET FOUNDATION INSTALLATION CLEARANCE AND SHUTDOWN ZONES IN METERS
PSO
shutdown
zone
PSO
clearance
zone 1
Species
PAM
clearance
zone
PAM
shutdown
zone
PAM
monitoring
zone
Vessel
separation
zone
Impact Pile Driving
North Atlantic right whale ..................................................................
Other baleen whales and sperm whale ............................................
Small whales and dolphins ................................................................
Harbor porpoise .................................................................................
Seals ..................................................................................................
Any distance 1 ...
4,500 .................
50 ......................
1,800 .................
1,400 .................
Any distance 1 ...
4,500 .................
50 ......................
1,800 .................
1,400 .................
1 4,500
4,500
50
1,800
1,400
4,500
4,500
50
1,800
1,400
12,000
12,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
500
100
50
50
50
4,500
4,700
50
2,300
1,400
4,500
4,700
50
2,300
1,400
12,000
12,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
500
100
50
50
50
Vibratory Pile Driving and Drilling 1
North Atlantic right whale ..................................................................
Other baleen whales and sperm whale ............................................
Small whales and dolphins ................................................................
Harbor porpoise .................................................................................
Seals ..................................................................................................
1 For
Any distance ......
4,700 .................
50 ......................
2,300 .................
1,400 .................
Any distance ......
4,700 .................
50 ......................
2,300 .................
1,400 .................
piles installed between May 1–May 15 and November 1–December 31, the PAM clearance and shutdown zone is 10km.
TABLE 37—HRG SURVEY CLEARANCE AND SHUTDOWN ZONES IN METERS
Species
Clearance zone
North Atlantic right whale ................................................................................................
All other ESA-listed marine mammals (e.g., fin, sei, sperm whale) ...............................
All other marine mammal species 1 .................................................................................
1 With
Shutdown zone
500
500
100
Vessel
separation zone
500
100
100
500
100
50
the exception of seals and delphinid(s) from the genera Delphinus, Lagenorhynchus, Stenella or Tursiops, as described below.
TABLE 38—UXO/MEC DETONATION VISUAL AND PAM CLEARANCE ZONES IN METERS
Species
Visual
clearance zone 1
PAM
clearance zone
North Atlantic right whale .........................................................................................
Low-Frequency Hearing Group ................................................................................
Mid-Frequency Hearing Group .................................................................................
High-Frequency Hearing Group (Harbor porpoise) ..................................................
Seals .........................................................................................................................
Any distance ........
3,800 ....................
1,000 ....................
6,200 ....................
1,600 ....................
Any distance ........
3,800 ....................
1,000 ....................
6,200 ....................
1,600 ....................
PAM
monitoring zone
12,000
12,000
2,600
14,100
7,100
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
1 The minimum visibility zone (i.e., the area which must be visibly clear of marine mammals) for UXO/MEC detonation is set at no less than 5
kms.
NMFS also notes that for any UXOs/
MECs that require removal, Park City
Wind would be required to implement
the As Low as Reasonably Practicable
(ALARP) process. This process would
require Park City Wind to undertake
‘‘lift-and-shift’’ (i.e., physical removal)
and then lead up to in situ disposal,
which could include low-order
(deflagration) to high-order (detonation)
methods of removal. Another potential
approach involves the cutting of the
UXO/MEC to extract any explosive
components. Implementing the ALARP
approach would minimize potential
impacts to marine mammals as UXOs/
MECs would only be detonated as a last
resort.
Soft-Start/Ramp-Up
The use of a soft-start or ramp-up
procedure is believed to provide
additional protection to marine
mammals by warning them, or
providing them with a chance to leave
the area prior to the hammer operating
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
at full capacity. Soft-start typically
involves initiating hammer operation at
a reduced energy level (relative to full
operating capacity) followed by a
waiting period. Park City Wind must
utilize a soft-start protocol for impact
pile driving of monopiles by performing
4–6 strikes per minute at 10 to 20
percent of the maximum hammer
energy, for a minimum of 20 minutes.
NMFS notes that it is difficult to specify
a reduction in energy for any given
hammer because of variation across
drivers. For impact hammers, the actual
number of strikes at reduced energy will
vary because operating the hammer at
less than full power results in
‘‘bouncing’’ of the hammer as it strikes
the pile, resulting in multiple ‘‘strikes’’;
however, as mentioned previously, Park
City Wind will target less than 20
percent of the total hammer energy for
the initial hammer strikes during softstart.
Soft-start will be required at the
beginning of each day’s monopile
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
installation, and at any time following a
cessation of impact pile driving of 30
minutes or longer. If a marine mammal
is detected within or about to enter the
applicable clearance zones prior to the
beginning of soft-start procedures,
impact pile driving would be delayed
until the animal has been visually
observed exiting the clearance zone or
until a specific time period has elapsed
with no further sightings (i.e., 15
minutes for small odontocetes and 30
minutes for all other species).
At the start or restart of the use of
boomers, sparkers, and SBPs, a ramp-up
procedure would be required unless the
equipment operates on a binary on/off
switch. 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. Operators
would ramp up sources to half power
for 5 minutes and then proceed to full
power. Prior to a ramp-up procedure
starting, the operator would have to
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
37672
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
notify the Lead PSO of the planned start
of the ramp-up. This notification time
would not be less than 60 minutes prior
to the planned ramp-up activities as all
relevant PSOs would need the
appropriate 30 minute period to monitor
prior to the initiation of ramp-up.
The ramp-up procedure will not be
initiated during periods of inclement
conditions if the clearance zones cannot
be adequately monitored by the PSOs
using the appropriate visual technology
(e.g., reticulated binoculars, night vision
equipment) for a 30-minute period.
Prior to ramp-up beginning, the operator
must receive confirmation from the PSO
that the clearance zone is clear of any
marine mammals.
All ramp-ups would be scheduled to
minimize the overall time spent with
the source being activated. The ramp-up
procedure must be used at the beginning
of HRG survey activities or after more
than a 30-minute break in survey
activities using the specified HRG
equipment to provide additional
protection to marine mammals in or
near the survey area by allowing them
to vacate the area prior to operation of
survey equipment at full power.
Park City Wind would not initiate
ramp-up until the clearance process has
been completed. Ramp-up activities
would be delayed if a marine
mammal(s) enters its respective
clearance zone. Ramp-up would only be
reinitiated if the animal(s) has been
observed exiting its respective
shutdown zone or until additional time
has elapsed with no further sighting
(i.e., 15 minutes for small odontocetes
and seals, and 30 minutes for all other
species).
Use of Protected Species Observers
(PSO) and Passive Acoustic Monitoring
(PAM) Operators
As described above, Park City Wind
would be required to use NMFSapproved PSOs and PAM operators
during all foundation installation, HRG
surveys, and UXO/MEC detonation
activities. NMFS requires a minimum
number of PSOs to actively observe for
marine mammals before, during, and
after pile driving. Concurrently, NMFS
requires at least one PAM operator to be
actively monitoring for marine
mammals before, during, and after
foundation installation pile driving and
drilling activities and UXO/MEC
detonation. The minimum number of
PSOs required is dependent upon the
area to be monitored and is thus activity
specific. Along with PSO qualification
requirements, equipment, and
placements are specified in the
regulatory text. The combined use of
PSOs and PAM operators during pile
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
driving and UXO/MEC detonation
maximizes the likelihood of detecting a
marine mammal and thereby increasing
the effectiveness of any of the
prescribed mitigation measures.
During all HRG survey activities using
SBPs (e.g., CHIRP, boomer, sparker,
etc.), at least one PSO would be required
to monitor during daylight hours and at
least two would be required to monitor
during nighttime hours, per vessel.
PSOs would begin visually monitoring
30 minutes prior to the initiation of the
specified acoustic source (i.e., ramp-up,
if applicable), during the HRG activities,
and through 30 minutes after the use of
the specified acoustic source has ceased.
PSOs would be required to monitor the
appropriate clearance and shutdown
zones. These zones would be based on
the radial distance from the acoustic
source and not from the vessel.
Fishery Monitoring Surveys
All crew undertaking the fishery
monitoring survey activities would be
required to receive protected species
identification training prior to activities
occurring and attend the
aforementioned onboarding training.
Marine mammal monitoring must occur
prior to, during, and after haul-back and
gear must not be deployed if a marine
mammal is observed in the area.
Park City Wind must implement the
following ‘‘move-on’’ rule. If marine
mammals are sighted within 1 nm of the
planned location in the 15 minutes
before gear deployment, Park City Wind
may decide to move the vessel away
from the marine mammal to a different
section of the sampling area if the
animal appears to be at risk of
interaction with the gear, based on best
professional judgment. If, after moving
on, marine mammals are still visible
from the vessel, Park City Wind may
decide to move again or to skip the
station. Gear would not be deployed if
marine mammals are observed within
the area and if a marine mammal is
deemed to be at risk of interaction, all
gear will be immediately removed.
Park City Wind must deploy trap and
trawl gear as soon as is practicable upon
arrival at the sampling station and must
initiate marine mammal watches (visual
observation) no less than 15 minutes
prior to both deployment and retrieval
of the trap and trawl gear. Marine
mammal watches must be conducted by
scanning these surrounding waters with
the naked eye and binoculars and
monitoring effort must be maintained
during the entire period of the time that
gear is in the water (i.e., throughout gear
deployment, fishing, and retrieval).
If marine mammals are sighted near
the vessel during the soak and are
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
determined to be at risk of interacting
with the gear, then Park City Wind must
immediately retrieve the gear as quickly
as possible. Park City Wind may use
best professional judgment in making
this decision.
To avoid entanglement with vertical
lines, buoy lines will be weighted and
will not float at the surface of the water
and all groundlines will consist of
sinking line. Buoy lines and linkages
will be compliant with best practices.
‘‘Ropeless’’ gear may be tested and used.
To minimize risk of entanglement in
trawl nets, trawl tow times would be
limited to 20-minutes with a vessel
speed of no more than 3.0 knots. Trawl
nets will be fully cleared and repaired
if damaged before redeployment. If
marine mammals are sighted before the
gear is fully removed from the water, the
vessel will slow its speed and maneuver
the vessel away from the animals to
minimize potential interactions with the
observed animal. Trawl nets will be
emptied immediately after retrieval
within the vicinity of the deck and the
fishery researchers or crew will open
the codend of the trawl net close to the
deck in order to avoid injury to animals
that may be caught in the gear. Any
marine mammal interaction would be
immediately reported to NMFS.
All gear must be clearly labeled as
attributed to Park City Wind’s fishery
surveys. All fisheries monitoring gear
must be fully cleaned and repaired (if
damaged) before each use. Any lost gear
associated with the fishery surveys will
be reported to the NOAA Greater
Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office
Protected Resources Division
(nmfs.gar.incidental-take@noaa.gov) as
soon as possible or within 24 hours of
the documented time of missing or lost
gear. This report must include
information on any markings on the gear
and any efforts undertaken or planned
to recover the gear. Finally, all survey
vessels will adhere to all vessel
mitigation measures previously
discussed in this section.
Based on our evaluation of the
applicant’s proposed measures, as well
as other measures considered by NMFS,
NMFS has preliminarily determined
that the proposed mitigation measures
would provide the means of affecting
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 promulgate a rulemaking
for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(A) of
the MMPA states that NMFS must set
forth requirements pertaining to the
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
monitoring and reporting of such taking.
The MMPA implementing regulations at
50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that
requests for authorizations must include
the suggested means of accomplishing
the necessary monitoring and reporting
that will result in increased knowledge
of the species and of the level of taking
or impacts on populations of marine
mammals that are expected to be
present in the proposed action area.
Effective reporting is critical both to
compliance as well as ensuring that the
most value is obtained from the required
monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting
requirements prescribed by NMFS
should contribute to improved
understanding of one or more of the
following:
• 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/or
• Mitigation and monitoring
effectiveness.
Separately, monitoring is also
regularly used to support mitigation
implementation, which is referred to as
mitigation monitoring, and monitoring
plans typically include measures that
both support mitigation implementation
and increase our understanding of the
impacts of the activity on marine
mammals.
During the proposed construction
activities, visual monitoring by NMFSapproved PSOs would be conducted
before, during, and after all pile driving,
drilling, UXO/MEC detonations, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
HRG surveys. PAM would also be
conducted during all impact and
vibratory pile driving, drilling, and
UXO/MEC detonations. Observations
and acoustic detections by PSOs would
be used to support the activity-specific
mitigation measures described above.
Also, to increase understanding of the
impacts of the activity on marine
mammals, observers would record all
incidents of marine mammal occurrence
at any distance from the piling locations
(impact, vibratory, or drilling activities),
UXO/MEC detonation site, and during
active HRG acoustic sources, and
monitors would document all behaviors
and behavioral changes, in concert with
distance from an acoustic source. The
required monitoring is described below,
beginning with PSO measures that are
applicable to all activities or
monitoring, followed by activityspecific monitoring requirements.
Protected Species Observer and PAM
Operator Requirements
Park City Wind would be required to
employ PSOs and PAM operators. PSOs
are trained professionals who are tasked
with visually monitoring for marine
mammals during pile driving, drilling,
HRG surveys, and UXO/MEC
detonation. The primary purpose of a
PSO is to carry out the monitoring,
collect data, and, when appropriate, call
for the implementation of mitigation
measures. In addition to visual
observations, NMFS requires Park City
Wind to conduct passive acoustic
monitoring (PAM) during pile driving,
drilling, and UXO/MEC detonations.
The inclusion of PAM alongside visual
data collection is valuable to provide
the most accurate record of species
presence as possible and, together, these
two monitoring methods are well
understood to provide best results when
combined together (e.g., Barlow and
Taylor, 2005; Clark et al., 2010;
Gerrodette et al., 2011; Van Parijs et al.,
2021). Acoustic monitoring (in addition
to visual monitoring) increases the
likelihood of detecting marine mammals
within the shutdown and clearance
zones of project activities, which when
applied in combination of required
shutdowns helps to further reduce the
risk of marine mammals being exposed
to sound levels that could otherwise
result in acoustic injury or more intense
behavioral harassment. PAM is to be
conducted by NMFS-approved PAM
operators and should follow
standardized measurement, processing
methods, reporting metrics, and
metadata standards for offshore wind
(Van Parijs et al., 2021).
Park City Wind must employ
independent, dedicated, trained PSOs,
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37673
meaning that the PSOs must be
employed by a third-party observer
provider, must have no tasks other than
to conduct observational effort (visual or
acoustic), collect data, and
communicate with and instruct relevant
Park City Wind personnel with regard to
the presence of protected species and
mitigation requirements, and must have
successfully completed an approved
PSO training course appropriate for
their designated task (visual or
acoustic). Acoustic monitoring PSOs
(i.e., PAM operators) are required to
complete specialized training for
operating PAM systems and should
have familiarity with the vessel and
associated equipment with which they
will be working, PSOs can act as
acoustic or visual observers (but not
simultaneously) as long as they
demonstrate that their training and
experience are sufficient to perform
each task.
Park City Wind would be required to
submit names of prospective PSOs and
PAM operators for review and
confirmation of their approval for
specific roles prior to commencement of
activity requiring PSOs and/or PAM
operators. NMFS must review and
approve PSO and PAM operator
qualifications. Resumes must include
information related to relevant
education, experience, and training,
including dates, duration, location, and
description of prior PSO experience.
Resumes must be accompanied by
relevant documentation of successful
completion of necessary training. NMFS
may approve PSOs as conditional or
unconditional. A conditionally
approved PSO may be one who is
trained but has not yet attained the
requisite experience. An
unconditionally-approved PSO is one
who has attained the necessary
experience. For unconditional approval,
the PSO must have a minimum of 90
days at sea performing the role (either
visual or acoustic), with the conclusion
of the most recent relevant experience
not more than 18 months previous.
NMFS is also proposing requirements
to ensure monitoring is conducted
effectively. A minimum number of PSOs
would be required to be actively
observing for the presence of marine
mammals during certain project
activities with more PSOs required as
the mitigation zone sizes increase. PSOs
and PAM operators would also be
required to limit watches to no more
than 4 hours at a time and must not
exceed a combined watch schedule of
more than 12 hours in any 24-hour time
period. The types of equipment required
(e.g., Big Eyes on the pile driving vessel)
are also designed to increase marine
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
37674
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
mammal detection capabilities.
Specifics on these types of requirements
can be found in the regulations at the
end of this document (Requirements for
monitoring and reporting). In the case
where Park City Wind has not fully
identified the manner by which they
would conduct monitoring, they would
be required to submit a plan to NMFS
180 days in advance of the
commencement of work. At this time,
NMFS is requiring Park City Wind to
submit to NMFS, for review and
approval, PSO and PAM Monitoring
Plan(s) and, as described previously, a
Nighttime Monitoring Plan.
As described above, PSOs and PAM
operators are responsible for data
collection. The data collected by PSO
and PAM operators and subsequent
analysis provide the necessary
information to inform an estimate of the
amount of take that occurred during the
project, better understand the impacts of
the project on marine mammals, address
the effectiveness of monitoring and
mitigation measures, and to adaptively
manage activities and mitigation in the
future. Data reported includes
information on marine mammal
sightings, activity occurring at time of
sighting, monitoring conditions, and if
mitigative actions were taken. Specific
data collection requirements are
contained within the regulations below.
Sound Field Verification
During the installation of at least the
first three monopile foundations, all
piles associated with installation of the
first jacket foundation and during all
UXO/MEC detonations, Park City Wind
must identify source levels, the ranges
to the isopleths corresponding to the
Level A harassment and Level B
harassment thresholds, and
transmission loss coefficient(s). Park
City Wind may also estimate ranges to
the Level A harassment and Level B
harassment isopleths by extrapolating
from in situ measurements conducted at
several distances from the piles
monitored and UXO/MEC detonations.
Park City Wind must perform sound
field measurements at least three
distances from the pile being driven,
including, but not limited to, 750 m and
the modeled Level A harassment and
Level B harassment zones to verify the
accuracy of those modeled zones. Sound
field measurements should be
configured along an unobstructed radial,
free of significant bathymetric features,
and which represents the most efficient
acoustic propagation (i.e., where sound
is expected to propagate the furthest),
relative to all modeled radials. At each
distance from the pile, one hydrophone
should be placed at depths no less than
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
one-half the water depth and another
should be placed no more than 2 meters
from the seabed.
The recordings will be continuous
throughout the duration of all
foundation installation activities of each
pile monitored. The measurement
systems will have a sensitivity
appropriate for the expected sound
levels from pile driving received at the
nominal ranges throughout the
installation of the pile. The frequency
range of the system will cover the range
of at least 20 Hz to 20 kHz. The system
will be designed to have
omnidirectional sensitivity and will be
designed so that the predicted
broadband received level of all impact
pile-driving strikes exceed the system
noise floor by at least 10 dB. The
dynamic range of the system will be
sufficient such that at each location, pile
driving signals are not clipped and are
not masked by noise floor.
If acoustic field measurements
collected during installation of
foundation piles or UXO/MEC
detonations indicate ranges to the
isopleths corresponding to Level A
harassment and Level B harassment
thresholds are greater than the ranges
predicted by modeling (assuming 10 dB
attenuation), Park City Wind must
implement additional noise mitigation
measures prior to installing the next
foundation installation or UXO/MEC
detonation. Initial additional measures
may include improving the efficacy of
the implemented noise mitigation
technology (e.g., bubble curtain, double
bubble curtain) and/or modifying the
piling schedule to reduce the sound
source. Each sequential modification
would be evaluated empirically by
acoustic field measurements.
In the event that field measurements
indicate ranges to thresholds
corresponding to Level A harassment
and Level B harassment thresholds are
greater than the ranges predicted by
modeling (assuming 10 dB attenuation),
NMFS may expand the relevant
harassment, clearance, and shutdown
zones and associated monitoring
protocols. If harassment zones are
expanded, NMFS may require
additional PSOs be deployed on
additional platforms with each observer
responsible for maintaining watch in no
more than 180 degrees.
If acoustic measurements indicate that
ranges to thresholds corresponding to
the Level A harassment and Level B
harassment thresholds are less than the
ranges predicted by modeling (assuming
10 dB attenuation), Park City Wind may
request a modification of the clearance
and shutdown zones for foundation
installation and UXO/MEC detonations
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
if additional acoustic modeling is
conducted on subsequent piles. The
number of piles that would have to be
monitored would be dependent upon
site conditions and future turbine
placement; however, a minimum of
three monopiles and two jacket
installations (all pin piles for each
jacket) would have to be monitored. In
addition, if any subsequent pile
installation locations are not
represented by the previously
monitored locations, SFV would be
required. Upon receipt of an interim
SFV report, NMFS may adjust zones
(i.e., Level A harassment, Level B
harassment, clearance, shutdown, and/
or minimum visibility zone) as deemed
appropriate.
Park City Wind will submit a SFV
Plan to NOAA Fisheries for review and
approval at least 180 days prior to
planned start of pile driving and any
UXO/MEC detonations. The plan must
describe how Park City Wind would
ensure that the first three monopile
foundation installation sites and two
ESP jacket foundations (all pin piles)
sites selected for SFV are representative
of the rest of the foundation installation
sites. As described above, each UXO/
MEC detonation must be acoustically
monitored. The plan must also include
the methodology for collecting,
analyzing, and preparing SFV data for
submission to NMFS. The plan must
describe how the effectiveness of the
sound attenuation methodology would
be evaluated based on the results. Park
City Wind must also provide, as soon as
they are available but no later than 48
hours after each foundation installation
event or UXO/MEC detonation, the
initial results of the SFV measurements
to NMFS in an interim report.
In addition to identifying how
foundation installation and UXO/MEC
detonation noise levels will be
monitored, the SFV plan must also
include how operational noise of the
turbines would be monitored.
Operational parameters (e.g., direct
drive/gearbox information, turbine
rotation rate) as well as sea state
conditions and information on nearby
anthropogenic activities (e.g., vessels
transiting or operating in the area) must
be reported.
Reporting
Prior to initiation of project activities,
Park City Wind would provide a report
to NMFS Office of Protected Resources
documenting that all required training
for Park City Wind personnel (i.e.,
vessel crews, vessel captains, PSOs, and
PAM operators) has been completed and
provide the date that each in-water
construction activity considered in this
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
proposed rule (i.e., foundation
installation, cable landfall construction,
marina activities, and HRG surveys)
would occur.
NMFS would require standardized
and frequent reporting from Park City
Wind during the life of the proposed
regulations and LOA. All data collected
relating to the Project would be
recorded using industry-standard
software installed on field laptops and/
or tablets. Park City Wind would be
required to submit weekly, monthly and
annual reports. For all monitoring
efforts and marine mammal sightings,
the species, location, time, and many
other factors must be reported to NMFS.
The specifics of what we require to be
reported can be found in the regulatory
text at the end of this proposed rule,
including for all real-time acoustic
detections of marine mammals which
also must be reported weekly, monthly,
and annually. SFV reporting, as
described above, would also be
required.
Weekly Report—During foundation
installation activities, Park City Wind
would be required to compile and
submit weekly marine mammals and
pile driving activity reports to NMFS
Office of Protected Resources that
document the daily start and stop of all
pile driving activities, drilling, UXO/
MEC detonations, and HRG activities,
the start and stop of associated
observation periods by PSOs, details on
the deployment of PSOs, a record of all
detections of marine mammals (acoustic
and visual), any mitigation actions (or if
mitigation actions could not be taken,
provide reasons why), and details on the
noise abatement system(s) (e.g., bubble
rate). Weekly reports would be due on
Wednesday for the previous week
(Sunday–Saturday). The weekly report
would also identify which turbines
become operational and when (a map
must be provided). Once all foundation
pile installation is complete, weekly
reports would no longer be required.
Monthly Report—Park City Wind
would be required to compile and
submit monthly reports to NMFS Office
of Protected Resources that include a
summary of all information in the
weekly reports, including project
activities carried out in the previous
month, vessel transits (number, type of
vessel, and route), number of piles
installed, number of UXO/MEC
detonations, all detections of marine
mammals, and any mitigative actions
taken. Monthly reports would be due on
the 15th of the month for the previous
month. The monthly report would also
identify which turbines become
operational and when (a map must be
provided). Once foundation pile
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
installation is complete, monthly
reports would no longer be required.
Annual Reporting—Park City Wind
would be required to submit an annual
PSO and PAM report to NMFS Office of
Protected Resources no later than 90
days following the end of a given
calendar year describing, in detail, all of
the information required in the
monitoring section above. A final
annual report would be prepared and
submitted within 30 calendar days
following receipt of any NMFS
comments on the draft report. If no
comments were received from NMFS
Office of Protected Resources within 60
calendar days of NMFS’ receipt of the
draft report, the report would be
considered final.
Final 5-Year Reporting—Park City
Wind must submit its draft 5-year
report(s) to NMFS Office of Protected
Resources on all visual and acoustic
monitoring conducted under the LOA
within 90 calendar days of the
completion of activities occurring under
the LOA. A final 5-year report must be
prepared and submitted within 60
calendar days following receipt of any
NMFS comments on the draft report. If
no comments are received from NMFS
within 60 calendar days of NMFS’
receipt of the draft report, the report
shall be considered final. Information
contained within this report is
described at the beginning of this
section.
Situational Reporting—Specific
situations encountered during the
development of the Project would
require immediate reporting. If a North
Atlantic right whale is acoustical
detected during PAM, the date, time,
and location (i.e., latitude and longitude
of recorder) of the detection, as well as
the recording platform that had the
detection, must be reported to
nmfs.pacmdata@noaa.gov as soon as
feasible, no longer than 24 hours after
the detection. Full detection data and
metadata, including GPS data records,
must be submitted to nmfs.pacmdata@
noaa.gov monthly on the 15th of every
month for the previous month via ISO
standard metadata forms available on
the NMFS North Atlantic right whale
Passive Acoustic Reporting System
website at https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/
document/passive-acoustic-reportingsystem-templates.
If a North Atlantic right whale is
observed at any time by PSOs or Park
City Wind personnel, Park City Wind
must immediately report sighting
information to the NMFS North Atlantic
Right Whale Sighting Advisory System
(866–755–6622), to the U.S. Coast Guard
via channel 16, and through the
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37675
WhaleAlert app (https://
www.whalealert/org/) as soon as feasible
but no longer than 24 hours after the
sighting. Information reported must
include, at a minimum: time of sighting,
location, and number of North Atlantic
right whales observed. The specifics of
what NMFS Office of Protected
Resources requires to be reported is
listed at the end of this proposed rule
in the regulatory text.
If a sighting of a stranded, entangled,
injured, or dead marine mammal occurs,
the sighting would be reported to NMFS
Office of Protected Resources, the NMFS
Greater Atlantic Stranding Coordinator
for the New England/Mid-Atlantic area
(866–755–6622 or the Dolphin and
Whale 911 app), and the U.S. Coast
Guard within 24 hours. If the injury or
death was caused by a project activity,
Park City Wind must immediately cease
all activities until NMFS Office of
Protected Resources is able to review
the circumstances of the incident and
determine what, if any, additional
measures are appropriate to ensure
compliance with the terms of the LOA.
NMFS Office of Protected Resources
may impose additional measures to
minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA
compliance. Park City Wind may not
resume their activities until notified by
NMFS Office of Protected Resources.
The specifics of what NMFS Office of
Protected Resources requires to be
reported is listed at the end of this
proposed rule in the regulatory text.
In the event of a vessel strike of a
marine mammal by any vessel
associated with the Project, Park City
Wind must immediately report the
strike incident to the NMFS Office of
Protected Resources and the NOAA
Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries
Office Protected Resources Division
(GARFO) within and no later than 24
hours. Park City Wind must
immediately cease all on-water
activities until NMFS Office of
Protected Resources is able to review
the circumstances of the incident and
determine what, if any, additional
measures are appropriate to ensure
compliance with the terms of the LOA.
NMFS Office of Protected Resources
may impose additional measures to
minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA
compliance. Park City Wind may not
resume their activities until notified by
NMFS. The specifics of what NMFS
Office of Protected Resources requires to
be reported is listed at the end of this
proposed rule in the regulatory text.
In the event of any lost gear associated
with the fishery surveys, Park City Wind
must report to the GARFO as soon as
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
37676
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
possible or within 24 hours of the
documented time of missing or lost gear.
This report must include information on
any markings on the gear and any efforts
undertaken or planned to recover the
gear.
Sound Field Verification—Park City
Wind would be required to submit
interim sound field verification reports
after each foundation installation and
UXO/MEC detonation monitored as
soon as possible but within 48-hours. A
final SFV report for foundation
installation and UXO/MEC detonations
would be required within 90 days
following completion of acoustic
monitoring for each activity.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Adaptive Management
The regulations governing the take of
marine mammals incidental to Park City
Wind’s construction activities would
contain an adaptive management
component. The monitoring and
reporting requirements in this proposed
rule are designed to provide NMFS with
information that helps us better
understand the impacts of the activities
on marine mammals and informs our
consideration of whether any changes to
mitigation or monitoring are
appropriate. The use of adaptive
management allows NMFS to consider
new information from different sources
to determine (with input from Park City
Wind regarding practicability) on an
annual or biennial basis if mitigation or
monitoring measures should be
modified (including additions or
deletions). Mitigation measures could be
modified if new data suggests that such
modifications would have a reasonable
likelihood of reducing adverse effects to
marine mammals and if the measures
are practicable.
The following are some of the
possible sources of applicable data to be
considered through the adaptive
management process: (1) Results from
monitoring reports, as required by
MMPA authorizations; (2) results from
general marine mammal and sound
research; and (3) any information which
reveals that marine mammals may have
been taken in a manner, extent, or
number not authorized by these
regulations or subsequent LOA. During
the course of the rule, Park City Wind
(and other LOA-holders conducting
offshore wind development activities)
would be required to participate in one
or more adaptive management meetings
convened by NMFS and/or BOEM, in
which the above information would be
summarized and discussed in the
context of potential changes to the
mitigation or monitoring measures.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
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’’
by mortality, serious injury, and Level A
harassment or Level B harassment, we
consider other factors, such as the likely
nature of any behavioral responses (e.g.,
intensity, duration), the context of any
such responses (e.g., critical
reproductive time or location,
migration), as well as effects on habitat,
and the likely effectiveness of
mitigation. We also assess the number,
intensity, and context of estimated takes
by evaluating this information relative
to population status. Consistent with the
1989 preamble for NMFS’ implementing
regulations (54 FR 40338, September 29,
1989), the impacts from other past and
ongoing anthropogenic activities are
incorporated into this analysis via their
impacts on the environmental baseline
(e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status
of the species, population size and
growth rate where known, ongoing
sources of human-caused mortality, or
ambient noise levels).
In the Estimated Take of Marine
Mammals section, we identified the
subset of potential effects that would be
expected to qualify as takes under the
MMPA, and then identified the
maximum number of takes by Level A
harassment and Level B harassment that
we estimate are likely to occur based on
the methods described. The impact that
any given take would have is dependent
on many case-specific factors that need
to be considered in the negligible
impact analysis (e.g., the context of
behavioral exposures such as duration
or intensity of a disturbance, the health
of impacted animals, the status of a
species that incurs fitness-level impacts
to individuals, etc.). In this proposed
rule, we evaluate the likely impacts of
the enumerated harassment takes that
are proposed for authorization in the
context of the specific circumstances
surrounding these predicted takes. We
also collectively evaluate this
information, as well as other more taxa-
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
specific information and mitigation
measure effectiveness, in group-specific
discussions that support our negligible
impact conclusions for each stock. As
described above, no serious injury or
mortality is expected or proposed for
authorization for any species or stock.
The Description of the Specified
Activities section describes the
specified activities proposed by Park
City Wind that may result in take of
marine mammals and an estimated
schedule for conducting those activities.
Park City Wind has provided a realistic
construction schedule although we
recognize schedules may shift for a
variety of reasons (e.g., weather or
supply delays). However, the total
amount of take would not exceed the 5year totals and maximum annual total in
any given year indicated in Tables 33
and 34, respectively.
We base our analysis and negligible
impact determination on the maximum
number of takes that have the potential
to occur and are proposed to be
authorized annually and across the 5year LOA, if issued, and extensive
qualitative consideration of other
contextual factors that influence the
degree of impact of the takes on the
affected individuals and the number
and context of the individuals affected.
As stated before, the number of takes,
both maximum annual and 5-year total,
alone are only a part of the analysis.
To avoid repetition, we provide some
general analysis in this Negligible
Impact Analysis and Determination
section that applies to all the species
listed in Table 5 given that some of the
anticipated effects of Park City Wind’s
construction activities on marine
mammals are expected to be relatively
similar in nature. Then, we subdivide
into more detailed discussions for
mysticetes, odontocetes, and pinnipeds
which have broad life history traits that
support an overarching discussion of
some factors considered within the
analysis for those groups (e.g., habitatuse patterns, high-level differences in
feeding strategies).
Last, we provide a negligible impact
determination for each species or stock,
providing species or stock-specific
information or analysis, where
appropriate, for example, for North
Atlantic right whales given their
population status. Organizing our
analysis by grouping species or stocks
that share common traits or that would
respond similarly to effects of Park City
Wind’s proposed activities, and then
providing species- or stock-specific
information allows us to avoid
duplication while ensuring that we have
analyzed the effects of the specified
activities on each affected species or
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
stock. It is important to note that in the
group or species sections, we base our
negligible impact analysis on the
maximum annual take that is predicted
under the 5-year rule; however, the
majority of the impacts are associated
with WTG foundation and ESP
foundation installation, which would
occur largely within the first 3 years.
The estimated take in the other years is
expected to be notably less, which is
reflected in the total take that would be
allowable under the rule (see Tables 32,
33, and 34).
As described previously, no serious
injury or mortality is anticipated or
proposed for authorization in this rule.
Any Level A harassment authorized
would be in the form of auditory injury
(i.e., PTS) and not non-auditory injury
(e.g., lung injury or gastrointestinal
injury from UXO/MEC detonation). The
amount of harassment Park City Wind
has requested, and NMFS is proposing
to authorize, is based on exposure
models that consider the outputs of
acoustic source and propagation models
and other data such as frequency of
occurrence or group sizes. Several
conservative parameters and
assumptions are ingrained into these
models, such as assuming forcing
functions that consider direct contact
with piles (i.e., no cushion allowances)
and application of the highest monthly
sound speed profile to all months
within a given season. The exposure
model results do not reflect any
mitigation measures or avoidance
response. The amount of take requested
and proposed to be authorized also
reflects careful consideration of other
data (e.g., PSO and group size data) and,
for Level A harassment potential of
some large whales, the consideration of
mitigation measures. For all species, the
amount of take proposed to be
authorized represents the maximum
amount of Level A harassment and
Level B harassment that is likely to
occur.
Behavioral Disturbance
In general, NMFS anticipates that
impacts on an individual that has been
harassed are likely to be more intense
when exposed to higher received levels
and for a longer duration (though this is
in no way a strictly linear relationship
for behavioral effects across species,
individuals, or circumstances) and less
severe impacts result when exposed to
lower received levels and for a brief
duration. However, there is also growing
evidence of the importance of
contextual factors such as distance from
a source in predicting marine mammal
behavioral response to sound—i.e.,
sounds of a similar level emanating
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
from a more distant source have been
shown to be less likely to evoke a
response of equal magnitude (e.g.,
DeRuiter and Doukara, 2012; Falcone et
al., 2017). As described in the Potential
Effects to Marine Mammals and their
Habitat section, the intensity and
duration of any impact resulting from
exposure to Park City Wind’s activities
is dependent upon a number of
contextual factors including, but not
limited to, sound source frequencies,
whether the sound source is moving
towards the animal, hearing ranges of
marine mammals, behavioral state at
time of exposure, status of individual
exposed (e.g., reproductive status, age
class, health) and an individual’s
experience with similar sound sources.
Southall et al. (2021), Ellison et al.
(2012) and Moore and Barlow (2013),
among others, emphasize the
importance of context (e.g., behavioral
state of the animals, distance from the
sound source) in evaluating behavioral
responses of marine mammals to
acoustic sources. Harassment of marine
mammals may result in behavioral
modifications (e.g., avoidance,
temporary cessation of foraging or
communicating, changes in respiration
or group dynamics, masking) or may
result in auditory impacts such as
hearing loss. In addition, some of the
lower level physiological stress
responses (e.g., change in respiration,
change in heart rate) discussed
previously would likely co-occur with
the behavioral modifications, although
these physiological responses are more
difficult to detect and fewer data exist
relating these responses to specific
received levels of sound. Takes by Level
B harassment, then, may have a stressrelated physiological component as
well; however, we would not expect
Park City Wind’s activities to produce
conditions of long-term and continuous
exposure to noise leading to long-term
physiological stress responses in marine
mammals that could affect reproduction
or survival.
In the range of behavioral effects that
might be expected to be part of a
response that qualifies as an instance of
Level B harassment by behavioral
disturbance (which by nature of the way
it is modeled/counted, occurs within 1
day), the less severe end might include
exposure to comparatively lower levels
of a sound, at a greater distance from the
animal, for a few or several minutes. A
less severe exposure of this nature could
result in a behavioral response such as
avoiding an area that an animal would
otherwise have chosen to move through
or feed in for some amount of time, or
breaking off one or a few feeding bouts.
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37677
More severe effects could occur if an
animal gets close enough to the source
to receive a comparatively higher level,
is exposed continuously to one source
for a longer time, or is exposed
intermittently to different sources
throughout a day. Such effects might
result in an animal having a more severe
flight response, and leaving a larger area
for a day or more or potentially losing
feeding opportunities for a day.
However, such severe behavioral effects
are expected to occur infrequently.
Many species perform vital functions,
such as feeding, resting, traveling, and
socializing on a diel cycle (24-hour
cycle). Behavioral reactions to noise
exposure, when taking place in a
biologically important context, such as
disruption of critical life functions,
displacement, or avoidance of important
habitat, are more likely to be significant
if they last more than one day or recur
on subsequent days (Southall et al.,
2007) due to diel and lunar patterns in
diving and foraging behaviors observed
in many cetaceans (Baird et al., 2008;
Barlow et al., 2020; Henderson et al.,
2016; Schorr et al., 2014). It is important
to note the water depth in the Project
area is shallow (ranging from 2 m in the
OECC to 62 m in the lease area) and
deep diving species, such as sperm
whales, are not expected to be engaging
in deep foraging dives when exposed to
noise above NMFS harassment
thresholds during the specified
activities. Therefore, we do not
anticipate impacts to deep foraging
behavior to be impacted by the specified
activities.
It is also important to identify that the
estimated number of takes does not
necessarily equate to the number of
individual animals the Project expects
to harass (which is lower), but rather to
the instances of take (i.e., exposures
above the Level B harassment
thresholds) that may occur. These
instances may represent either brief
exposures of seconds for UXO/MEC
detonations, seconds to minutes for
HRG surveys, or, in some cases, longer
durations of exposure within a day (e.g.,
pile driving). Some individuals of a
species may experience recurring
instances of take over multiple days
throughout the year, while some
members of a species or stock may
experience one exposure as they move
through an area, which means that the
number of individuals taken is smaller
than the total estimated takes. In short,
for species that are more likely to be
migrating through the area and/or for
which only a comparatively smaller
number of takes are predicted (e.g.,
some of the mysticetes), it is more likely
that each take represents a different
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
37678
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
individual, whereas for non-migrating
species with larger amounts of predicted
take, we expect that the total anticipated
takes represent exposures of a smaller
number of individuals of which some
would be taken across multiple days.
For the Project, impact pile driving of
foundation piles is most likely to result
in a higher magnitude and severity of
behavioral disturbance than other
activities (i.e., vibratory pile driving,
drilling, UXO/MEC detonations, and
HRG surveys). Impact pile driving has
higher source levels and longer
durations (on an annual basis) than
vibratory pile driving, drilling and HRG
surveys. HRG survey equipment also
produces much higher frequencies than
pile driving, resulting in minimal sound
propagation. While UXO/MEC
detonations may have higher source
levels, impact pile driving is planned
for longer durations (i.e., a maximum of
10 UXO/MEC detonations are planned,
which would result in only
instantaneous exposures). While
foundation installation impact pile
driving is anticipated to be most
impactful for these reasons, impacts are
minimized through implementation of
mitigation measures, including use of a
sound attenuation system, soft-starts,
the implementation of clearance zones
that would facilitate a delay pile driving
commencement, and implementation of
shutdown zones. All these measures are
designed to avoid or minimize
harassment. For example, given
sufficient notice through the use of softstart, marine mammals are expected to
move away from a sound source that is
annoying prior to becoming exposed to
very loud noise levels. The requirement
to couple visual monitoring and PAM
before and during all foundation
installation and UXO/MEC detonations
would increase the overall capability to
detect marine mammals than one
method alone. Measures such as the
requirement to apply sound attention
devices and implement clearance zones
also apply to UXO/MEC detonation(s),
which also have the potential to elicit
more severe behavioral reactions in the
unlikely event that an animal is
relatively close to the explosion in the
instant that it occurs; hence, severity of
behavioral responses are expected to be
lower than would be the case without
mitigation.
Occasional, milder behavioral
reactions are unlikely to cause long-term
consequences for individual animals or
populations, and even if some smaller
subset of the takes are in the form of a
longer (several hours or a day) and more
severe response, if they are not expected
to be repeated over numerous or
sequential days, impacts to individual
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
fitness are not anticipated. Also, the
effect of disturbance is strongly
influenced by whether it overlaps with
biologically important habitats when
individuals are present—avoiding
biologically important habitats will
provide opportunities to compensate for
reduced or lost foraging (Keen et al.,
2021). Nearly all studies and experts
agree that infrequent exposures of a
single day or less are unlikely to impact
an individual’s overall energy budget
(Farmer et al., 2018; Harris et al., 2017;
King et al., 2015; National Academy of
Science (NAS), 2017; New et al., 2014;
Southall et al., 2007; Villegas-Amtmann
et al., 2015).
Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS)
TTS is one form of Level B
harassment that marine mammals may
incur through exposure to the Project’s
activities and, as described earlier, the
proposed takes by Level B harassment
may represent takes in the form of
behavioral disturbance, TTS, or both. As
discussed in the Potential Effects to
Marine Mammals and their Habitat
section, in general, TTS can last from a
few minutes to days, be of varying
degree, and occur across different
frequency bandwidths, all of which
determine the severity of the impacts on
the affected individual, which can range
from minor to more severe. Impact and
vibratory pile driving, drilling, and
UXO/MEC detonation are broadband
noise sources but generate sounds in the
lower frequency ranges (with most of
the energy below 1–2 kHz, but with a
small amount energy ranging up to 20
kHz); therefore, in general and all else
being equal, we would anticipate the
potential for TTS is higher in lowfrequency cetaceans (i.e., mysticetes)
than other marine mammal hearing
groups and would be more likely to
occur in frequency bands in which they
communicate. However, we would not
expect the TTS to span the entire
communication or hearing range of any
species given the frequencies produced
by these activities do not span entire
hearing ranges for any particular
species. Additionally, though the
frequency range of TTS that marine
mammals might sustain would overlap
with some of the frequency ranges of
their vocalizations, the frequency range
of TTS from the Project’s pile driving,
drilling, and UXO/MEC detonation
activities would not typically span the
entire frequency range of one
vocalization type, much less span all
types of vocalizations or other critical
auditory cues for any given species.
However, the mitigation measures
proposed by the Project and proposed
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
by NMFS, further reduce the potential
for TTS in mysticetes.
Generally, both the degree of TTS and
the duration of TTS would be greater if
the marine mammal is exposed to a
higher level of energy (which would
occur when the peak dB level is higher
or the duration is longer). The threshold
for the onset of TTS was discussed
previously (refer back to Estimated Take
of Marine Mammals). However, source
level alone is not a predictor of TTS. An
animal would have to approach closer
to the source or remain in the vicinity
of the sound source appreciably longer
to increase the received SEL, which
would be difficult considering the
proposed mitigation and the nominal
speed of the receiving animal relative to
the stationary sources such as impact
pile driving. The recovery time of TTS
is also of importance when considering
the potential impacts from TTS. In TTS
laboratory studies (as discussed in the
Potential Effects of the Specified
Activities on Marine Mammals and their
Habitat section), some using exposures
of almost an hour in duration or up to
217 SEL, almost all individuals
recovered within 1 day (or less, often in
minutes) and we note that while the pile
driving activities last for hours a day, it
is unlikely that most marine mammals
would stay in the close vicinity of the
source long enough to incur more severe
TTS. UXO/MEC detonation also has the
potential to result in TTS. However,
given the duration of exposure is
extremely short (milliseconds), the
degree of TTS (i.e., the amount of dB
shift) is expected to be small and TTS
duration is expected to be short
(minutes to hours). Overall, given the
small number of times that any
individual might incur TTS, the low
degree of TTS and the short anticipated
duration, and the unlikely scenario that
any TTS overlapped the entirety of a
critical hearing range, it is unlikely that
TTS of the nature expected to result
from the project’s activities would result
in behavioral changes or other impacts
that would impact any individual’s (of
any hearing sensitivity) reproduction or
survival.
Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)
Park City Wind has requested, and
NMFS proposes to authorize, a very
small amount of take by PTS to some
marine mammal individuals. The
numbers of proposed annual takes by
Level A harassment are relatively low
for all marine mammal stocks and
species (Table 34). The only activities
incidental to which we anticipate PTS
may occur is from exposure to impact
pile driving and UXO/MEC detonations,
which produce sounds that are both
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
impulsive and primarily concentrated in
the lower frequency ranges (below 1
kHz) (David, 2006; Krumpel et al.,
2021).
There are no PTS data on cetaceans
and only one instance of PTS being
induced in an older harbor seals
(Reichmuth et al., 2019). However,
available TTS data (of mid-frequency
hearing specialists exposed to mid- or
high-frequency sounds (Southall et al.,
2007; NMFS, 2018; Southall et al.,
2019)) suggest that most threshold shifts
occur in the frequency range of the
source up to one octave higher than the
source. We would anticipate a similar
result for PTS. Further, no more than a
small degree of PTS is expected to be
associated with any of the incurred
Level A harassment, given it is unlikely
that animals would stay in the close
vicinity of a source for a duration long
enough to produce more than a small
degree of PTS.
PTS would consist of minor
degradation of hearing capabilities
occurring predominantly at frequencies
one-half to one octave above the
frequency of the energy produced by
pile driving or instantaneous UXO/MEC
detonation (i.e., the low-frequency
region below 2 kHz) (Cody and
Johnstone, 1981; McFadden, 1986;
Finneran, 2015), not severe hearing
impairment. If hearing impairment
occurs from either impact pile driving
or UXO/MEC detonation, it is most
likely that the affected animal would
lose a few decibels in its hearing
sensitivity, which in most cases is not
likely to meaningfully affect its ability
to forage and communicate with
conspecifics. Park City Wind estimates
10 UXOs/MECs may be detonated and
the exposure analysis assumes the
worst-case scenario that all of the
UXOs/MECs found would consist of the
largest charge weight of UXO/MEC (E12;
454 kg). However, it is highly unlikely
that all charges would be this maximum
size; thus, the amount of Level A
harassment that may occur incidental to
the detonation of the UXOs/MECs
would likely be less than what is
estimated here. In addition, during
impact pile driving, given sufficient
notice through use of soft-start prior to
implementation of full hammer energy
during impact pile driving, marine
mammals are expected to move away
from a sound source that is annoying
prior to it resulting in severe PTS.
Auditory Masking or Communication
Impairment
The ultimate potential impacts of
masking on an individual are similar to
those discussed for TTS (e.g., decreased
ability to communicate, forage
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
effectively, or detect predators), but an
important difference is that masking
only occurs during the time of the
signal, versus TTS, which continues
beyond the duration of the signal. Also,
though, masking can result from the
sum of exposure to multiple signals,
none of which might individually cause
TTS. Fundamentally, masking is
referred to as a chronic effect because
one of the key potential harmful
components of masking is its duration—
the fact that an animal would have
reduced ability to hear or interpret
critical cues becomes much more likely
to cause a problem the longer it is
occurring. Also inherent in the concept
of masking is the fact that the potential
for the effect is only present during the
times that the animal and the source are
in close enough proximity for the effect
to occur (and further, this time period
would need to coincide with a time that
the animal was utilizing sounds at the
masked frequency).
As our analysis has indicated, for this
project we expect that impact pile
driving foundations have the greatest
potential to mask marine mammal
signals, and this pile driving may occur
for several, albeit intermittent, hours per
day, for multiple days per year. Masking
is fundamentally more of a concern at
lower frequencies (which are pile
driving dominant frequencies), because
low frequency signals propagate
significantly further than higher
frequencies and because they are more
likely to overlap both the narrower low
frequency calls of mysticetes, as well as
many non-communication cues related
to fish and invertebrate prey, and
geologic sounds that inform navigation.
However, the area in which masking
would occur for all marine mammal
species and stocks (e.g., predominantly
in the vicinity of the foundation pile
being driven) is small relative to the
extent of habitat used by each species
and stock. In summary, the nature of the
Project’s activities, paired with habitat
use patterns by marine mammals, does
not support the likelihood that the level
of masking that could occur would have
the potential to affect reproductive
success or survival.
Impacts on Habitat and Prey
Construction activities or UXO/MEC
detonation may result in fish and
invertebrate mortality or injury very
close to the source, and all activities
(including HRG surveys) may cause
some fish to leave the area of
disturbance. It is anticipated that any
mortality or injury would be limited to
a very small subset of available prey and
the implementation of mitigation
measures such as the use of a noise
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37679
attenuation system during pile driving,
drilling, and UXO/MEC detonation
would further limit the degree of impact
(again noting UXO/MEC detonation
would be limited to 10 events over 2
years). Behavioral changes in prey in
response to construction activities could
temporarily impact marine mammals’
foraging opportunities in a limited
portion of the foraging range but,
because of the relatively small area of
the habitat that may be affected at any
given time (e.g., around a pile being
driven), the impacts to marine mammal
habitat are not expected to cause
significant or long-term negative
consequences.
Cable presence and operation are not
anticipated to impact marine mammal
habitat as these would be buried, and
any electromagnetic fields emanating
from the cables are not anticipated to
result in consequences that would
impact marine mammals prey to the
extent they would be unavailable for
consumption.
The presence and operation of wind
turbines within the lease area could
have longer-term impacts on marine
mammal habitat, as the project would
result in the persistence of the
structures within marine mammal
habitat for more than 30 years. The
presence and operation of an extensive
number of structures such as wind
turbines are, in general, likely to result
in local and broader oceanographic
effects in the marine environment, and
may disrupt dense aggregations and
distribution of marine mammal
zooplankton prey through altering the
strength of tidal currents and associated
fronts, changes in stratification, primary
production, the degree of mixing, and
stratification in the water column (Chen
et al., 2021; Johnson et al., 2021;
Christiansen et al., 2022; Dorrell et al.,
2022). However, the scale of impacts is
difficult to predict and may vary from
hundreds of meters for local individual
turbine impacts (Schultze et al., 2020) to
large-scale dipoles of surface elevation
changes stretching hundreds of
kilometers (Christiansen et al., 2022).
As discussed in the Potential Effects
of the Specified Activities on Marine
Mammals and their Habitat section, the
Project would consist of no more than
132 foundations in the lease area. While
there are likely to be oceanographic
impacts from the presence and
operation of the Project, meaningful
oceanographic impacts relative to
stratification and mixing that would
significantly affect marine mammal
habitat and prey over large areas in key
foraging habitats during the effective
period of the proposed rule are not
anticipated (which considers 2–3 years
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
37680
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
of turbine operation). For these reasons,
if oceanographic features are affected by
wind farm operation during the course
of the proposed rule, the impact on
marine mammal habitat and their prey
is likely to be comparatively minor.
Mitigation To Reduce Impacts on All
Species
This proposed rulemaking includes a
variety of mitigation measures designed
to minimize impacts on all marine
mammals, with a focus on North
Atlantic right whales (the latter is
described in more detail below). For
pile driving and drilling of foundation
piles (i.e., foundation installation), and
UXO/MEC detonations, eight
overarching mitigation measures are
proposed, which are intended to reduce
both the number and intensity of marine
mammal takes: (1) seasonal/time of day
work restrictions; (2) use of multiple
PSOs to visually observe for marine
mammals (with any detection within
designated zones triggering delay or
shutdown); (3) use of PAM to
acoustically detect marine mammals,
with a focus on detecting baleen whales
(with any detection within designated
zones triggering delay or shutdown); (4)
implementation of clearance zones; (5)
implementation of shutdown zones; (6)
use of soft-start (impact pile driving
only); (7) use of noise attenuation
technology; (8) maintaining situational
awareness of marine mammal presence
through the requirement that any
marine mammal sighting(s) by Project
personnel must be reported to PSOs;
and (9) sound field verification
monitoring.
When foundation installation or
UXO/MEC detonation is conducted,
Park City Wind is committed to
reducing the noise levels generated to
the lowest levels practicable and
ensuring that they do not exceed a noise
footprint above that which was
modeled, assuming a 10-dB attenuation.
Use of a soft-start during impact pile
driving would allow animals to move
away from (i.e., avoid) the sound source
prior to applying higher hammer energy
levels needed to install the pile (Park
City Wind would not use a hammer
energy greater than necessary to install
piles). Clearance zone and shutdown
zone implementation, required when
marine mammals are within given
distances associated with certain impact
thresholds for all activities, would
reduce the magnitude and severity of
marine mammal take. The use of
multiple PSOs, PAM, and maintaining
awareness of marine mammal sightings
reported in the region would aid in
detecting marine mammals triggering
the implementation of the mitigation
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
measures. Further, UXO/MEC
detonation may only occur when all
other possible means of removal have
been deemed insufficient. The reporting
requirements, including SFV reporting,
will assist NMFS in identifying if
impacts beyond those analyzed in this
proposed rule are occurring, potentially
leading to the need to enact adaptive
management measures in addition to the
proposed mitigation measures.
Mysticetes
Six mysticete species (comprising six
stocks) of cetaceans (North Atlantic
right whale, humpback whale, fin
whale, sei whale, minke whale, and
blue whale) may be taken by
harassment. These species, to varying
extents, utilize coastal New England
waters, including the project area, for
the purposes of migration, foraging, and
socializing. Mysticetes are in the LowFrequency hearing group.
Behavioral data on mysticete
reactions to pile driving noise are scant.
Kraus et al. (2019) predicted that the
three main impacts of offshore wind
farms on marine mammals would
consist of displacement, behavioral
disruptions, and stress. Broadly, we can
look to studies that have focused on
other noise sources such as seismic
surveys and military training exercises,
which suggest that exposure to loud
signals can result in avoidance of the
sound source (or displacement if the
activity continues for a longer duration
in a place where individuals would
otherwise have been staying, which is
less likely for mysticetes in this area),
disruption of foraging activities (if they
are occurring in the area), local masking
around the source, associated stress
responses, and impacts to prey, as well
as TTS or PTS in some cases.
Mysticetes encountered in the Project
area are expected to be migrating
through and/or foraging within the
project area. The extent to which an
animal engages in these behaviors in the
area is species-specific and varies
seasonally. Many mysticetes are
expected to predominantly be migrating
through the project area towards or from
these feeding habitats. While we have
acknowledged above that mortality,
hearing impairment, or displacement of
mysticete prey species may result
locally from impact pile driving and
UXO/MEC detonations, given the very
short duration of and broad availability
of prey species in the area and the
availability of alternative suitable
foraging habitat for the mysticete
species most likely to be affected, any
impacts on mysticete foraging would be
expected to be minor. Whales
temporarily displaced from the
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
proposed project area would be
expected to have sufficient remaining
feeding habitat available to them, and
would not be prevented from feeding in
other areas within the biologically
important feeding habitats. In addition,
any displacement of whales or
interruption of foraging bouts would be
expected to be relatively temporary in
nature.
The potential for repeated exposures
is dependent upon the residency time of
whales, with migratory animals unlikely
to be exposed on repeated occasions and
animals remaining in the area to be
more likely exposed repeatedly. Where
relatively low amounts of speciesspecific proposed Level B harassment
are predicted (compared to the
abundance of each mysticete species or
stock, such as is indicated in Table 34)
and movement patterns suggest that
individuals would not necessarily linger
in a particular area for multiple days,
each predicted take likely represents an
exposure of a different individual; the
behavioral impacts would, therefore, be
expected to occur within a single day
within a year—an amount that would
not be expected to impact reproduction
or survival. Alternatively, species with
longer residence time in the project area
may be subject to repeated exposures
across multiple days.
In general, for this project, the
duration of exposures would not be
continuous throughout any given day
and pile driving would not occur on all
consecutive days within a given year,
due to weather delays or any number of
logistical constraints Park City Wind has
identified. Species-specific analysis
regarding potential for repeated
exposures and impacts is provided
below. Overall, we do not expect
impacts to whales within the project
area, including fin whales foraging in
the small fin whale feeding BIA that
partially overlaps the project area, to
affect the fitness of any large whales.
Blue, fin, humpback, minke, and sei
whales are the only mysticete species
for which PTS is anticipated and
proposed to be authorized. As described
previously, PTS for mysticetes from
some project activities may overlap
frequencies used for communication,
navigation, or detecting prey. However,
given the nature and duration of the
activity, the mitigation measures, and
likely avoidance behavior, any PTS is
expected to be of a small degree, would
be limited to frequencies where pile
driving noise is concentrated (i.e., only
a small subset of their expected hearing
range) and would not be expected to
impact reproductive success or survival.
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
North Atlantic Right Whales
North Atlantic right whales are listed
as endangered under the ESA and as
both Depleted and Strategic under the
MMPA. As described in the Effects to
Marine Mammals and Their Habitat
section, North Atlantic right whales are
threatened by a low population
abundance, higher than average
mortality rates, and lower than average
reproductive rates. Recent studies have
reported individuals showing high
stress levels (e.g., Corkeron et al., 2017)
and poor health, which has further
implications on reproductive success
and calf survival (Christiansen et al.,
2020; Stewart et al., 2021; Stewart et al.,
2022). As described below, a UME has
been designated for North Atlantic right
whales. Given this, the status of the
North Atlantic right whale population is
of heightened concern and, therefore,
merits additional analysis and
consideration. No serious injury or
mortality, nor Level A harassment, is
anticipated or proposed for
authorization for this species.
The rule would allow for the
authorization of up to 293 takes, by
Level B harassment only, over the fiveyear period, with a maximum annual
allowable take of 111 (equating to
approximately 32.8 percent of the stock
abundance, if each take were considered
to be of a different individual), with far
lower numbers than that expected in the
years without foundation installation
(e.g., years when only HRG surveys
would be occurring). The project area is
known as a migratory corridor for North
Atlantic right whales and given the
nature of migratory behavior (e.g.
continuous path), we anticipate that
many of the instances of take would not
represent repeat takes of any individual.
However, changing distribution of right
whales, and observations of increased
residency times in the broader southern
New England area indicate that some
subset of the individual whales exposed
could be taken up to a few times
annually.
Southern New England, including the
project area, may be a stopover site for
migrating North Atlantic right whales
moving to or from southeastern calving
grounds. Qualitative observations
include animals feeding and socializing
(Quinatna-Rizzo et al. 2021). The right
whales observed during the study
period were primarily concentrated in
the northeastern and southeastern
sections of the MA WEA during the
summer (June–August) and winter
(December–February). Right whale
distribution did shift to the west, closer
to the project area, into the RI/MA WEA
in the spring (March–May). Quintana-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
Rizzo et al. (2021) found that
approximately 23 percent of the right
whale population is present from
December through May, and the mean
residence time has tripled to an average
of 13 days during these months.
In general, North Atlantic right
whales in the project area are expected
to be engaging in migratory behavior.
Given the species’ migratory behavior in
the project area, we anticipate
individual whales would be typically
migrating through the area during most
months when foundation installation
and UXO/MEC detonation would occur
(given the seasonal restrictions on
foundation installation and UXO/MEC
detonation, rather than lingering for
extended periods of time). Other work
that involves either much smaller
harassment zones (e.g. HRG surveys) or
is limited in amount (cable landfall
construction) may also occur during
periods when North Atlantic right
whales are using the habitat for
migration. It is important to note the
activities occurring from December
through May that may impact North
Atlantic right whale would be primarily
HRG surveys, which would not result in
very high received levels. Across all
years, if an individual were to be
exposed during a subsequent year, the
impact of that exposure is likely
independent of the previous exposure
given the duration between exposures.
North Atlantic right whales are
presently experiencing an ongoing UME
(beginning in June 2017). Preliminary
findings support human interactions,
specifically vessel strikes and
entanglements, as the cause of death for
the majority of North Atlantic right
whales. Given the current status of the
North Atlantic right whale, the loss of
even one individual could significantly
impact the population. No mortality,
serious injury, or injury of North
Atlantic right whales as a result of the
project is expected or proposed to be
authorized. Any disturbance to North
Atlantic right whales due to Park City
Wind’s activities is expected to result in
temporary avoidance of the immediate
area of construction. As no injury,
serious injury, or mortality is expected
or authorized, and Level B harassment
of North Atlantic right whales will be
reduced to the level of least practicable
adverse impact through use of
mitigation measures, the authorized
number of takes of North Atlantic right
whales would not exacerbate or
compound the effects of the ongoing
UME in any way.
As described in the general Mysticetes
section above, foundation installation is
likely to result in the highest amount of
annual take and is of greatest concern
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37681
given loud source levels. This activity
would likely be limited to up to 113
days over a maximum of 3 years, during
times when, based on the best available
scientific data, North Atlantic right
whales are less frequently encountered
and are likely to be primarily migrating.
The potential types, severity, and
magnitude of impacts are also
anticipated to mirror that described in
the general Mysticetes section above,
including avoidance (the most likely
outcome), changes in foraging or
vocalization behavior, masking, a small
amount of TTS, and temporary
physiological impacts (e.g., change in
respiration, change in heart rate).
Importantly, the effects of the activities
proposed by Park City Wind are
expected to be sufficiently low-level and
localized to specific areas as to not
meaningfully impact important
behaviors such as migratory behavior of
North Atlantic right whales. These takes
are expected to result in temporary
behavioral reactions, such as slight
displacement (but not abandonment) of
migratory habitat or temporary cessation
of feeding. Further, given these
exposures are generally expected to
occur to different individual right
whales migrating through (i.e., many
individuals would not be impacted on
more than one day in a year), with some
subset potentially being exposed on no
more than a few days within the year,
they are unlikely to result in energetic
consequences that could affect
reproduction or survival of any
individuals.
Overall, NMFS expects that any
harassment of North Atlantic right
whales incidental to the specified
activities would not result in changes to
their migration patterns or foraging
success, as only temporary avoidance of
an area during construction is expected
to occur. As described previously, North
Atlantic right whales migrating through
and/or foraging in these areas are not
expected to remain in this habitat for
extensive durations, relative to habitats
to nearby or to the north such as
Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard or the
Great South Channel (known core
foraging habitats) (Quintana-Rizzo et al.,
2021), and any temporarily displaced
animals would be able to return to or
continue to travel through and forage in
these areas once activities have ceased.
Although acoustic masking may occur
in the vicinity of the foundation
installation activities, based on the
acoustic characteristics of noise
associated with pile driving (e.g.,
frequency spectra, short duration of
exposure) and construction surveys
(e.g., intermittent signals), NMFS
expects masking effects to be minimal
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
37682
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
(e.g., impact or vibratory pile driving) to
none (e.g., HRG surveys). In addition,
masking would likely only occur during
the period of time that a North Atlantic
right whale is in the relatively close
vicinity of pile driving, which is
expected to be intermittent within a
day, and confined to the months in
which North Atlantic right whales are at
lower densities and primarily moving
through the area, anticipated mitigation
effectiveness, and likely avoidance
behaviors. TTS is another potential form
of Level B harassment that could result
in brief periods of slightly reduced
hearing sensitivity affecting behavioral
patterns by making it more difficult to
hear or interpret acoustic cues within
the frequency range (and slightly above)
of sound produced during impact pile
driving; however, any TTS would likely
be of low amount, limited duration, and
limited to frequencies where most
construction noise is centered (below 2
kHz). NMFS expects that right whale
hearing sensitivity would return to preexposure levels shortly after migrating
through the area or moving away from
the sound source.
As described in the Potential Effects
to Marine Mammals and Their Habitat
section, the distance of the receiver to
the source influences the severity of
response with greater distances
typically eliciting less severe responses.
NMFS recognizes North Atlantic right
whales migrating could be pregnant
females (in the fall) and cows with older
calves (in spring) and that these animals
may slightly alter their migration course
in response to any foundation pile
driving; however, as described in the
Potential Effects to Marine Mammals
and Their Habitat section, we anticipate
that course diversion would be of small
magnitude. Hence, while some
avoidance of the pile driving activities
may occur, we anticipate any avoidance
behavior of migratory North Atlantic
right whales would be similar to that of
gray whales (Tyack et al., 1983), on the
order of hundreds of meters up to 1 to
2 km. This diversion from a migratory
path otherwise uninterrupted by the
Project’s activities is not expected to
result in meaningful energetic costs that
would impact annual rates of
recruitment of survival. NMFS expects
that North Atlantic right whales would
be able to avoid areas during periods of
active noise production while not being
forced out of this portion of their
habitat.
North Atlantic right whale presence
in the project area is year-round.
However, abundance during summer
months is lower compared to the winter
months with spring and fall serving as
‘‘shoulder seasons’’ wherein abundance
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
waxes (fall) or wanes (spring). Given
this year-round habitat usage, in
recognition that where and when
whales may actually occur during
project activities is unknown as it
depends on the annual migratory
behaviors, Park City Wind has proposed
and NMFS is proposing to require a
suite of mitigation measures designed to
reduce impacts to North Atlantic right
whales to the maximum extent
practicable. These mitigation measures
(e.g., seasonal/daily work restrictions,
vessel separation distances, reduced
vessel speed) would not only avoid the
likelihood of ship strikes but also would
minimize the severity of behavioral
disruptions by minimizing impacts (e.g.,
through sound reduction using
attenuation systems and reduced
temporal overlap of project activities
and North Atlantic right whales). This
would further ensure that the number of
takes by Level B harassment that are
estimated to occur are not expected to
affect reproductive success or
survivorship by detrimental impacts to
energy intake or cow/calf interactions
during migratory transit. However, even
in consideration of recent habitat-use
and distribution shifts, Park City Wind
would still be installing foundations
when the presence of North Atlantic
right whales is expected to be lower.
As described in the Description of
Marine Mammals in the Area of
Specified Activities section, Park City
Wind would be constructed within the
North Atlantic right whale migratory
corridor BIA, which represent areas and
months within which a substantial
portion of a species or population is
known to migrate. The Project lease area
is relatively small compared with the
migratory BIA area (approximately 411
km2 for OCS–A 0534 and 262 km2 in
OCS–A 0501 versus the size of the full
North Atlantic right whale migratory
BIA, 269,448 km2). Because of this,
overall North Atlantic right whale
migration is not expected to be
impacted by the proposed activities.
There are no known North Atlantic right
whale mating or calving areas within
the project area. Prey species are mobile
(e.g., calanoid copepods can initiate
rapid and directed escape responses)
and are broadly distributed throughout
the project area (noting again that North
Atlantic right whale prey is not
particularly concentrated in the project
area relative to nearby habitats).
Therefore, any impacts to prey that may
occur are also unlikely to impact marine
mammals.
The most significant measure to
minimize impacts to individual North
Atlantic right whales is the seasonal
moratorium on all foundation
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
installation activities from January 1
through April 30 (with no impact pile
driving or drilling scheduled in
December and no vibratory pile driving
in May and December) when North
Atlantic right whale abundance in the
project area is expected to be highest.
NMFS also expects this measure to
greatly reduce the potential for mothercalf pairs to be exposed to impact pile
driving noise above the Level B
harassment threshold during their
annual spring migration through the
project area from calving grounds to
primary foraging grounds (e.g., Cape
Cod Bay). UXO/MEC detonations would
also be restricted from December
through May. Further, NMFS expects
that exposures to North Atlantic right
whales would be reduced due to the
additional proposed mitigation
measures that would ensure that any
exposures above the Level B harassment
threshold would result in only shortterm effects to individuals exposed.
Pile driving, drilling, and UXO/MEC
detonations may only begin in the
absence of North Atlantic right whales
(based on visual and passive acoustic
monitoring). If pile driving, drilling, or
UXO/MEC detonations have
commenced, NMFS anticipates North
Atlantic right whales would avoid the
area, utilizing nearby waters to carry on
pre-exposure behaviors. However,
foundation installation activities must
be shut down if a North Atlantic right
whale is sighted at any distance unless
a shutdown is not feasible due to risk of
injury or loss of life. Shutdown may
occur anywhere if North Atlantic right
whales are seen within or beyond the
Level B harassment zone, further
minimizing the duration and intensity
of exposure. NMFS anticipates that if
North Atlantic right whales go
undetected and they are exposed to
foundation installation or UXO/MEC
detonation noise, it is unlikely a North
Atlantic right whale would approach
the sound source locations to the degree
that they would purposely expose
themselves to very high noise levels.
These measures are designed to avoid
PTS and also reduce the severity of
Level B harassment, including the
potential for TTS. While some TTS
could occur, given the proposed
mitigation measures (e.g., delay pile
driving upon a sighting or acoustic
detection and shutting down upon a
sighting or acoustic detection), the
potential for TTS to occur is low.
The proposed clearance and
shutdown measures are most effective
when detection efficiency is maximized,
as the measures are triggered by a
sighting or acoustic detection. To
maximize detection efficiency, Park City
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Wind proposed, and NMFS is proposing
to require, the combination of PAM and
visual observers. Park City Wind
proposed, and NMFS is proposing to
require, communication protocols with
other Project vessels, and other
heightened awareness efforts (e.g., daily
monitoring of North Atlantic right
whale sighting databases) such that as a
North Atlantic right whale approaches
the source (and thereby could be
exposed to higher noise energy levels),
PSO detection efficacy would increase,
the whale would be detected, and a
delay to commencing foundation
installation or shutdown (if feasible)
would occur. In addition, the
implementation of a soft-start for impact
pile driving would provide an
opportunity for whales to move away
from the source if they are undetected,
reducing received levels. The UXO/MEC
detonations mitigation measures
described above would further reduce
the potential to be exposed to high
received levels.
For HRG surveys, the maximum
distance to the Level B harassment
threshold is 178 m. The estimated take,
by Level B harassment only, associated
with HRG surveys is to account for any
North Atlantic right whale sightings
PSOs may miss when HRG acoustic
sources are active. However, because of
the short maximum distance to the
Level B harassment threshold, the
requirement that vessels maintain a
distance of 500 m from any North
Atlantic right whales, the fact whales
are unlikely to remain in close
proximity to an HRG survey vessel for
any length of time, and that the acoustic
source would be shutdown if a North
Atlantic right whale is observed within
500 m of the source, any exposure to
noise levels above the harassment
threshold (if any) would be very brief.
To further minimize exposures, rampup of sub-bottom profilers must be
delayed during the clearance period if
PSOs detect a North Atlantic right
whale (or any other ESA-listed species)
within 500 m of the acoustic source.
With implementation of the proposed
mitigation requirements, take by Level
A harassment is unlikely and, therefore,
not proposed for authorization.
Potential impacts associated with Level
B harassment would include low-level,
temporary behavioral modifications,
most likely in the form of avoidance
behavior. Given the high level of
precautions taken to minimize both the
amount and intensity of Level B
harassment on North Atlantic right
whales, it is unlikely that the
anticipated low-level exposures would
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
lead to reduced reproductive success or
survival.
Given the documented habitat use
within the area, the majority of the
individuals taken would be impacted on
only one day in a year, with a small
subset potentially impacted on no more
than a few days a year and, further, low
level impacts are generally expected
from any North Atlantic right whale
exposure. The magnitude and severity
of harassment are not expected to result
in impacts on the reproduction or
survival of any individuals, let alone
have impacts on annual rates of
recruitment or survival of this stock.
Given the magnitude and severity of
the impacts discussed above, and in
consideration of the proposed
mitigation and other information
presented, Park City Wind’s activities
are not expected to result in impacts on
the reproduction or survival of any
individuals, much less affect annual
rates of recruitment or survival. For
these reasons, we have preliminarily
determined that the take (by Level B
harassment only) anticipated and
proposed for authorization would have
a negligible impact on the North
Atlantic right whale.
Blue Whale
The blue whale, including the
Western North Atlantic stock, is listed
as Endangered under the ESA, and as
both Depleted and Strategic under the
MMPA. There are no known areas of
specific biological importance in or
around the project area, nor are there
any UMEs. The actual abundance of the
stock is likely significantly greater than
what is reflected in each SAR because,
as noted in the SARs, the most recent
population estimates are primarily
based on surveys conducted in U.S.
waters and the stock’s range extends
well beyond the U.S. EEZ. No serious
injury or mortality is anticipated or
proposed for authorization for this
species.
The rule would allow for the
authorization of up to 6 takes, by
harassment only, over the five-year
period. The maximum annual allowable
take by Level A harassment and Level
B harassment, would be 1 and 2,
respectively (combined, this annual take
(n=3) equates to approximately 0.7
percent of the stock abundance, if each
take were considered to be of a different
individual), with far lower numbers
than that expected in the years without
foundation installation (e.g., years when
only HR surveys would be occurring).
Based on the migratory nature of blue
whales and the fact that there are
neither feeding nor reproductive areas
documented in or near the project area,
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37683
and in consideration of the very low
number of predicted annual takes, it is
unlikely that the predicted instances of
takes would represent repeat takes of
any individual—in other words, each
take likely represents one whale
exposed on one day within a year.
With respect to the severity of those
individual takes by behavioral Level B
harassment, we would anticipate
impacts to be limited to low-level,
temporary behavioral responses with
avoidance and potential masking
impacts in the vicinity of the turbine
installation to be the most likely type of
response. Any potential PTS or TTS
would be concentrated at half or one
octave above the frequency band of pile
driving noise (most sound is below 2
kHz) which does not include the full
predicted hearing range of sei whales.
Any hearing ability temporarily
impaired from TTS is anticipated to
return to pre-exposure conditions
shortly after the exposures cease (e.g., if
the animal moves away or the source
stops). Any avoidance of the project area
due to the Project’s activities would be
expected to be temporary.
Given the magnitude and severity of
the impacts discussed above, and in
consideration of the proposed
mitigation and other information
presented, Park City Wind’s activities
are not expected to result in impacts on
the reproduction or survival of any
individuals, much less affect annual
rates of recruitment or survival. For
these reasons, we have preliminarily
determined that the take (by harassment
only) anticipated and proposed for
authorization would have a negligible
impact on the Western North Atlantic
stock of blue whales.
Fin Whales
The fin whale, including the Western
North Atlantic stock, is listed as
Endangered under the ESA, and as both
Depleted and Strategic under the
MMPA. No UME has been designated
for this species or stock. No serious
injury or mortality is anticipated or
proposed for authorization for this
species.
The rule would allow for the
authorization of up to 1,293 takes, by
harassment only, over the five-year
period. The maximum annual allowable
take by Level A harassment and Level
B harassment, would be 20 and 575,
respectively (combined, this annual take
(n=595) equates to approximately 8.7
percent of the stock abundance, if each
take were considered to be of a different
individual), with far lower numbers
than that expected in the years without
foundation installation (e.g., years when
only HR surveys would be occurring).
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
37684
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Given the project overlaps a small
portion of a fin whale feeding BIA active
in the months of the project, and the
New England is generally considered a
feeding area, it is likely that some subset
of the individual whales exposed could
be taken several times annually.
Level B harassment is expected to be
in the form of behavioral disturbance,
primarily resulting in avoidance of the
project area where foundation
installation is occurring, and some lowlevel TTS and masking that may limit
the detection of acoustic cues for
relatively brief periods of time. Any
potential PTS would be minor (limited
to a few dB) and any TTS would be of
short duration and concentrated at half
or one octave above the frequency band
of pile driving noise (most sound is
below 2 kHz) which does not include
the full predicted hearing range of fin
whales.
As described previously, the project
area slightly overlaps a small fin whale
feeding BIA that is active from March to
October. Foundation installations and
UXO/MEC detonations have seasonal
work restrictions such that the temporal
overlap between these project activities
and the active BIA timeframe would
exclude the months of March or April.
We anticipate that if foraging is
occurring in the project area and
foraging whales are exposed to noise
levels of sufficient strength, they could
temporarily cease foraging and move
elsewhere.
Given the magnitude and severity of
the impacts discussed above, and in
consideration of the proposed
mitigation and other information
presented, Park City Wind’s activities
are not expected to result in impacts on
the reproduction or survival of any
individuals, much less affect annual
rates of recruitment or survival. For
these reasons, we have preliminarily
determined that the take (by harassment
only) anticipated and proposed for
authorization would have a negligible
impact on the Western North Atlantic
stock of fin whales.
Humpback Whales
Humpback whales potentially
impacted by the Project’s activities do
not belong to a DPS that is listed as
threatened or endangered under the
ESA, but are designated as Strategic
under the MMPA. However, humpback
whales along the Atlantic Coast have
been experiencing an active UME as
elevated humpback whale mortalities
have occurred along the Atlantic coast
from Maine through Florida since
January 2016. Of the cases examined,
approximately 40 percent had evidence
of human interaction (ship strike or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
entanglement). The UME does not yet
provide cause for concern regarding
population-level impacts, and take from
ship strike and entanglement is not
proposed to be authorized. Despite the
UME, the relevant population of
humpback whales (the West Indies
breeding population, or DPS of which
the Gulf of Maine stock is a part)
remains stable at approximately 12,000
individuals.
The rule would allow for the
authorization of up to 790 takes, by
harassment only, over the five-year
period. The maximum annual allowable
take by Level A harassment and Level
B harassment, would be 16 and 330,
respectively (combined, this annual take
(n=346) equates to approximately 24.8
percent of the stock abundance, if each
take were considered to be of a different
individual), with far lower numbers
than that expected in the years without
foundation installation (e.g., years when
only HR surveys would be occurring).
Given that feeding is considered the
principal activity of humpback whales
in New England waters, it is likely that
some subset of the individual whales
exposed could be taken several times
annually.
Among the activities analyzed, impact
pile driving is likely to result in the
highest amount of Level A harassment
annual take of humpback whales (16
takes by Level A harassment for
construction schedule B; 3 annual takes
by Level A harassment for UXO/MEC
detonations). The maximum amount of
annual take proposed to be authorized,
by Level B harassment, is highest for
vibratory pile driving under
construction schedule B (295).
Humpback whales, similar to other
baleen whales, use southern New
England waters for foraging. Foraging
animals tend to remain in the area for
extended durations to capitalize on the
food sources. For example, Brown et al.
(2022) examined humpback whale
occurrence in the New York Bight area,
which is located south of the project
area but provides similar foraging
grounds, and demonstrated that
humpback whales exhibit extended
occupancy (mean 37.6 days) in the Bight
area and were likely to return from one
year to the next (mean 31.3 percent).
Whales were also seen at a variety of
other sites in the New York Bight within
the same year, suggesting that they may
occupy this broader area throughout the
feeding season. Assuming humpback
whales who are foraging in southern
New England waters within the project
area behave similarly, we expect that
the maximum annual instances of
predicted take by Level A harassment
and Level B harassment, respectively,
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
would consist of individuals exposed on
multiple days if they are utilizing the
area as foraging habitat. Also similar to
other baleen whales, if migrating, we
expect that individuals exposed to noise
levels from the Project above the
harassment thresholds once during
migration through the project area.
For all the reasons described in the
Mysticetes section above, we anticipate
any potential PTS and TTS would be
concentrated at half or one octave above
the frequency band of pile driving noise
(most sound is below 2 kHz) which does
not include the full predicted hearing
range of baleen whales. If TTS is
incurred, hearing sensitivity would
likely return to pre-exposure levels
shortly after exposure ends. Any
masking or physiological responses
would also be of low magnitude and
severity for reasons described above.
Given the magnitude and severity of
the impacts discussed above, and in
consideration of the proposed
mitigation and other information
presented, Park City Wind’s activities
are not expected to result in impacts on
the reproduction or survival of any
individuals, much less affect annual
rates of recruitment or survival. For
these reasons, we have preliminarily
determined that the take (by harassment
only) anticipated and proposed for
authorization would have a negligible
impact on the Gulf of Maine stock of
humpback whales.
Minke Whales
The minke whale, including the
Canadian East Coast stock, is not listed
under the ESA, nor as Depleted under
the MMPA. There are no known areas
of specific biological importance in or
adjacent to the project area, and no UME
has been designated for this species or
stock. No serious injury or mortality is
anticipated or proposed for
authorization for this species.
The rule would allow for the
authorization of up to 2,612 takes, by
harassment only, over the five-year
period. The maximum annual allowable
take by Level A harassment and Level
B harassment, would be 85 and 1,042,
respectively (combined, this annual take
(n=1,127) equates to approximately 5.1
percent of the stock abundance, if each
take were considered to be of a different
individual), with far lower numbers
than that expected in the years without
foundation installation (e.g., years when
only HR surveys would be occurring).
Because minke whales are migratory
and their known feeding areas are east
and north of the project area, they
would be more likely to be moving
through (with each take representing a
separate individual), though it is
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
possible that some subset of the
individual whales exposed could be
taken up to a few times annually.
There is a feeding BIA from March
through November to the north and east
of the project area (Southwestern Gulf of
Maine and George’s Bank, 54,341 km2).
The BIA does not overlap with the
project area. 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. 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 diseases. This
event does not provide cause for
concern regarding population level
impacts, as the likely population
abundance is greater than 21,000
whales.
We anticipate the impacts of this
harassment to follow those described in
the general Mysticetes section above.
Any potential PTS would be minor
(limited to a few dB) and any TTS
would be of short duration and
concentrated at half or one octave above
the frequency band of pile driving noise
(most sound is below 2 kHz) which does
not include the full predicted hearing
range of minke whales. Level B
harassment would be temporary, with
primary impacts being temporary
displacement of the project area but not
abandonment of any migratory or
foraging behavior. For these reasons, we
have preliminarily determined, in
consideration of all of the effects of the
Project’s activities combined, that the
proposed authorized take would have a
negligible impact on the Canadian East
Coast stock of minke whales.
Given the magnitude and severity of
the impacts discussed above, and in
consideration of the proposed
mitigation and other information
presented, Park City Wind’s activities
are not expected to result in impacts on
the reproduction or survival of any
individuals, much less affect annual
rates of recruitment or survival. For
these reasons, we have preliminarily
determined that the take (by harassment
only) anticipated and proposed for
authorization would have a negligible
impact on the Canadian Eastern Coastal
stock of minke whales.
Sei Whales
The sei whale, including the Nova
Scotia stock, is listed as Endangered
under the ESA, and as both Depleted
and Strategic under the MMPA. There
are no known areas of specific biological
importance in or adjacent to the project
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
area, nor has a UME been designated for
this species or stock. No serious injury
or mortality is anticipated or proposed
for authorization for this species.
The rule would allow for the
authorization of up to 146 takes, by
harassment only, over the five-year
period. The maximum annual allowable
take by Level A harassment and Level
B harassment, would be 2 and 53,
respectively (combined, this annual take
(n=55) equates to approximately 0.9
percent of the stock abundance, if each
take were considered to be of a different
individual), with far lower numbers
than that expected in the years without
foundation installation (e.g., years when
only HR surveys would be occurring).
Because sei whales are migratory and
their known feeding areas are east and
north of the project area, they would be
more likely to be moving through (with
each take representing a separate
individual), though it is possible that
some subset of the individual whales
exposed could be taken up to a few
times annually.
There is a feeding BIA (Gulf of Maine,
56,609 km2) to the far east and to the
north of the project area from MayNovember, the project area does not
overlap with the BIA. There are no
UMEs. The actual abundance of this
stock is likely significantly greater than
what is reflected in each SAR because,
as noted in the SARs, the most recent
population estimate is primarily based
on surveys conducted in U.S. waters
and the stock’s range extends well
beyond the U.S. Exclusive Economic
Zone (EEZ).
To a small degree, sei whales may
forage in the project area, although the
currently identified foraging habitats
(BIAs) are significantly further away
from the project area by a few hundred
kilometers (LaBrecque et al., 2015).
With respect to the severity of those
individual takes by behavioral Level B
harassment, we would anticipate
impacts to be limited to low-level,
temporary behavioral responses with
avoidance and potential masking
impacts in the vicinity of the turbine
installation to be the most likely type of
response. Any potential PTS and TTS
would likely be concentrated at half or
one octave above the frequency band of
pile driving noise (most sound is below
2 kHz) which does not include the full
predicted hearing range of sei whales.
Moreover, any TTS would be temporary.
Any avoidance of the project area due
to the Project’s activities would be
expected to be temporary.
Given the magnitude and severity of
the impacts discussed above, and in
consideration of the proposed
mitigation and other information
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37685
presented, Park City Wind’s activities
are not expected to result in impacts on
the reproduction or survival of any
individuals, much less affect annual
rates of recruitment or survival. For
these reasons, we have preliminarily
determined that the take (by harassment
only) anticipated and proposed for
authorization would have a negligible
impact on the Nova Scotia stock of sei
whales.
Odontocetes
In this section, we include
information here that applies to all of
the odontocete species and stocks
addressed below. Odontocetes include
dolphins, porpoises, and all other
whales possessing teeth and we further
divide them into the following
subsections: sperm whales, small
whales and dolphins, and harbor
porpoise. These sub-sections include
more specific information, as well as
conclusions for each stock represented.
All of the takes of odontocetes
proposed for authorization incidental to
the Project’s specified activities are by
pile driving, drilling, UXO/MEC
detonations, and HRG surveys. No
serious injury or mortality is anticipated
or proposed. We anticipate that, given
ranges of individuals (i.e., that some
individuals remain within a small area
for some period of time), and nonmigratory nature of some odontocetes in
general (especially as compared to
mysticetes), these takes are more likely
to represent multiple exposures of a
smaller number of individuals than is
the case for mysticetes, though some
takes may also represent one-time
exposures to an individual.
Foundation installation is likely to
disturb odontocetes to the greatest
extent, compared to UXO/MEC
detonations and HRG surveys. While we
do expect animals to avoid the area
during foundation installation and
UXO/MEC detonations, their habitat
range is extensive compared to the area
ensonified during these activities. In
addition, as described above, UXO/MEC
detonations are instantaneous; therefore,
any disturbance would be very limited
in time.
As described earlier, Level B
harassment may include direct
disruptions in behavioral patterns (e.g.,
avoidance, changes in vocalizations
(from masking) or foraging), as well as
those associated with stress responses or
TTS. Odontocetes are highly mobile
species and, similar to mysticetes,
NMFS expects any avoidance behavior
to be limited to the area near the sound
source. While masking could occur
during foundation installation, it would
only occur in the vicinity of and during
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
37686
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
the duration of the activity, and would
not generally occur in a frequency range
that overlaps most odontocete
communication or any echolocation
signals. The mitigation measures (e.g.,
use of sound attenuation systems,
implementation of clearance and
shutdown zones) would also minimize
received levels such that the severity of
any behavioral response would be
expected to be less than exposure to
unmitigated noise exposure.
Any masking or TTS effects are
anticipated to be of low-severity. First,
the frequency range of pile driving, the
most impactful activity conducted by
Park City Wind in terms of response
severity, falls within a portion of the
frequency range of most odontocete
vocalizations. However, odontocete
vocalizations span a much wider range
than the low frequency construction
activities proposed for the Project. As
described above, recent studies suggest
odontocetes have a mechanism to selfmitigate (i.e., reduce hearing sensitivity)
the impacts of noise exposure, which
could potentially reduce TTS impacts.
Any masking or TTS is anticipated to be
limited and would typically only
interfere with communication within a
portion of an odontocete’s range and as
discussed earlier, the effects would only
be expected to be of a short duration
and, for TTS, a relatively small degree.
Furthermore, odontocete echolocation
occurs predominantly at frequencies
significantly higher than low frequency
construction activities. Therefore, there
is little likelihood that threshold shift
would interfere with feeding behaviors.
For HRG surveys, the sources operate at
higher frequencies than foundation
installation activities and UXO/MEC
detonations. However, sounds from
these sources attenuate very quickly in
the water column, as described above.
Therefore, any potential for PTS and
TTS and masking is very limited.
Further, odontocetes (e.g., common
dolphins, spotted dolphins, bottlenose
dolphins) have demonstrated an affinity
to bow-ride actively surveying HRG
surveys. Therefore, the severity of any
harassment, if it does occur, is
anticipated to be minimal based on the
lack of avoidance previously
demonstrated by these species.
The waters off the coast of
Massachusetts are used by several
odontocete species. However, none
except the sperm whale are listed under
the ESA and there are no known
habitats of particular importance. In
general, odontocete habitat ranges are
far-reaching along the Atlantic coast of
the U.S., and the waters off of New
York, including the project area, do not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
contain any particularly unique
odontocete habitat features.
Sperm Whales
The sperm whale, including the North
Atlantic stock, is listed as endangered
under the ESA, and as both Depleted
and Strategic under the MMPA. The
North Atlantic stock of sperm whales
spans the East Coast out into oceanic
waters well beyond the U.S. EEZ.
Although listed as endangered, the
primary threat faced by the sperm whale
across its range (i.e., commercial
whaling) has been eliminated.
Additionally, sperm whales in the
western North Atlantic were little
affected by modern whaling (Taylor et
al., 2008). Current potential threats to
the species globally include vessel
strikes, entanglement in fishing gear,
anthropogenic noise, exposure to
contaminants, climate change, and
marine debris. There is no currently
reported trend for the stock and,
although the species is listed as
endangered under the ESA, there are no
specific issues with the status of the
stock that cause particular concern (e.g.,
no UMEs). There are no known areas of
biological importance (e.g., critical
habitat or BIAs) in or near the project
area. No mortality or serious injury is
anticipated or proposed to be authorized
for this species.
The rule would allow for the
authorization of up to 297 takes, by
harassment only, over the five-year
period. The maximum annual allowable
take by Level A harassment and Level
B harassment, would be 2 and 140,
respectively (combined, this annual take
(n=142) equates to approximately 3.3
percent of the stock abundance, if each
take were considered to be of a different
individual), with far lower numbers
than that expected in the years without
foundation installation (e.g., years when
only HR surveys would be occurring).
Given sperm whale’s preference for
deeper waters, especially for feeding, it
is unlikely that individuals would
remain in the project area for multiple
days, and therefore the estimated takes
likely represent exposures of different
individuals on one day each annually.
If sperm whales do happen to be
present in the project area during any
activities related to the Project, they
would likely be only transient visitors
and not engaging in any significant
behaviors. Further, the potential for PTS
and TSS is low for reasons described in
the general Odontocete section but, if it
does occur, any hearing shift would be
small and, in the case of TTS, would be
of a short duration. Because whales are
not expected to be foraging in the
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
project area, any TTS is not expected to
interfere with foraging behavior.
Given the magnitude and severity of
the impacts discussed above, and in
consideration of the proposed
mitigation and other information
presented, Park City Wind’s activities
are not expected to result in impacts on
the reproduction or survival of any
individuals, much less affect annual
rates of recruitment or survival. For
these reasons, we have preliminarily
determined that the take (by harassment
only) anticipated and proposed for
authorization would have a negligible
impact on the North Atlantic stock of
sperm whales.
Dolphins and Small Whales (Including
Delphinids, Beaked Whales, and Dwarf
and Pygmy Sperm Whales)
The twenty-six species and stocks
included in this group (which are
indicated in Table 5 in the Delphinidae,
Ziphiidae, and Kogiidae families) are
not listed under the ESA, however,
Pantropical spotted dolphins and
spinner dolphins are listed as Depleted
under the MMPA and Short-finned pilot
whales are listed as Strategic under the
MMPA. There are no known areas of
specific biological importance in or
around the project area for any of these
species, nor has a UME been designated
for any. No serious injury or mortality
is anticipated or proposed for
authorization for this species.
The eighteen Delphinid species with
take proposed for authorization for the
Project are Atlantic spotted dolphin,
Atlantic white-sided dolphin, bottlenose
dolphin, Clymene dolphin, common
dolphin, long-finned pilot whale, shortfinned pilot whale, Risso’s dolphin,
false killer whale, Fraser’s dolphin,
killer whale, melon-headed whale,
pantropical spotted dolphin, pygmy
killer whale, rough-toothed dolphin,
spinner dolphin, striped dolphin, and
white-beaked dolphin.
Many of these Delphinid species are
rare for the project area and whose
preferred habitat is at much deeper
water depths or different water
temperatures than what are found
within the project area. For instance, the
Clymene dolphin, false killer whale,
Fraser’s dolphin, melon-headed whale,
pantropical spotted dolphin, pygmy
killer whale, rough-toothed dolphin,
and spinner dolphin prefer tropical to
subtropical waters but have, on
occasion, been sighted in deep waters at
or beyond the continental shelf break in
the New England area during the
summer months (Hayes et al., 2019;
Hayes et al., 2020). Striped dolphins are
found in warm-temperate to tropical
waters but prefer continental slope
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
waters offshore to the Gulf Stream,
when in the New England area they
have only been sighted at water depths
deeper than 900 m (Hayes et al., 2020).
White-beaked dolphins prefer colder
waters and are found more northerly
than the project area in the western Gulf
of Maine and around Cape Cod (Hayes
et. al, 2020). Killer whales, a rarity in
the New England area, prefer much
deeper and colder waters than those in
the New England area (Waring et al.,
2015).
For these eighteen Delphinid species,
the rule would allow for the
authorization of up to between 10 and
86,316 takes (depending on species), by
harassment only, over the five-year
period. The maximum annual allowable
take for these species by Level A
harassment and Level B harassment,
would range from 0 to 9 and 4 to 41,230,
respectively (combined, this annual take
(n= 4 to 41,239) equates to
approximately <0.1 to 23.9 percent of
the stock abundance, if each take were
considered to be of a different
individual), with far lower numbers
than that expected in the years without
foundation installation (e.g., years when
only HR surveys would be occurring).
For common dolphins, given the
higher number of takes relative to the
stock abundance, while some of the
takes likely represent exposures of
different individuals on one day a year,
it is likely that some subset of the
individuals exposed could be taken
several times annually. For Atlantic
spotted dolphin, Atlantic white-sided
dolphin, Bottlenose dolphin, Long and
Short-finned pilot whale, and Risso’s
dolphin, given the number of takes,
while many of the takes likely represent
exposures of different individuals on
one day a year, some subset of the
individuals exposed could be taken up
to a few times annually. For the
remaining Delphinids, given they are
considered rare or uncommon in the
area, it is unlikely that individuals
would remain in the project area for
multiple days, and therefore the
estimated takes likely represent
exposures of different individuals on
one day each annually.
The six Ziphiidae species with take
proposed for authorization for the
Project are Cuvier’s beaked whale,
Blainville’s beaked whale, Gervais’
beaked whale, Sowerby’s beaked whale,
True’s beaked whale, and Northern
bottlenose whale. The two species of
Kogiidae with take proposed for
authorization for the Project are the
dwarf sperm whale and pygmy sperm
whale. These species are rare for the
project area and prefer habitat at much
deeper water depths than what are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
found within the project area. For
instance, the beaked whales and
Kogiidae species have been sighted in
deep waters at or beyond the
continental shelf break in the New
England area (Hayes et al., 2020). The
Northern bottlenose whales are
extremely uncommon or rare in waters
of the U.S. and are rarely in waters less
than 2,000 m deep (Waring et al., 2015).
For these eight species, the rule
would allow for the authorization of up
to between 6 and 12 takes for each
species, by harassment only, over the 5year period. The maximum annual
allowable take for these species by Level
A harassment and Level B harassment,
would range from 0 to 2 and 2 to 4,
respectively (combined, this annual take
(n=3 to 4) equates to approximately <0.1
percent of the stock abundance for each
species, if each take were considered to
be of a different individual), with far
lower numbers than that expected in the
years without foundation installation
(e.g., years when only HR surveys
would be occurring). Given this species
is considered rare in the area and
prefers deeper waters, especially for
feeding, it is unlikely that individuals
would remain in the project area for
multiple days, and therefore the
estimated takes likely represent
exposures of different individuals on
one day each annually.
The number of takes, likely movement
patterns of the affected species, and the
intensity of any Level A or B
harassments, combined with the
availability of alternate nearby foraging
habitat suggests that the likely impacts
would not impact the reproduction or
survival of any individuals. Some
species, such as the common dolphin,
are gregarious in nature (i.e., travel in
large groups) with high densities in the
project area, which results in a
relatively higher amount of take. While
delphinids may be taken on several
occasions, none of these species are
known to have small home ranges
within the project area or known to be
particularly sensitive to anthropogenic
noise. The potential for PTS in dolphins
and small whales is very low and, if
PTS does occur, would occur to a
limited number of individuals, be of
small degree, and would be limited to
the frequency ranges of the activity
which does not span across most of
their hearing range. Some TTS can also
occur but, again, it would be limited to
the frequency ranges of the activity and
any loss of hearing sensitivity is
anticipated to return to pre-exposure
conditions shortly after the animals
move away from the source or the
source ceases. Beaked whales are known
to be particularly sensitive to
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37687
anthropogenic noise (e.g., Southall et
al., 2017; Clowewiak et al., 2017);
however, the project area does not
contain primary beaked whale habitat
and only 2–3 groups of beaked whales
could be harassed by Project activities.
Further, beaked whales are deep diver
foragers and the shallow-water project
area does not contain suitable beaked
whale foraging habitat. Hence, no
foraging impacts are anticipated.
Given the magnitude and severity of
the impacts discussed above, and in
consideration of the proposed
mitigation and other information
presented, Park City Wind’s activities
are not expected to result in impacts on
the reproduction or survival of any
individuals, much less affect annual
rates of recruitment or survival. For
these reasons, we have preliminarily
determined that the take (by harassment
only) anticipated and proposed for
authorization would have a negligible
impact on all of the species and stocks
addressed in this section.
Harbor Porpoises
The Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy stock
of harbor porpoises, which is not listed
as Threatened or Endangered under the
ESA or as Depleted under the MMPA,
is found predominantly in northern U.S.
coastal waters (less than 150 m depth)
and up into Canada’s Bay of Fundy
(between New Brunswick and Nova
Scotia). Although the population trend
is not known, there are no UMEs or
other factors that cause particular
concern for this stock. No mortality or
non-auditory injury are anticipated or
proposed for authorization for this
stock.
The rule would allow for the
authorization of up to 6,549 takes, by
harassment only, over the five-year
period. The maximum annual allowable
take by Level A harassment and Level
B harassment, would be 136 and 2,507,
respectively (combined, this annual take
(n=2,643) equates to approximately 2.8
percent of the stock abundance, if each
take were considered to be of a different
individual), with far lower numbers
than that expected in the years without
foundation installation (e.g., years when
only HR surveys would be occurring).
Given the number of takes, while many
of the takes likely represent exposures
of different individuals on one day a
year, some subset of the individuals
exposed could be taken up to a few
times annually.
Regarding the severity of takes by
behavioral Level B harassment, because
harbor porpoises are particularly
sensitive to noise, it is likely that a fair
number of the responses could be of a
moderate nature, particularly to pile
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
37688
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
driving. In response to pile driving,
harbor porpoises are likely to avoid the
area during construction, as previously
demonstrated in Tougaard et al. (2009)
in Denmark, in Dahne et al. (2013) in
Germany, and in Vallejo et al. (2017) in
the United Kingdom, although a study
by Graham et al. (2019) may indicate
that the avoidance distance could
decrease over time. However,
foundation installation is scheduled to
occur off the coast of Massachusetts
and, given alternative foraging areas,
any avoidance of the area by individuals
is not likely to impact the reproduction
or survival of any individuals. Given
only 1 UXO/MEC would be detonated
on any given day and only up to 10
UXO/MEC could be detonated under the
requested LOA, any behavioral response
would be brief and of a low severity.
With respect to PTS and TTS, the
effects on an individual are likely
relatively low given the frequency bands
of pile driving (most energy below 2
kHz) compared to harbor porpoise
hearing (150 Hz to 160 kHz peaking
around 40 kHz). Specifically, TTS is
unlikely to impact hearing ability in
their more sensitive hearing ranges, or
the frequencies in which they
communicate and echolocate. We
expect any PTS that may occur to be
within the very low end of their hearing
range where harbor porpoises are not
particularly sensitive and any PTS
would be of small magnitude. As such,
any PTS would not interfere with key
foraging or reproductive strategies
necessary for reproduction or survival.
While harbor porpoises are likely to
avoid the area during any of the
Project’s construction activities, as
demonstrated during European wind
farm construction, the time of year in
which work would occur is when
harbor porpoises are not in highest
abundance (May through December),
and any work that does occur would not
result in the species’ abandonment of
the waters off of Massachusetts.
Given the magnitude and severity of
the impacts discussed above, and in
consideration of the proposed
mitigation and other information
presented, Park City Wind’s activities
are not expected to result in impacts on
the reproduction or survival of any
individuals, much less affect annual
rates of recruitment or survival. For
these reasons, we have preliminarily
determined that the take (by harassment
only) anticipated and proposed for
authorization would have a negligible
impact on the Gulf of Maine/Bay of
Fundy stock of harbor porpoises.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
Phocids (Harbor Seals, Gray Seals, Harp
Seals, and Hooded Seal)
The harbor seal, gray seal, harp seal,
and hooded seal are not listed under the
ESA, nor designated as depleted under
the MMPA. There are no known areas
of specific biological importance in or
around the project area. A UME been
designated for harbor seals and gray
seals and is described further below. No
serious injury or mortality is anticipated
or proposed for authorization for this
species.
For the four seal species, the rule
would allow for the authorization of up
to between 3 and 24,588 takes for each
species, by harassment only, over the 5year period. The maximum annual
allowable take for these species by Level
A harassment and Level B harassment,
would range from 0 to 17 and 1 to 9,835,
respectively (combined, this annual take
(n=1 to 9,852) equates to approximately
<0.1 to 16.1 percent of the stock
abundance, if each take were considered
to be of a different individual), with far
lower numbers than that expected in the
years without foundation installation
(e.g., years when only HR surveys
would be occurring). Though gray seals
and harbor seals are considered
migratory and no specific feeding areas
have been designated in the area, the
higher number of takes relative to the
stock abundance suggests that while
some of the takes likely represent
exposures of different individuals on
one day a year, it is likely that some
subset of the individuals exposed could
be taken several times annually.
Similarly, while harp seals are
considered migratory and no specific
feeding areas have been designated in
the area, the comparatively higher
number of takes suggests that takes
while many of the takes likely represent
exposures of different individuals on
one day a year, some subset of the
individuals exposed could be taken up
to a few times annually. For hooded
seals, given this species is considered
rare in the area, it is unlikely that
individuals would remain in the project
area for multiple days, and therefore the
estimated takes likely represent
exposures of different individuals on
one day each annually.
Harbor, gray, and harp seals occur in
Massachusetts waters most often in
winter (December through May), when
most foundation installation and UXO/
MEC detonations would not occur due
to seasonal restrictions on conducting
these activities).
Seals are also more likely to be close
to shore (e.g., closer to the edge of the
area ensonified above NMFS’
harassment threshold), such that
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
exposure to foundation installation
would be expected to be at
comparatively lower levels. Take of
these species is noise from pile driving,
drilling, UXO/MEC detonations, and
HRG surveys. As described in the
Potential Effects to Marine Mammals
and Their Habitat section, construction
of wind farms in Europe resulted in
pinnipeds temporarily avoiding
construction areas but returning within
short time frames after construction was
complete (Carroll et al., 2010; Hamre et
al., 2011; Hastie et al., 2015; Russell et
al., 2016; Brasseur et al., 2010). Effects
on pinnipeds that are taken by Level B
harassment in the project area would
likely be limited to reactions such as
increased swimming speeds, increased
surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if
such activity were occurring). Most
likely, individuals would simply move
away from the sound source and be
temporarily displaced from those areas
(Lucke et al., 2006; Edren et al., 2010;
Skeate et al., 2012; Russell et al., 2016).
Given the low anticipated magnitude of
impacts from any given exposure (e.g.,
temporary avoidance), even repeated
Level B harassment across a few days of
some small subset of individuals, which
could occur, is unlikely to result in
impacts on the reproduction or survival
of any individuals. Moreover, pinnipeds
would benefit from the mitigation
measures described in the Proposed
Mitigation section.
As described above, noise from UXO/
MEC detonation is low frequency and,
while any PTS and TTS that does occur
would fall within the lower end of
pinniped hearing ranges (50 Hz to 86
kHz), PTS and TTS would not occur at
frequencies where pinniped hearing is
most sensitive. In summary, any PTS
and TSS would be of small degree and
not occur across the entire, or even most
sensitive, hearing range. Hence, any
impacts from PTS and TTS are likely to
be of low severity and not interfere with
behaviors critical to reproduction or
survival.
Elevated numbers of harbor seal and
gray seal mortalities were first observed
in July 2018 and occurred across Maine,
New Hampshire, and Massachusetts
until 2020. Based on tests conducted so
far, the main pathogen found in the
seals belonging to that UME was
phocine distemper virus, although
additional testing to identify other
factors that may be involved in this
UME are underway. Currently, the only
active UME is occurring in Maine with
some harbor and gray seals testing
positive for highly pathogenic avian
influenza (HPAI) H5N1. Although
elevated strandings continue, neither
UME (alone or in combination) provide
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
cause for concern regarding populationlevel impacts to any of these stocks. For
harbor seals, the population abundance
is over 61,000 and annual M/SI (339) is
well below PBR (1,729) (Hayes et al.,
2020). The population abundance for
gray seals in the United States is over
27,000, with an estimated overall
abundance, including seals in Canada,
of approximately 450,000. In addition,
the abundance of gray seals is likely
increasing in the U.S. Atlantic, as well
as in Canada (Hayes et al., 2020). For
harp seals (no recent UME), the total
U.S. fishery-related mortality and
serious injury for this stock is very low
relative to the stock size and can be
considered insignificant and
approaching zero mortality and serious
injury rate (Hayes et al., 2022). The harp
seal stock abundance appears to have
stabilized (Hayes et al., 2022).
Given the magnitude and severity of
the impacts discussed above, and in
consideration of the proposed
mitigation and other information
presented, Park City Wind’s activities
are not expected to result in impacts on
the reproduction or survival of any
individuals, much less affect annual
rates of recruitment or survival. For
these reasons, we have preliminarily
determined that the take (by harassment
only) anticipated and proposed for
authorization would have a negligible
impact on harbor, gray, harp, or hooded
seals.
Preliminary Negligible Impact
Determination
No mortality or serious injury is
anticipated to occur or proposed to be
authorized. As described in the
preliminary analysis above, the impacts
resulting from the Project’s activities
cannot be reasonably expected to, and
are not reasonably likely to, adversely
affect any of the species or stocks for
which take is proposed for authorization
through effects on annual rates of
recruitment or survival. 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
mitigation and monitoring measures,
NMFS preliminarily finds that the
marine mammal take from all of Park
City Wind’s specified activities
combined 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
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
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 less 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.
NMFS proposes to authorize
incidental take (by Level A harassment
and/or Level B harassment) of 38
species of marine mammal (with 38
managed stocks). The maximum number
of instances of takes by combined Level
A and Level B harassments possible
within any one year and proposed for
authorization relative to the best
available population abundance is less
than one-third for all species and stocks
potentially impacted (Table 34).
Specific to North Atlantic right whales,
NMFS is proposing to authorize an
amount of annual take (n=111), which,
if one assumes each estimated instance
of take represents a different individual,
is close to, but does not exceed small
numbers. While migratory behavior in
the project area suggests that many of
the predicted instances of take of North
Atlantic right whales would be to
different individual whales (and each of
those whales would be taken on one day
annually), given changing distribution
of right whales, and observations of
increased residency times in the broader
area, some subset of the individual
whales exposed could be taken up to a
few times annually, further lower the
percentage of the population actually
taken.
For five species, there are no current
abundance estimates available; hence
the percentage of the population taken
is unknown. However, these constitute
rare species and only a small amount of
take is proposed for authorization each
year. For three of these species, no more
than 5 takes per year are proposed for
authorization. For the melon-headed
whale and Fraser’s dolphin, a maximum
of 109 and 192 exposures may occur.
This represents one average group size;
and it is reasonable to assume that 3 or
more groups could occur in the North
Atlantic (one group is 1⁄3 of 3 groups).
Hence, the amount of take for all rare
species with unknown populations can
reasonably be considered a small
number.
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37689
Based on the analysis contained
herein of the proposed activities
(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 (ESA)
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal
agency insure that any action it
authorizes, funds, or carries out is not
likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any endangered or
threatened species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
designated critical habitat. To ensure
ESA compliance for the promulgation of
rulemakings, NMFS consults internally
whenever we propose to authorize take
for endangered or threatened species, in
this case with the NMFS Greater
Atlantic Regional Field Office (GARFO).
NMFS is proposing to authorize the
take of five marine mammal species
which are listed under the ESA: the
North Atlantic right, sei, fin, blue, and
sperm whales. The Permit and
Conservation Division requested
initiation of Section 7 consultation on
May 9, 2023, with GARFO for the
issuance of this proposed rulemaking.
NMFS will conclude the Endangered
Species Act consultation prior to
reaching a determination regarding the
proposed issuance of the authorization.
The proposed regulations and any
subsequent LOA(s) would be
conditioned such that, in addition to
measures included in those documents,
Park City Wind would also be required
to abide by the reasonable and prudent
measures and terms and conditions of a
Biological Opinion and Incidental Take
Statement, issued by NMFS, pursuant to
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
Proposed Promulgation
As a result of these preliminary
determinations, NMFS proposes to
promulgate a LOA to Park City Wind
authorizing take, by Level A harassment
and Level B harassment, incidental to
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
37690
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
construction activities associated with
the New England Wind project offshore
of Massachusetts for a 5-year period
from March 27, 2025, through March 26,
2030, provided the previously
mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting requirements are incorporated.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Request for Additional Information and
Public Comments
NMFS requests interested persons to
submit comments, information, and
suggestions concerning Park City
Wind’s request and the proposed
regulations (see ADDRESSES). All
comments will be reviewed and
evaluated as we prepare the final rule
and make final determinations on
whether to issue the requested
authorization. This proposed rule and
referenced documents provide all
environmental information relating to
our proposed action for public review.
Recognizing, as a general matter, that
this action is one of many current and
future wind energy actions, we invite
comment on the relative merits of the
IHA, single-action rule/LOA, and
programmatic multi-action rule/LOA
approaches, including potential marine
mammal take impacts resulting from
this and other related wind energy
actions and possible benefits resulting
from regulatory certainty and efficiency.
Classification
Pursuant to the procedures
established to implement Executive
Order 12866, the Office of Management
and Budget has determined that this
proposed rule is not significant.
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the
Chief Counsel for Regulation of the
Department of Commerce has certified
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration that this
proposed rule, if adopted, would not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
Park City Wind is the sole entity that
would be subject to the requirements in
these proposed regulations, and Park
City Wind is not a small governmental
jurisdiction, small organization, or small
business, as defined by the RFA. Under
the RFA, governmental jurisdictions are
considered to be small if they are
governments of cities, counties, towns,
townships, villages, school districts, or
special districts, with a population of
less than 50,000. Because of this
certification, a regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required and none has
been prepared.
Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, no person is required to respond
to nor shall a person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) unless that
collection of information displays a
currently valid Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) control number.
These requirements have been approved
by OMB under control number 0648–
0151 and include applications for
regulations, subsequent LOA, and
reports. Send comments regarding any
aspect of this data collection, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to
NMFS.
The Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA) requires Federal actions within
and outside the coastal zone that have
reasonably foreseeable effects on any
coastal use or natural resource of the
coastal zone be consistent with the
enforceable policies of a State’s
federally approved coastal management
program. 16 U.S.C. 1456(c).
Additionally, regulations implementing
the CZMA require non-Federal
applicants for Federal licenses or
permits to submit a consistency
certification to the State that declares
that the proposed activity complies with
the enforceable policies of the State’s
federally approved coastal management
program and will be conducted in a
manner consistent with such program.
In June 2020, Park City Wind
submitted Federal consistency
certifications to the Massachusetts
Coastal Zone Management’s (MA CZM)
and to the Rhode Island Coastal
Resources Management Council (CRMC)
seeking concurrence that the
construction, operations, and
decommissioning activities of the
proposed Project is consistent with the
enforceable policies of each State’s
federally-approved coastal management
program. A revised draft of the
consistency certifications dated June
2022 were prepared and submitted to
the states and is appended into Park
City Wind’s Construction and Operation
Plan.
NMFS has determined that Park City
Wind’s application for an authorization
to allow the incidental, but not
intentional, take of small numbers of
marine mammals on the outer
continental shelf of the Atlantic Ocean
is an unlisted activity and, thus, is not,
at this time, subject to Federal
consistency requirements in the absence
of the receipt and prior approval of an
unlisted activity review request from the
State by the Director of NOAA’s Office
for Coastal Management. This
determination does not excuse Park City
Wind from responsibility to seek
concurrence from the State on other
Federal permits, approvals, or actions
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
that might be subject to consistency
review pursuant to the CZMA.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 217
Administrative practice and
procedure, Endangered and threatened
species, Fish, Fisheries, Marine
mammals, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife.
Dated: May 30, 2023.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
Accordingly, NOAA proposes to
amend 50 CFR part 217 as follows:
PART 217—REGULATIONS
GOVERNING THE TAKING AND
IMPORTING OF MARINE MAMMALS
1. The authority citation for part 217
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., unless
otherwise noted.
2. Add subpart GG, consisting of
§§ 217.320 through 217.329, to read as
follows:
■
Subpart GG—Taking Marine Mammals
Incidental to the New England Wind Project
Offshore of Massachusetts
Sec.
217.320 Specified activity and specified
geographical region.
217.321 Effective dates.
217.322 Permissible methods of taking.
217.323 Prohibitions.
217.324 Mitigation requirements.
217.325 Requirements for monitoring and
reporting.
217.326 Letter of Authorization.
217.327 Modifications of Letter of
Authorization.
217.328–217.329 [Reserved]
Subpart GG—Taking Marine Mammals
Incidental to the New England Wind
Project Offshore of Massachusetts
§ 217.320 Specified activity and specified
geographical region.
(a) Regulations in this subpart apply
only to the taking of marine mammals
that occurs incidental to activities
associated with construction of the New
England Wind project (hereafter referred
to as the ‘‘Project’’) by Park City Wind
LLC (hereafter referred to as the ‘‘LOA
Holder’’), and those persons it
authorizes or funds to conduct activities
on its behalf in the area outlined in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) The taking of marine mammals by
the LOA Holder may be authorized in a
Letter of Authorization (LOA) only if it
occurs in the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management (BOEM) Lease Area Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS)–A 0534 and
portions of OCS–A 0501 Commercial
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Lease of Submerged Lands for
Renewable Energy Development, along
export cable routes, and at the sea-toshore transition points south of Martha’s
Vineyard and Barnstable,
Massachusetts.
(c) The taking of marine mammals by
the LOA Holder is only authorized if it
occurs incidental to the following
activities associated with the Project:
installation of up to 129 wind turbine
generator (WTG) and up to 5 electrical
service platform (ESP) foundations by
impact and vibratory pile driving and
drilling, 10 unexploded ordnances or
munitions and explosives of concern
(UXO/MEC) detonations, and highresolution geophysical (HRG) site
characterization surveys.
§ 217.321
Effective dates.
Regulations in this subpart are
effective from March 27, 2025, through
March 26, 2030.
§ 217.322
Permissible methods of taking.
Under an LOA, issued pursuant to
§§ 216.106 of this chapter and 217.326,
the LOA Holder, and those persons it
authorizes or funds to conduct activities
on its behalf, may incidentally, but not
intentionally, take marine mammals
within the area described in
§ 217.320(b) in the following ways,
provided the LOA Holder is in complete
compliance with all terms, conditions,
and requirements of the regulations in
this subpart and the appropriate LOA:
37691
(a) By Level B harassment associated
with the acoustic disturbance of marine
mammals by impact and vibratory pile
driving and drilling (foundation
installation), UXO/MEC detonations,
and HRG site characterization surveys;
(b) By Level A harassment associated
with the acoustic disturbance of marine
mammals by impact pile driving of
WTG and ESP foundations and UXO/
MEC detonations;
(c) Take by mortality or serious injury
of any marine mammal species is not
authorized; and
(d) The incidental take of marine
mammals by the activities listed in
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section is
limited to the following species:
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (d)
Marine mammal species
Scientific name
Atlantic spotted dolphin ......................................
Atlantic white-sided dolphin ................................
Blainsville’s beaked whale .................................
Blue whale ..........................................................
Bottlenose dolphin ..............................................
Clymene dolphin .................................................
Cuvier’s beaked whale .......................................
Dwarf sperm whale .............................................
False killer whale ................................................
Fin whale ............................................................
Fraser’s dolphin ..................................................
Gervais’ beaked whale .......................................
Gray seal ............................................................
Harbor porpoise ..................................................
Harbor seal .........................................................
Harp seal ............................................................
Hooded seal .......................................................
Humpback whale ................................................
Killer whale .........................................................
Long-finned pilot whale ......................................
Melon-headed whale ..........................................
Minke whale .......................................................
North Atlantic right whale ...................................
Northern bottlenose whale .................................
Pantropical spotted dolphin ................................
Pygmy killer whale ..............................................
Pygmy sperm whale ...........................................
Risso’s dolphin ...................................................
Rough-toothed dolphin .......................................
Sei whale ............................................................
Short-beaked common dolphin ..........................
Short-finned pilot whale ......................................
Sowerby’s beaked whale ...................................
Sperm whale ......................................................
Spinner dolphin ..................................................
Striped dolphin ...................................................
True’s beaked whale ..........................................
White-beaked dolphin .........................................
Stenella frontalis ..............................................
Lagenorhynchus acutus ...................................
Mesoplodon densirostris ..................................
Balaenoptera musculus ...................................
Tursiops truncatus ...........................................
Stenella clymene ..............................................
Ziphius cavirostris ............................................
Kogia sima .......................................................
Pseudorca crassidens ......................................
Balaenoptera physalus ....................................
Lagenodelphis hosei ........................................
Mesoplodon europaeus ...................................
Halichoerus grypus ..........................................
Phocoena phocoena ........................................
Phoca vitulina ...................................................
Pagophilus groenlandicus ................................
Cystophora cristata ..........................................
Megaptera novaeangliae .................................
Orcinus orca .....................................................
Globicephala melas .........................................
Peponocephala electra ....................................
Balaenoptera acutorostrata ..............................
Eubalaena glacialis ..........................................
Hyperoodon ampullatus ...................................
Stenella attenuata ............................................
Feresa attenuata ..............................................
Kogia breviceps ...............................................
Grampus griseus ..............................................
Steno bredanensis ...........................................
Balaenoptera borealis ......................................
Delphinus delphis .............................................
Globicephala macrorhynchus ..........................
Mesoplodon bidens ..........................................
Physeter macrocephalus .................................
Stenella longirostris ..........................................
Stenella coeruleoalba ......................................
Mesoplodon mirus ............................................
Lagenorhynchus albirostris ..............................
§ 217.323
Prohibitions.
Except for the takings described in
§ 217.322 and authorized by an LOA
issued under § 217.326 or § 217.327, it
is unlawful for any person to do any of
the following in connection with the
activities described in this subpart:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
Stock
(a) Violate, or fail to comply with, the
terms, conditions, and requirements of
this subpart or an LOA issued under
§§ 217.326 and 217.327;
(b) Take any marine mammal not
specified in § 217.322(d);
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Western North Atlantic.
Western North Atlantic.
Western North Atlantic.
Western North Atlantic.
Western North Atlantic, offshore.
Western North Atlantic.
Western North Atlantic.
Western North Atlantic.
Western North Atlantic.
Western North Atlantic.
Western North Atlantic.
Western North Atlantic.
Western North Atlantic.
Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy.
Western North Atlantic.
Western North Atlantic.
Western North Atlantic.
Gulf of Maine.
Western North Atlantic.
Western North Atlantic.
Western North Atlantic.
Canadian Eastern Coastal.
Western North Atlantic.
Western North Atlantic.
Western North Atlantic.
Western North Atlantic.
Western North Atlantic.
Western North Atlantic.
Western North Atlantic.
Nova Scotia.
Western North Atlantic.
Western North Atlantic.
Western North Atlantic.
North Atlantic.
Western North Atlantic.
Western North Atlantic.
Western North Atlantic.
Western North Atlantic.
(c) Take any marine mammal
specified in the LOA in any manner
other than as specified in the LOA; or
(d) Take any marine mammal
specified in § 217.322(d), after NMFS
Office of Protected Resources
determines such taking results in more
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
37692
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
than a negligible impact on the species
or stocks of such marine mammals.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 217.324
Mitigation requirements.
When conducting the activities
identified in §§ 217.320 and 217.322,
the LOA Holder must implement the
mitigation measures contained in this
section and any LOA issued under
§§ 217.326 and 217.327. These
mitigation measures include, but are not
limited to:
(a) General conditions. The following
measures apply to the Project:
(1) A copy of any issued LOA must be
in the possession of the LOA Holder and
its designees, all vessel operators, visual
protected species observers (PSOs),
passive acoustic monitoring (PAM)
operators, pile driver operators, and any
other relevant designees operating
under the authority of the issued LOA;
(2) The LOA Holder must conduct
briefings between construction
supervisors, construction crews, and the
PSO and PAM team prior to the start of
all in-water construction activities and
when new personnel join the work, in
order to explain responsibilities,
communication procedures, marine
mammal monitoring and reporting
protocols, and operational procedures.
A simple guide must be included with
the Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan to
aid personnel in identifying species if
they are observed in the vicinity of the
project area;
(3) Prior to and when conducting any
in-water activities and vessel
operations, the LOA Holder personnel
and contractors (e.g., vessel operators,
PSOs) must use available sources of
information on North Atlantic right
whale presence in or near the project
area including daily monitoring of the
Right Whale Sightings Advisory System,
and monitoring of Coast Guard VHF
Channel 16 throughout the day to
receive notification of any sightings
and/or information associated with any
Slow Zones (i.e., Dynamic Management
Areas (DMAs) and/or acousticallytriggered slow zones) to provide
situational awareness for both vessel
operators, PSO(s), and PAM operators;
(4) The LOA Holder must ensure that
any visual observations of an
Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed
marine mammal are communicated to
on-duty PSOs, PAM operator(s), and
vessel captains during the concurrent
use of multiple project-associated
vessels (of any size; e.g., construction
surveys, crew/supply transfers, etc.);
(5) The LOA Holder must establish
and implement clearance and shutdown
zones as described in the LOA;
(6) The LOA Holder must instruct all
vessel personnel regarding the authority
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
of the PSO(s). Any disagreement
between the Lead PSO and the vessel
operator would only be discussed after
shutdown has occurred;
(7) If an individual from a species for
which authorization has not been
granted, or a species for which
authorization has been granted but the
authorized take number has been met, is
observed entering or within the relevant
Level B harassment zone for a specified
activity, pile driving (e.g., impact and
vibratory), drilling, and HRG acoustic
sources must shut down immediately,
unless shutdown would result in
imminent risk of injury or loss of life to
an individual, pile refusal, or pile
instability, or be delayed if the activity
has not commenced. Pile driving,
drilling, UXO/MEC detonations, and
initiation of HRG acoustic sources must
not commence or resume until the
animal(s) has been confirmed to have
left the Level B harassment zone or the
observation time has elapsed with no
further sightings;
(8) Foundation Installation (i.e.,
impact and vibratory pile driving,
drilling), UXO/MEC detonation, and
HRG survey activities shall only
commence when visual clearance zones
are fully visible (e.g., not obscured by
darkness, rain, fog, etc.) and clear of
marine mammals, as determined by the
Lead PSO, for at least 30 minutes
immediately prior to initiation of
equipment (i.e., vibratory and impact
pile driving, drilling, UXO/MEC
detonations, and HRG surveys that use
boomers, sparkers, and Compressed
High-Intensity Radiated Pulses
(CHIRPs));
(9) In the event that a large whale is
sighted or acoustically detected that
cannot be confirmed as a non-North
Atlantic right whale, it must be treated
as if it were a North Atlantic right
whale;
(10) For in-water construction heavy
machinery activities other than
foundation installation, if a marine
mammal is on a path towards or comes
within 10 meters (m) of equipment, the
LOA Holder must cease operations until
the marine mammal has moved more
than 10 m on a path away from the
activity to avoid direct interaction with
equipment;
(11) All vessels must be equipped
with a properly installed, operational
Automatic Identification System (AIS)
device and the LOA Holder must report
all Maritime Mobile Service Identify
(MMSI) numbers to NMFS Office of
Protected Resources prior to initiating
in-water activities; and
(12) Confirmation of all required
training must be documented on a
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
training course log sheet and reported to
NMFS Office of Protected Resources.
(b) Vessel strike avoidance measures.
The following measures apply to all
vessels associated with the Project:
(1) Prior to the start of the Project’s
activities involving vessels, all vessel
operators and crew must receive a
protected species identification training
that covers, at a minimum:
(i) Identification of marine mammals
and other protected species known to
occur or which have the potential to
occur in the LOA Holder’s project area;
(ii) Training on making observations
in both good weather conditions (i.e.,
clear visibility, low winds, low sea
states) and bad weather conditions (i.e.,
fog, high winds, high sea states, with
glare);
(iii) Training on information and
resources available to the project
personnel regarding the applicability of
Federal laws and regulations for
protected species; and
(iv) Training related to vessel strike
avoidance measures must be conducted
for all vessel operators and crew prior
to the start of in-water construction
activities.
(2) All vessel operators and crews,
regardless of their vessel’s size, must
maintain a vigilant watch for all marine
mammals and slow down, stop their
vessel, or alter course, as appropriate, to
avoid striking any marine mammal;
(3) All transiting vessels operating at
any speed must have a dedicated visual
observer on duty at all times to monitor
for marine mammals within a 180
degree direction of the forward path of
the vessel (90 degrees port to 90 degree
starboards) located at the best vantage
point for ensuring vessels are
maintaining appropriate separation
distances from marine mammals. Visual
observers must be equipped with
binoculars and alternative monitoring
technology for periods of low visibility
(e.g., darkness, rain, fog, etc.). The
dedicated visual observer must receive
prior training on protected species
detection and identification, vessel
strike minimization procedures, how
and when to communicate with the
vessel captain, and reporting
requirements. Visual observers may be
NMFS-approved PSOs or crew
members. Observer training related to
these vessel strike avoidance measures
must be conducted for all vessel
operators and crew prior to the start of
vessel use;
(4) Year-round and when a vessel is
in transit, all vessel operators must
continuously monitor U.S. Coast Guard
VHF Channel 16, over which North
Atlantic right whale sightings are
broadcasted. At the onset of transiting
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
and at least once every 4 hours, vessel
operators and/or trained crew members
must monitor the project’s Situational
Awareness System, WhaleAlert, and the
Right Whale Sighting Advisory System
(RWSAS) for the presence of North
Atlantic right whales. Any observations
of any large whale by any of the LOA
Holder’s staff or contractors, including
vessel crew, must be communicated
immediately to PSOs, PAM operator,
and all vessel captains to increase
situational awareness. Conversely, any
large whale observation or detection via
a sighting network (e.g., Mysticetus) by
PSOs or PAM operators must be
conveyed to vessel operators and crew;
(5) Any observations of any large
whale by any LOA Holder staff or
contractor, including vessel crew, must
be communicated immediately to onduty PSOs, PAM operators, and all
vessel captains to increase situational
awareness;
(6) Nothing in this subpart exempts
vessels from applicable speed
regulations at 50 CFR 224.105;
(7) All vessels must transit active
Slow Zones (i.e., Dynamic Management
Areas (DMAs) or acoustically-triggered
slow zone), and Seasonal Management
Areas (SMAs) at 10 knots or less;
(8) All vessels, regardless of vessel
size, must immediately reduce speed to
10 knots or less when any large whale,
mother/calf pairs, or large assemblages
of non-delphinid cetaceans are observed
(within 500 m) of an underway vessel;
(9) All vessels, regardless of size, must
immediately reduce speed to 10 knots or
less when a North Atlantic right whale
is sighted, at any distance, by anyone on
the vessel;
(10) All vessels must comply with
North Atlantic right whale approach
restrictions at 50 CFR 224.103(c).
(11) All vessels must maintain a
minimum separation distance of 100 m
from sperm whales and baleen whales
other than North Atlantic right whales.
If one of these species is sighted within
100 m of a transiting vessel, that vessel
must shift the engine to neutral. Engines
must not be engaged until the whale has
moved outside of the vessel’s path and
beyond 100 m;
(12) All vessels must maintain a
minimum separation distance of 50 m
from all delphinoid cetaceans and
pinnipeds with an exception made for
those that approach the vessel (i.e., bowriding dolphins). If a delphinid cetacean
or pinniped is sighted within 50 m of
a transiting vessel, that vessel must shift
the engine to neutral, with an exception
made for those that approach the vessel
(e.g., bow-riding dolphins). Engines
must not be engaged until the animal(s)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
has moved outside of the vessel’s path
and beyond 50 m;
(13) When a marine mammal(s) is
sighted while a vessel is transiting, the
vessel must take action as necessary to
avoid violating the relevant separation
distances (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 a marine mammal(s) is sighted
within the relevant separation distance,
the vessel must shift the engine to
neutral and not engage the engine(s)
until the animal(s) is outside and on a
path away from the separation area.
This does not apply to any vessel
towing gear or any situation where
respecting the relevant separation
distance would be unsafe (i.e., any
situation where the vessel is
navigationally constrained);
(14) All vessels underway must not
divert or alter course to approach any
marine mammal. If a separation distance
is triggered, any vessel underway must
avoid abrupt changes in course
direction and transit at 10 knots or less
until the animal is outside the relevant
separation distance; and
(15) The LOA Holder must submit a
North Atlantic right whale Vessel Strike
Avoidance Plan 180 days prior to the
commencement of vessel use. This plan
must describe, at a minimum, how
PAM, in combination with visual
observations, would be conducted to
ensure the transit corridor is clear of
right whales and would also provide
details on the vessel-based observer.
(c) WTG and ESP foundation
installation. The following requirements
apply to impact and vibratory pile
driving and drilling activities associated
with the installation of WTG and ESP
foundations:
(1) Impact pile driving, vibratory pile
driving, and drilling (i.e., foundation
installation) must not occur January 1
through April 30; Vibratory pile driving
must not occur in May and December.
Impact pile driving and drilling must
not be planned in December; however,
it may occur in the case of unforeseen
circumstances and with approval by
NMFS;
(2) Monopiles must be no larger than
13-m in diameter. Pin piles must be no
larger than 4 m in diameter. During all
monopile and pin pile installation, the
minimum amount of hammer energy
necessary to effectively and safely
install and maintain the integrity of the
piles must be used. Hammer energies
must not exceed 6,000 kilojoules (kJ) for
monopile installations and 3,500 kJ for
pin pile installation. No more than two
monopiles or four pin piles may be
installed per day;
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37693
(3) The LOA Holder must utilize a
soft-start protocol for each impact pile
driving event of all foundations by
performing 4–6 strikes per minute at 10
to 20 percent of the maximum hammer
energy, for a minimum of 20 minutes;
(4) Soft-start must occur at the
beginning of monopile and pin pile
impact driving and at any time
following a cessation of impact pile
driving of 30 minutes or longer;
(5) At least four PSOs must be actively
observing marine mammals before,
during, and after installation of
foundation piles (i.e., monopiles and
pin piles). At least two PSOs must be
stationed and observing on the pile
driving vessel and at least two PSOs
must be stationed on a secondary, PSOdedicated vessel. Concurrently, at least
one PAM operator must be actively
monitoring for marine mammals with
PAM before, during, and after impact
pile driving;
(6) PSOs must visually clear (i.e.,
confirm no marine mammals are
present) the entire minimum visibility
zone and the entire clearance zone
(when conditions all for visibility of the
entire clearance zone) for a full 30
minutes immediately prior to
commencing pile driving or drilling;
(7) If a marine mammal is detected,
visually or acoustically, within or about
to enter the applicable clearance zones,
prior pile driving or drilling, activities
must be delayed until the animal has
been visually observed exiting the
clearance zone or until a specific time
period has elapsed with no further
sightings. The specific time periods are
15 minutes for small odontocetes and
pinnipeds and 30 minutes for all other
species;
(i) For piles installed between May 1–
May 14 and November 1–December 30,
if a North Atlantic right whale is
observed or acoustically detected within
10 km of the pile being driven, pile
driving must be delayed or stopped
(unless activities must proceed for
human safety or installation feasibility
concerns) and may not resume until the
following day or until the animal is
confirmed to have exited the zone via
aerial or additional vessel surveys;
(ii) [Reserved]
(8) The LOA Holder must deploy dual
noise abatement systems that are
capable of achieving, at a minimum, 10
decibel (dB) of sound attenuation,
during all pile driving and drilling of
monopiles and pin piles and comply
with the following requirements related
noise abatement:
(i) A single bubble curtain must not be
used unless paired with another noise
attenuation device;
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
37694
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
(ii) A big double bubble curtain may
be used without being paired with
another noise attenuation device;
(iii) The bubble curtain(s) must
distribute air bubbles using an air flow
rate of at least 0.5 m3/(min*m). The
bubble curtain(s) must surround 100
percent of the piling perimeter
throughout the full depth of the water
column. In the unforeseen event of a
single compressor malfunction, the
offshore personnel operating the bubble
curtain(s) must make appropriate
adjustments to the air supply and
operating pressure such that the
maximum possible sound attenuation
performance of the bubble curtain(s) is
achieved;
(iv) The lowest bubble ring must be in
contact with the seafloor for the full
circumference of the ring, and the
weights attached to the bottom ring
must ensure 100-percent seafloor
contact;
(v) No parts of the ring or other
objects may prevent full seafloor
contact;
(vi) Construction contractors must
train personnel in the proper balancing
of airflow to the ring. Construction
contractors must submit an inspection/
performance report for approval by the
LOA Holder within 72 hours following
the performance test. The LOA Holder
must then submit that report to NMFS
Office of Protected Resources; and
(vii) Corrections to the bubble ring(s)
to meet the performance standards in
this paragraph (c)(8) must occur prior to
impact pile driving of monopiles and
pin piles. If the LOA Holder uses a noise
mitigation device in addition to the
bubble curtain, the LOA Holder must
maintain similar quality control
measures as described in this paragraph
(c)(8).
(9) At least one PAM operator must
review data from at least 24 hours prior
to pile driving and actively monitor
hydrophones for 60 minutes prior to
pile driving. All clearance zones must
be acoustically confirmed to be free of
marine mammals for 60 minutes before
activities can begin immediately prior to
starting a soft-start of impact pile
driving. PAM operators will continue to
monitor for marine mammals for at least
30 minutes after pile driving or drilling
concludes;
(10) For North Atlantic right whales,
any visual observation or acoustic
detection must trigger a delay to the
commencement of pile driving. The
clearance zone may only be declared
clear if no confirmed North Atlantic
right whale acoustic detections (in
addition to visual) have occurred within
the PAM clearance zone during the 60minute monitoring period. Any large
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
whale sighting by a PSO or detected by
a PAM operator that cannot be
identified by species must be treated as
if it were a North Atlantic right whale;
(11) If a marine mammal is observed
entering or within the respective
shutdown zone after pile driving has
begun, the PSO must call for a
shutdown of pile driving or drilling.
The LOA Holder must stop pile driving
or drilling immediately unless
shutdown is not practicable due to
imminent risk of injury or loss of life to
an individual or risk of damage to a
vessel that creates risk of injury or loss
of life for individuals or the lead
engineer determines there is pile refusal
or pile instability. In any of these
situations, the LOA Holder must reduce
hammer energy to the lowest level
practicable and the reason(s) for not
shutting down must be documented and
reported to NMFS;
(12) If pile driving has been shut
down due to the presence of a North
Atlantic right whale, pile driving may
not restart until the North Atlantic right
whale is no longer observed or 30
minutes has elapsed since the last
detection;
(13) If pile driving has been shut
down due to the presence of a marine
mammal other than a North Atlantic
right whale, pile driving must not restart
until either the marine mammal(s) has
voluntarily left the specific clearance
zones and has been visually or
acoustically confirmed beyond that
clearance zone, or, when specific time
periods have elapsed with no further
sightings or acoustic detections have
occurred. The specific time periods are
15 minutes for small odontocetes and 30
minutes for all other marine mammal
species. In cases where these criteria are
not met, pile driving may restart only if
necessary to maintain pile stability at
which time the LOA Holder must use
the lowest hammer energy practicable to
maintain stability;
(14) The LOA Holder must conduct
sound field verification (SFV) during all
foundation installation activities:
(i) The LOA Holder must conduct
SFV during all activities associated with
the first three monopile foundations and
the first two jacket foundations
installed. Subsequent SFV is required
should additional piles be driven that
are anticipated to produce louder sound
fields than those previously measured;
(ii) The LOA Holder must conduct
SFV during drilling the first time it
occurs;
(iii) The LOA Holder must determine
source levels, spectra, the ranges to the
isopleths corresponding to Level A
harassment and Level B harassment
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
thresholds, and transmission loss
coefficient(s);
(iv) The LOA Holder must perform
sound field measurements at a
minimum of four distances from the pile
being driven in one direction (towards
deepest waters), including, but not
limited to, 750 m and the modeled Level
B harassment zones assuming 10 dB
attenuation to verify the accuracy of
those modeled zones and contribute to
improvement of the models. At least one
additional measurement at a different
azimuth must be taken to capture sound
propagation variability;
(v) The recordings must be
continuous throughout the duration of
all pile driving and drilling of each
foundation monitored;
(vi) The measurement systems must
have a sensitivity appropriate for the
expected sound levels from pile driving
received at the nominal ranges
throughout the installation of the pile;
(vii) The frequency range of the
system must cover the range of at least
20 hertz (Hz) to 20 kilohertz (kHz);
(viii) The system must be designed to
have omnidirectional sensitivity and so
that the broadband received level of all
pile driving and drilling activities
exceeds the system noise floor by at
least 10 dB. The dynamic range of the
system must be sufficient such that at
each location, pile driving signals are
not clipped and are not masked by noise
floor;
(ix) If acoustic field measurements
collected during installation of
foundation piles indicate ranges to the
isopleths, corresponding to Level A
harassment and Level B harassment
thresholds, are greater than the ranges
predicted by modeling (assuming 10 dB
attenuation), the LOA Holder must
implement additional noise mitigation
measures prior to installing the next
foundation. Additional acoustic
measurements must be taken after each
modification;
(x) In the event that field
measurements indicate ranges to
isopleths, corresponding to Level A
harassment and Level B harassment
thresholds, are greater than the ranges
predicted by modeling (assuming 10 dB
attenuation) after implementing
additional noise mitigation measures,
NMFS Office of Protected Resources
may expand the relevant harassment,
clearance, and shutdown zones and
associated monitoring protocols;
(xi) If acoustic measurements indicate
that ranges to isopleths corresponding to
the Level A harassment and Level B
harassment thresholds are less than the
ranges predicted by modeling (assuming
10 dB attenuation), the LOA Holder may
request to NMFS Office of Protected
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Resources a modification of the
clearance and shutdown zones. For
NMFS Office of Protected Resources to
consider a modification request for
reduced zone sizes, the LOA Holder
must have had to conduct SFV on an
additional three foundations and that
subsequent foundations would be
installed under conditions that are
predicted to produce smaller
harassment zones than those measured;
(xii) The LOA Holder must conduct
SFV after construction is complete to
estimate turbine operational source
levels based on measurements in the
near and far-field at a minimum of three
locations from each foundation
monitored. These data must be used to
also identify estimated transmission loss
rates; and
(xiii) The LOA Holder must submit an
SFV plan to NMFS Office of Protected
Resources for review and approval at
least 180 days prior to planned start of
foundation installation activities.
(d) UXO/MEC detonations. The
following requirements apply to
Unexploded Ordnances and Munitions
and Explosives of Concern (UXO/MEC)
detonations:
(1) Upon encountering a UXO/MEC,
the LOA Holder may only resort to highorder removal (i.e., detonation) if all
other means of removal are
impracticable and this determination
must be documented and submitted to
NMFS;
(2) UXO/MEC detonations must not
occur from December 1 through May 31,
annually; however, the LOA Holder may
detonate a UXO/MEC in December or
May with NMFS’ approval on a case-bycase basis;
(3) UXO/MEC detonations must only
occur during daylight hours;
(4) No more than one detonation can
occur within a 24-hour period;
(5) The LOA Holder must deploy dual
noise abatement systems during all
UXO/MEC detonations and comply with
the following requirements related to
noise abatement:
(i) A single bubble curtain must not be
used unless paired with another noise
attenuation device;
(ii) A big double bubble curtain may
be used without being paired with
another noise attenuation device;
(iii) The bubble curtain(s) must
distribute air bubbles using an air flow
rate of at least 0.5 m3/(min*m). The
bubble curtain(s) must surround 100
percent of the UXO/MEC detonation
perimeter throughout the full depth of
the water column. In the unforeseen
event of a single compressor
malfunction, the offshore personnel
operating the bubble curtain(s) must
make appropriate adjustments to the air
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
supply and operating pressure such that
the maximum possible sound
attenuation performance of the bubble
curtain(s) is achieved;
(iv) The lowest bubble ring must be in
contact with the seafloor for the full
circumference of the ring, and the
weights attached to the bottom ring
must ensure 100-percent seafloor
contact;
(v) No parts of the ring or other
objects may prevent full seafloor
contact;
(vi) Construction contractors must
train personnel in the proper balancing
of airflow to the ring. Construction
contractors must submit an inspection/
performance report for approval by the
LOA Holder within 72 hours following
the performance test. The LOA Holder
must then submit that report to NMFS
Office of Protected Resources; and
(vii) Corrections to the bubble ring(s)
to meet the performance standards in
this paragraph (d)(5) must occur prior to
UXO/MEC detonations. If the LOA
Holder uses a noise mitigation device in
addition to the bubble curtain, the LOA
Holder must maintain similar quality
control measures as described in this
paragraph (d)(5);
(6) The LOA Holder must conduct
SFV during all UXO/MEC detonations at
a minimum of three locations (at two
water depths at each location) from each
detonation in a direction toward deeper
water in accordance with the following
requirements:
(i) The LOA Holder must empirically
determine source levels (peak and
cumulative sound exposure level), the
ranges to the isopleths corresponding to
the Level A harassment and Level B
harassment thresholds in meters, and
the transmission loss coefficient(s). The
LOA Holder may estimate ranges to the
Level A harassment and Level B
harassment isopleths by extrapolating
from in situ measurements conducted at
several distances from the detonation
location monitored;
(ii) The measurement systems must
have a sensitivity appropriate for the
expected sound levels from detonations
received at the nominal ranges
throughout the detonation;
(iii) The frequency range of the system
must cover the range of at least 20 Hz
to 20 kHz; and
(iv) The system will be designed to
have omnidirectional sensitivity and
will be designed so that the predicted
broadband received level of all UXO/
MEC detonations exceeds the system
noise floor by at least 10 dB. The
dynamic range of the system must be
sufficient such that at each location, pile
driving signals are not clipped and are
not masked by noise floor.
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37695
(7) The LOA Holder must submit an
SFV plan to NMFS Office of Protected
Resources for review and approval at
least 180 days prior to planned start of
detonation activities;
(8) LOA Holder must establish and
implement clearance zones for UXO/
MEC detonation using both visual and
acoustic monitoring, as described in the
LOA;
(9) LOA Holder must use at least two
visual PSOs on a platform (e.g., vessels,
plane) and one PAM operator to monitor
for marine mammals in the clearance
zones prior to detonation. If the
clearance zone is larger than 2 km
(based on charge weight), LOA Holder
must deploy a secondary PSO vessel or
aircraft. If the clearance is larger than 5
km (based on charge weight), an aerial
survey must be conducted;
(10) At least four PSOs must be
actively observing marine mammals
before and after any UXO/MEC
detonation. At least two PSOs must be
stationed and observing on a vessel as
close as possible to the detonation site
and at least two PSOs must be stationed
on a secondary, PSO-dedicated vessel or
aerial platform. Concurrently, at least
one acoustic monitoring PSO (i.e.,
passive acoustic monitoring (PAM)
operator) must be actively monitoring
for marine mammals with PAM before,
during, and after detonation;
(11) At least one PAM operator must
review data from at least 24 hours prior
to a detonation and actively monitor
hydrophones for 60 minutes prior to
detonation. All clearance zones must be
acoustically confirmed to be free of
marine mammals for 60 minutes prior to
commencing a detonation. PAM
operators will continue to monitor for
marine mammals at least 30 minutes
after a detonation;
(12) All clearance zones must be
visually confirmed to be free of marine
mammals for 30 minutes before a
detonation can occur. All PSOs will also
maintain watch for 30 minutes after the
detonation event;
(13) If a marine mammal is observed
entering or within the relevant clearance
zone prior to the initiation of a
detonation, detonation must be delayed
and must not begin until either the
marine mammal(s) has voluntarily left
the specific clearance zones and have
been visually and acoustically
confirmed beyond that clearance zone,
or, when specific time periods have
elapsed with no further sightings or
acoustic detections. The specific time
periods are 15 minutes for small
odontocetes and 30 minutes for all other
marine mammal species; and
(14) For North Atlantic right whales,
any visual observation or acoustic
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
37696
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
detection must trigger a delay to the
detonation of a UXO/MEC. Any large
whale sighting by a PSO or detected by
a PAM operator that cannot be
identified by species must be treated as
if it were a North Atlantic right whale.
(e) HRG surveys. The following
requirements apply to HRG surveys
operating sub-bottom profilers (SBPs)
(i.e., boomers, sparkers, and CHIRPS):
(1) The LOA Holder is required to
have at least one PSO on active duty per
HRG vessel during HRG surveys that are
conducted during daylight hours (i.e.,
from 30 minutes prior to civil sunrise
through 30 minutes following civil
sunset) and at least two PSOs on active
duty per vessel during HRG surveys that
are conducted during nighttime hours;
(2) The LOA Holder must deactivate
acoustic sources during periods where
no data are being collected, except as
determined to be necessary for testing.
Unnecessary use of the acoustic
source(s) is prohibited;
(3) The LOA Holder is required to
ramp-up SBPs prior to commencing full
power, unless the equipment operates
on a binary on/off switch, and ensure
visual clearance zones are fully visible
(e.g., not obscured by darkness, rain,
fog, etc.) and clear of marine mammals,
as determined by the Lead PSO, for at
least 30 minutes immediately prior to
the initiation of survey activities using
acoustic sources specified in the LOA;
(4) Prior to a ramp-up procedure
starting or activating SBPs, the operator
must notify the Lead PSO of the
planned start time. This notification
time must not be less than 60 minutes
prior to the planned ramp-up or
activation as all relevant PSOs must
monitor the clearance zone for 30
minutes prior to the initiation of rampup or activation;
(5) Prior to starting the survey and
after receiving confirmation from the
PSOs that the clearance zone is clear of
any marine mammals, the LOA Holder
must ramp-up sources to half power for
5 minutes and then proceed to full
power, unless the source operates on a
binary on/off switch in which case
ramp-up is not required. Ramp-up and
activation must be delayed if a marine
mammal(s) enters its respective
shutdown zone. Ramp-up and activation
may only be reinitiated if the animal(s)
has been observed exiting its respective
shutdown zone or until 15 minutes for
small odontocetes and pinnipeds, and
30 minutes for all other species, has
elapsed with no further sightings;
(6) The LOA Holder must implement
a 30-minute clearance period of the
clearance zones immediately prior to
the commencing of the survey or when
there is more than a 30 minute break in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
survey activities or PSO monitoring. A
clearance period is a period when no
marine mammals are detected in the
relevant zone;
(7) If a marine mammal is observed
within a clearance zone during the
clearance period, ramp-up or acoustic
surveys may not begin until the
animal(s) has been observed voluntarily
exiting its respective clearance zone or
until a specific time period has elapsed
with no further sighting. The specific
time period is 15 minutes for small
odontocetes and seals, and 30 minutes
for all other species;
(8) Any large whale sighted by a PSO
within 1 km of the SBP that cannot be
identified by species must be treated as
if it were a North Atlantic right whale
and the LOA Holder must apply the
mitigation measure applicable to this
species;
(9) In any case when the clearance
process has begun in conditions with
good visibility, including via the use of
night vision equipment (infrared (IR)/
thermal camera), and the Lead PSO has
determined that the clearance zones are
clear of marine mammals, survey
operations would be allowed to
commence (i.e., no delay is required)
despite periods of inclement weather
and/or loss of daylight;
(10) Once the survey has commenced,
the LOA Holder must shut down SBPs
if a marine mammal enters a respective
shutdown zone, except in cases when
the shutdown zones become obscured
for brief periods due to inclement
weather, survey operations would be
allowed to continue (i.e., no shutdown
is required) so long as no marine
mammals have been detected. The
shutdown requirement does not apply
to small delphinids of the following
genera: Delphinus, Stenella,
Lagenorhynchus, and Tursiops. If there
is uncertainty regarding the
identification of a marine mammal
species (i.e., whether the observed
marine mammal belongs to one of the
delphinid genera for which shutdown is
waived), the PSOs must use their best
professional judgment in making the
decision to call for a shutdown.
Shutdown is required if a delphinid that
belongs to a genus other than those
specified in this paragraph (e)(10) is
detected in the shutdown zone;
(11) If SBPs have been shut down due
to the presence of a marine mammal, the
use of SBPs may not commence or
resume until the animal(s) has been
confirmed to have left the Level B
harassment zone or until a full 15
minutes (for small odontocetes and
seals) or 30 minutes (for all other marine
mammals) have elapsed with no further
sighting;
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(12) The LOA Holder must
immediately shutdown any SBP
acoustic source if a marine mammal is
sighted entering or within its respective
shutdown zones. If there is uncertainty
regarding the identification of a marine
mammal species (i.e., whether the
observed marine mammal belongs to
one of the delphinid genera for which
shutdown is waived), the PSOs must
use their best professional judgment in
making the decision to call for a
shutdown. Shutdown is required if a
delphinid that belongs to a genus other
than those specified in paragraph (f)(12)
is detected in the shutdown zone;
(13) If a SBP is shut down for reasons
other than mitigation (e.g., mechanical
difficulty) for less than 30 minutes, it
would be allowed to be activated again
without ramp-up only if:
(i) PSOs have maintained constant
observation; and
(ii) No additional detections of any
marine mammal occurred within the
respective shutdown zones.
(f) Fisheries monitoring surveys. The
following measures apply to fishery
monitoring surveys using trap and trawl
gear:
(1) All captains and crew conducting
fishery surveys must be trained in
marine mammal detection and
identification. Marine mammal
monitoring will be conducted by the
trained captain and/or a member of the
scientific crew before (within 1 nautical
mile (nmi) and 15 minutes prior to
deploying gear), during, and for 15
minutes after haul back;
(2) Survey gear will be deployed as
soon as possible once the vessel arrives
on station;
(3) The LOA Holder and/or its
cooperating institutions, contracted
vessels, or commercially-hired captains
must implement the following ‘‘moveon’’ rule: If marine mammals are sighted
within 1 nmi of the planned location
and 15 minutes before gear deployment,
then the LOA Holder and/or its
cooperating institutions, contracted
vessels, or commercially-hired captains,
as appropriate, must move the vessel
away from the marine mammal to a
different section of the sampling area. If,
after moving on, marine mammals are
still visible from the vessel, the LOA
Holder and/or its cooperating
institutions, contracted vessels, or
commercially-hired captains must move
again or skip the station;
(4) If a marine mammal is deemed to
be at risk of interaction after the gear is
set, all gear must be immediately
removed from the water. If marine
mammals are sighted before the gear is
fully removed from the water, the vessel
will slow its speed and maneuver the
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
vessel away from the animals to
minimize potential interactions with the
observed animal;
(5) The LOA Holder must maintain
visual monitoring effort during the
entire period of time that gear is in the
water (i.e., throughout gear deployment,
fishing, and retrieval);
(6) All fisheries monitoring gear must
be fully cleaned and repaired (if
damaged) before each use;
(7) The LOA Holder’s fixed gear must
comply with the Atlantic Large Whale
Take Reduction Plan regulations at 50
CFR 229.32 during fisheries monitoring
surveys;
(8) Trawl tows will be limited to a 20minute trawl time at 3.0 knots;
(9) All gear, trawl or otherwise, will
be emptied immediately after retrieval
within the vicinity of the deck;
(10) During trawl surveys, vessel crew
will open the codend of the trawl net
close to the deck in order to avoid injury
to animals that may be caught in the
gear;
(11) During any survey that uses
vertical lines, buoy lines will be
weighted and will not float at the
surface of the water and all groundlines
will consist of sinking line. All
groundlines must be composed entirely
of sinking line. Buoy lines must utilize
weak links. Weak links must break
cleanly leaving behind the bitter end of
the line. The bitter end of the line must
be free of any knots when the weak link
breaks. Splices are not considered to be
knots. The attachment of buoys, toggles,
or other floatation devices to
groundlines is prohibited;
(12) All in-water survey gear will be
properly labeled with the scientific
permit number or identification as LOA
Holder-related research gear. All labels
and markings on the buoys and buoy
lines will also be compliant with the
applicable regulations, and all buoy
markings will comply with instructions
received by the NOAA Greater Atlantic
Regional Fisheries Office Protected
Resources Division; and
(13) All survey gear will be removed
from the water whenever not in active
survey use (i.e., no wet storage). All
reasonable efforts, that do not
compromise human safety, must be
undertaken to recover gear. All lost gear
must be reported to NOAA Greater
Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office
Protected Resources Division
(nmfs.gar.incidental-take@noaa.gov)
within 24 hours of the documented time
of missing or lost gear. This report must
include information on any markings on
the gear and any efforts undertaken or
planned to recover the gear.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
§ 217.325 Requirements for monitoring
and reporting.
(a) Protected species observer (PSO)
and passive acoustic monitoring (PAM)
operator qualifications. The LOA
Holder must implement the following
measures applicable to PSOs and PAM
operators:
(1) The LOA Holder must use
independent, dedicated, qualified PSOs
and PAM operators, meaning that the
PSOs and PAM operators must be
employed by a third-party observer
provider, must 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 protected species and
mitigation requirements;
(2) PSOs and PAM operators must
have successfully attained a bachelor’s
degree from an accredited college or
university with a major in one of the
natural sciences, a minimum of 30
semester hours or equivalent in the
biological sciences, and at least one
undergraduate course in math or
statistics. The educational requirements
may be waived if the PSO or PAM
operator has acquired the relevant skills
through a suitable amount of alternate
experience. Requests for such a waiver
shall be submitted to NMFS Office of
Protected Resources and must include
written justification containing
alternative experience. Alternate
experience that may be considered
includes, but is not limited to: previous
work experience conducting academic,
commercial, or government sponsored
marine mammal visual and/or acoustic
surveys; or previous work experience as
a PSO/PAM operator; and the PSO/PAM
operator should demonstrate good
standing and consistently good
performance of PSO/PAM duties;
(3) PSOs and PAM operators must
successfully complete the required
training within the last 5 years,
including obtaining a certificate of
course completion;
(4) PSOs must have visual acuity in
both eyes (with correction of vision
being permissible) sufficient enough to
discern moving targets on the water’s
surface with the ability to estimate the
target size and distance (binocular use is
allowable); ability to conduct field
observations and collect data according
to the assigned protocols; sufficient
training, orientation, or experience with
the construction operation to provide
for personal safety during observations;
writing skills sufficient to document
observations, including but not limited
to, the number and species of marine
mammals observed, the dates and times
of when in-water construction activities
were conducted, the dates and time
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37697
when in-water construction activities
were suspended to avoid potential
incidental take of marine mammals from
construction noise within a defined
shutdown zone, and marine mammal
behavior; and the ability to
communicate orally, by radio, or inperson, with project personnel to
provide real-time information on marine
mammals observed in the area;
(5) All PSOs and PAM operators must
be approved by the NMFS Office of
Protected Resources. The LOA Holder
must submit PSO resumes for NMFS
Office of Protected Resources review
and approval at least 90 days prior to
commencement of in-water construction
activities requiring PSOs and PAM
operators. Resumes must include dates
of training and any prior NMFS Office
of Protected Resources approval, as well
as dates and description of last
experience, and must be accompanied
by information documenting successful
completion of an acceptable training
course. NMFS Office of Protected
Resources shall be allowed 3 weeks to
approve PSOs from the time that the
necessary information is received by
NMFS Office of Protected Resources,
after which PSOs meeting the minimum
requirements will automatically be
considered approved;
(6) All PSOs must be trained in
marine mammal identification and
behaviors and must be able to conduct
field observations and collect data
according to assigned protocols.
Additionally, PSOs must have the
ability to work with all required and
relevant software and equipment
necessary during observations;
(7) At least one PSO on active duty for
each activity (i.e., foundation
installation, UXO/MEC detonation
activities, and HRG surveys) must be
designated as the ‘‘Lead PSO’’. The Lead
PSO must have a minimum of 90 days
of at-sea experience working in an
offshore environment and is required to
have no more than 18 months elapsed
since the conclusion of their last at-sea
experience;
(8) PAM operators must complete
specialized training for operating PAM
systems and must demonstrate
familiarity with the PAM system on
which they must be working; and
(9) PSOs may work as PAM operators
and vice versa, pending NMFSapproval; however, they may only
perform one role at any one time and
must not exceed work time restrictions,
which will be tallied cumulatively.
(b) General PSO and PAM operator
requirements. The following measures
apply to PSOs and PAM operators and
must be implemented by the LOA
Holder:
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
37698
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
(1) PSOs must monitor for marine
mammals prior to, during, and
following pile driving, drilling, UXO/
MEC detonation activities, and during
HRG surveys that use sub-bottom
profilers (with specific monitoring
durations and needs described in
paragraphs (c) through (e) of this
section, respectively).
(2) PAM operator(s) must acoustically
monitor for marine mammals prior to,
during, and following all pile driving,
drilling, and UXO/MEC detonation
activities. PAM operators may be
located on a vessel or remotely on-shore
but must have the appropriate
equipment (i.e., computer station
equipped with a data collection
software system available wherever they
are stationed) and be in real-time
communication with PSOs and
transiting vessel captains;
(3) All PSOs must be located at the
best vantage point(s) on any platform, in
order to obtain 360 degree visual
coverage of the entire clearance and
shutdown zones around the activity
area, and as much of the Level B
harassment zone as possible;
(4) All on-duty visual PSOs must
remain in contact with the on-duty PAM
operator, who would monitor the PAM
systems for acoustic detections of
marine mammals in the area, regarding
any animal detection that might be
approaching or found within the
applicable zones no matter where the
PAM operator is stationed (e.g., onshore
or on a vessel);
(5) During all visual observation
periods during the Project, PSOs must
use high magnification (25x) binoculars,
standard handheld (7x) binoculars, and
the naked eye to search continuously for
marine mammals. During all pile
driving and drilling, at least one PSO on
the primary pile driving vessel must be
equipped with functional Big Eye
binoculars (e.g., 25 x 150; 2.7 view
angle; individual ocular focus; height
control); these must be pedestal
mounted on the deck at the best vantage
point that provides for optimal sea
surface observation and PSO safety;
(6) During all acoustic monitoring
periods during the Project, PAM
operators must use PAM systems as
approved by NMFS;
(7) During periods of low visibility
(e.g., darkness, rain, fog, poor weather
conditions, etc.), PSOs must use
alternative technology (i.e., infrared or
thermal cameras) to monitor the
clearance and shutdown zones as
approved by NMFS;
(8) PSOs and PAM operators must not
exceed 4 consecutive watch hours on
duty at any time, must have a 2-hour
(minimum) break between watches, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
must not exceed a combined watch
schedule of more than 12 hours in a 24hour period;
(9) Any PSO or PAM operator has the
authority to call for a delay or shutdown
of project activities;
(10) PSOs must remain in real-time
contact with the PAM operators and
construction personnel responsible for
implementing mitigation (e.g., delay to
pile driving or UXO/MEC detonation) to
ensure communication on marine
mammal observations can easily,
quickly, and consistently occur between
all on-duty PSOs, PAM operator(s), and
on-water Project personnel; and
(11) The LOA Holder is required to
use available sources of information on
North Atlantic right whale presence to
aid in monitoring efforts. These include
daily monitoring of the Right Whale
Sightings Advisory System, consulting
of the WhaleAlert app, and monitoring
of the Coast Guard’s VHF Channel 16
throughout the day to receive
notifications of any sightings and
information associated with any
Dynamic Management Areas, to plan
construction activities and vessel routes,
if practicable, to minimize the potential
for co-occurrence with North Atlantic
right whales.
(c) PSO and PAM operator
requirements during WTG and ESP
foundation installation. The following
measures apply to PSOs and PAM
operators during WTG and ESP
foundation installation and must be
implemented by the LOA Holder:
(1) If PSOs cannot visually monitor
the minimum visibility zone at all times
using the equipment described in
paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) of this section,
pile driving operations must not
commence or must shutdown if they are
currently active;
(2) All PSOs must begin monitoring
60 minutes prior to pile driving, during,
and for 30 minutes after the activity.
Pile driving must only commence when
the minimum visibility zone is fully
visible (e.g., not obscured by darkness,
rain, fog, etc.) and the clearance zones
are clear of marine mammals for at least
30 minutes, as determined by the Lead
PSO, immediately prior to the initiation
of pile driving. PAM operators must
assist the visual PSOs in monitoring by
conducting PAM activities 60 minutes
prior to any pile driving, during, and
after for 30 minutes for the appropriate
size PAM clearance zone (dependent on
season). The entire minimum visibility
zone must be clear for at least 30
minutes, with no marine mammal
detections within the visual or PAM
clearance zones prior to the start of pile
driving;
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(3) The LOA Holder must conduct
PAM for at least 24 hours immediately
prior to pile driving activities;
(4) During use of any real-time PAM
system, at least one PAM operator must
be designated to monitor each system by
viewing data or data products that
would be streamed in real-time or in
near real-time to a computer
workstation and monitor;
(5) The PAM operator must inform the
Lead PSO(s) on duty of animal
detections approaching or within
applicable ranges of interest to the pile
driving activity via the data collection
software system (i.e., Mysticetus or
similar system) who will be responsible
for requesting that the designated
crewmember implement the necessary
mitigation procedures (i.e., delay or
shutdown); and
(6) The LOA Holder must prepare and
submit a Marine Mammal Monitoring
Plan to NMFS Office of Protected
Resources for review and approval at
least 180 days before the start of any
pile driving. The plan must include
final pile driving project design (e.g.,
number and type of piles, hammer type,
noise abatement systems, anticipated
start date, etc.) and all information
related to PAM and PSO monitoring
protocols for foundation installation
activities.
(d) PSO requirements during UXO/
MEC detonations. The following
measures apply to PSOs during HRG
surveys using SBPs and must be
implemented by the LOA Holder:
(1) All on-duty visual PSOs must
remain in contact with the on-duty PAM
operator, who would monitor the PAM
systems for acoustic detections of
marine mammals in the area, regarding
any animal detection that might be
approaching or found within the
applicable zones no matter where the
PAM operator is stationed (e.g., onshore
or on a vessel);
(2) If PSOs cannot visually monitor
the minimum visibility zone at all times
using the equipment described in
paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) of this section;
UXO/MEC operations must not
commence or must shutdown if they are
currently active;
(3) All PSOs must begin monitoring
60 minutes prior to UXO/MEC
detonation, during, and for 30 minutes
after the activity. UXO/MEC detonation
must only commence when the
minimum visibility zone is fully visible
(e.g., not obscured by darkness, rain,
fog, etc.) and the clearance zones are
clear of marine mammals for at least 30
minutes, as determined by the Lead
PSO, immediately prior to the initiation
of detonation. PAM operators must
assist the visual PSOs in monitoring by
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
conducting PAM activities 60 minutes
prior to any UXO/MEC detonation,
during, and after for 30 minutes for the
appropriate size PAM clearance zone.
The entire minimum visibility zone
must be clear for at least 30 minutes,
with no marine mammal detections
within the visual or PAM clearance
zones prior to the initiation of
detonation;
(4) For North Atlantic right whales,
any visual or acoustic detection must
trigger a delay to the commencement of
UXO/MEC detonation. In the event that
a large whale is sighted or acoustically
detected that cannot be confirmed by
species, it must be treated as if it were
a North Atlantic right whale;
(5) The LOA Holder must conduct
PAM for at least 24 hours immediately
prior to foundation installation and
UXO/MEC detonation activities;
(6) During use of any real-time PAM
system, at least one PAM operator must
be designated to monitor each system by
viewing data or data products that
would be streamed in real-time or in
near real-time to a computer
workstation and monitor;
(7) The LOA Holder must use a
minimum of one PAM operator to
actively monitor for marine mammals
before, during, and after UXO/MEC
detonation. The PAM operator must
assist visual PSOs in ensuring full
coverage of the clearance and shutdown
zones. The PAM operator must inform
the Lead PSO(s) on duty of animal
detections approaching or within
applicable ranges of interest to the
activity occurring via the data collection
software system (i.e., Mysticetus or
similar system) who will be responsible
for requesting that the designated
crewmember implement the necessary
mitigation procedures (i.e., delay or
shutdown);
(8) PAM operators must be on watch
for a maximum of 4 consecutive hours,
followed by a break of at least 2 hours
between watches, and may not exceed a
combined watch schedule of more than
12 hours in a single 24-hour period;
(9) The LOA Holder must prepare and
submit a Marine Mammal Monitoring
Plan to NMFS Office of Protected
Resources for review and approval at
least 180 days before the start of any
detonation. The plan must include final
UXO/MEC detonation project design
(e.g., number and type of UXO/MECs,
removal method(s), charge weight(s),
anticipated start date, etc.) and all
information related to PAM and PSO
monitoring protocols for UXO/MEC
activities; and
(10) A Passive Acoustic Monitoring
Plan (‘‘PAM Plan’’) must be submitted
to NMFS Office of Protected Resources
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
for review and approval at least 180
days prior to the planned start of
foundation installation and prior to the
start of any UXO/MEC detonation(s).
The authorization to take marine
mammals would be contingent upon
NMFS Office of Protected Resources
approval of the PAM Plan.
(e) PSO requirements during HRG
surveys. The following measures apply
to PSOs during HRG surveys using SBPs
and must be implemented by the LOA
Holder:
(1) Between four and six PSOs must
be present on every 24-hour survey
vessel and two to three PSOs must be
present on every 12-hour survey vessel;
(2) At least one PSO must be on active
duty monitoring during HRG surveys
conducted during daylight (i.e., from 30
minutes prior to civil sunrise through 30
minutes following civil sunset) and at
least two PSOs must be on activity duty
monitoring during HRG surveys
conducted at night;
(3) PSOs on HRG vessels must begin
monitoring 30 minutes prior to
activating SBPs during the use of these
acoustic sources, and for 30 minutes
after use of these acoustic sources has
ceased;
(4) During daylight hours when
survey equipment is not operating, the
LOA Holder must ensure that visual
PSOs conduct, as rotation schedules
allow, observations for comparison of
sighting rates and behavior with and
without use of the specified acoustic
sources. Off-effort PSO monitoring must
be reflected in the monthly PSO
monitoring reports; and
(5) Any acoustic monitoring would
complement visual monitoring efforts
and would cover an area of at least the
Level B harassment zone around each
acoustic source.
(f) Reporting. The LOA Holder must
comply with the following reporting
measures:
(1) Prior to initiation of in-water
project activities, the LOA Holder must
demonstrate in a report submitted to
NMFS Office of Protected Resources
that all required training for the LOA
Holder personnel (including the vessel
crews, vessel captains, PSOs, and PAM
operators) has been completed;
(2) The LOA Holder must use a
standardized reporting system during
the effective period of the LOA. All data
collected related to the Project must be
recorded using industry-standard
software that is installed on field
laptops and/or tablets.
(3) For all monitoring efforts and
marine mammal sightings, the following
information must be collected and
reported:
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37699
(i) Date and time that monitored
activity begins or ends; Construction
activities occurring during each
observation period; Watch status (i.e.,
sighting made by PSO on/off effort,
opportunistic, crew, alternate vessel/
platform); PSO who sighted the animal;
Time of sighting; Weather parameters
(e.g., wind speed, percent cloud cover,
visibility); Water conditions (e.g.,
Beaufort sea state, tide state, water
depth); All marine mammal sightings,
regardless of distance from the
construction activity; Species (or lowest
possible taxonomic level possible); Pace
of the animal(s); Estimated number of
animals (minimum/maximum/high/
low/best); Estimated number of animals
by cohort (e.g., adults, yearlings,
juveniles, calves, group composition,
etc.); Description (i.e., 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);
Description of any marine mammal
behavioral observations (e.g., observed
behaviors such as feeding or traveling)
and observed changes in behavior,
including an assessment of behavioral
responses thought to have resulted from
the specific activity; Animal’s closest
distance and bearing from the pile being
driven or specified HRG equipment and
estimated time entered or spent within
the Level A harassment and/or Level B
harassment zone(s); Activity at time of
sighting (e.g., vibratory installation/
removal, impact pile driving,
construction survey), use of any noise
attenuation device(s), and specific phase
of activity (e.g., ramp-up of HRG
equipment, HRG acoustic source on/off,
soft-start for pile driving, active pile
driving, etc.); Marine mammal
occurrence in Level A harassment or
Level B harassment zones; Description
of any mitigation-related action
implemented, or mitigation-related
actions called for but not implemented,
in response to the sighting (e.g., delay,
shutdown, etc.) and time and location of
the action; and other human activity in
the area.
(ii) [Reserved]
(4) If a marine mammal is acoustically
detected during PAM monitoring, the
following information must be recorded
and reported to NMFS Office of
Protected Resources:
(i) Location of hydrophone (latitude &
longitude; in Decimal Degrees) and site
name; Bottom depth and depth of
recording unit (in meters); Recorder
(model & manufacturer) and platform
type (i.e., bottom-mounted, electric
glider, etc.), and instrument ID of the
hydrophone and recording platform (if
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
37700
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
applicable); Time zone for sound files
and recorded date/times in data and
metadata (in relation to Universal
Coordinated Time (UTC); i.e., Eastern
Standard Time (EST) time zone is UTC–
5); Duration of recordings (start/end
dates and times; in International
Organization for Standardization (ISO)
8601 format, yyyy-mmddTHH:MM:SS.sssZ); Deployment/
retrieval dates and times (in ISO 8601
format); Recording schedule (must be
continuous); Hydrophone and recorder
sensitivity (in dB re 1 microPascal
(mPa)); Calibration curve for each
recorder; Bandwidth/sampling rate (in
Hz); Sample bit-rate of recordings; and
Detection range of equipment for
relevant frequency bands (in meters).
(ii) [Reserved]
(5) Information required for each
detection, the following information
must be noted:
(i) Species identification (if possible);
Call type and number of calls (if
known); Temporal aspects of
vocalization (date, time, duration, etc.;
date times in ISO 8601 format);
Confidence of detection (detected, or
possibly detected); Comparison with
any concurrent visual sightings;
Location and/or directionality of call (if
determined) relative to acoustic recorder
or construction activities; Location of
recorder and construction activities at
time of call; Name and version of
detection or sound analysis software
used, with protocol reference; Minimum
and maximum frequencies viewed/
monitored/used in detection (in Hz);
and Name of PAM operator(s) on duty.
(ii) [Reserved]
(6) The LOA Holder must compile
and submit weekly reports to NMFS
Office of Protected Resources that
document the daily start and stop of all
pile driving, UXO/MEC detonations,
and HRG survey associated with the
Project; the start and stop of associated
observation periods by PSOs; details on
the deployment of PSOs; a record of all
detections of marine mammals (acoustic
and visual); any mitigation actions (or if
mitigation actions could not be taken,
provide reasons why); and details on the
noise attenuation system(s) used and its
performance. Weekly reports are due on
Wednesday for the previous week
(Sunday–Saturday) and must include
the information required under this
section. The weekly report must also
identify which turbines become
operational and when (a map must be
provided). This weekly report must also
identify when, what charge weight size,
and where UXO/MECs are detonated (a
map must also be provided). Once all
foundation pile installation and UXO/
MEC detonations are completed, weekly
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
reports are no longer required by the
LOA Holder;
(7) The LOA Holder must compile
and submit monthly reports to NMFS
Office of Protected Resources that
include a summary of all information in
the weekly reports, including project
activities carried out in the previous
month, vessel transits (number, type of
vessel, and route), number of piles
installed, all detections of marine
mammals, and any mitigative action
taken. Monthly reports are due on the
15th of the month for the previous
month. The monthly report must also
identify which turbines become
operational and when (a map must be
provided). This weekly report must also
identify when, what charge weight size,
and where UXO/MECs are detonated (a
map must also be provided). Once
foundation installation and UXO/MEC
detonations are completed, monthly
reports are no longer required;
(8) The LOA Holder must submit a
draft annual report to NMFS Office of
Protected Resources no later than 90
days following the end of a given
calendar year. The LOA Holder must
provide a final report within 30 days
following resolution of comments on the
draft report. The draft and final reports
must detail the following information:
(i) The total number of marine
mammals of each species/stock detected
and how many were within the
designated Level A harassment and
Level B harassment zone(s) with
comparison to authorized take of marine
mammals for the associated activity
type; Marine mammal detections and
behavioral observations before, during,
and after each activity; What mitigation
measures were implemented (i.e.,
number of shutdowns or clearance zone
delays, etc.) or, if no mitigative actions
was taken, why not; Operational details
(i.e., days and duration of impact and
vibratory pile driving, days and
duration of drilling, days and number of
UXO/MEC detonations, days and
amount of HRG survey effort, etc.); Any
PAM systems used; The results,
effectiveness, and which noise
attenuation systems were used during
relevant activities (i.e., impact and
vibratory pile driving, drilling, and
UXO/MEC detonations); Summarized
information related to situational
reporting; Any other important
information relevant to the Project,
including additional information that
may be identified through the adaptive
management process; and
(ii) The final annual report must be
prepared and submitted within 30
calendar days following the receipt of
any comments from NMFS Office of
Protected Resources on the draft report.
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
If no comments are received from NMFS
Office of Protected Resources within 60
calendar days of NMFS Office of
Protected Resources’ receipt of the draft
report, the report must be considered
final.
(9) The LOA Holder must submit its
draft 5-year report to NMFS Office of
Protected Resources on all visual and
acoustic monitoring conducted within
90 calendar days of the completion of
activities occurring under the LOA. A 5year report must be prepared and
submitted within 60 calendar days
following receipt of any NMFS Office of
Protected Resources comments on the
draft report. If no comments are
received from NMFS Office of Protected
Resources within 60 calendar days of
NMFS Office of Protected Resources
receipt of the draft report, the report
shall be considered final;
(10) The LOA Holder must submit a
SFV plan at least 180 days prior to the
planned start of vibratory and impact
pile driving, drilling, and UXO/MEC
detonations. At minimum, the plan
must describe how the LOA Holder
would ensure that the first three
monopile and two jacket (using pin
piles) foundation installation sites
selected for SFV are representative of
the rest of the monopile and pin pile
installation sites. In the case that these
sites/scenarios are not determined to be
representative of all other monopile/pin
pile installation sites, the LOA Holder
must include information on how
additional sites/scenarios would be
selected for SFV. The plan must also
include methodology for collecting,
analyzing, and preparing SFV data for
submission to NMFS Office of Protected
Resources. The plan must describe how
the effectiveness of the sound
attenuation methodology would be
evaluated based on the results. The LOA
Holder must also provide, as soon as
they are available but no later than 48
hours after each installation, the initial
results of the SFV measurements to
NMFS Office of Protected Resources in
an interim report after each monopile
for the first three piles, after two jacket
foundation using pin piles are installed,
and after each UXO/MEC detonation;
and
(i) The SFV plan must also include
how operational noise would be
monitored. These data must be used to
identify estimated transmission loss
rates. Operational parameters (e.g.,
direct drive/gearbox information,
turbine rotation rate), characteristics
about the UXO/MEC (e.g., charge
weight, size, type of charge), as well as
sea state conditions and information on
nearby anthropogenic activities (e.g.,
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
vessels transiting or operating in the
area) must be reported;
(ii) The LOA Holder must provide the
initial results of the SFV measurements
to NMFS Office of Protected Resources
in an interim report after each
foundation installation for the first three
monopile foundation piles and two
jacket foundations (all pin piles), and
for each UXO/MEC detonated, as soon
as they are available, but no later than
48 hours after each completed
installation event and/or detonation.
The LOA Holder must also provide
interim reports on any subsequent SFV
on foundation piles within 48 hours.
The interim pile driving SFV report
must include hammer energies used
during pile driving, peak sound
pressure level (SPLpk) and median,
mean, maximum, and minimum rootmean-square sound pressure level that
contains 90 percent of the acoustic
energy (SPLrms) and single strike sound
exposure level (SELss); and
(iii) The final results of SFV of
foundation installations and UXO/MEC
detonations must be submitted as soon
as possible, but no later than within 90
days following completion of all
foundation installation of monopiles
and jackets (pin piles) and all necessary
detonation events. The final report must
include, at minimum, the following:
(A) Peak sound pressure level (SPLpk),
root-mean-square sound pressure level
that contains 90 percent of the acoustic
energy (SPLrms), single strike sound
exposure level (SELss), integration time
for SPLrms, spectrum, and 24-hour
cumulative SEL extrapolated from
measurements at specified distances
(e.g., 750 m) in mean, median,
maximum and minimum levels;
(B) The SEL and SPL power spectral
density and one-third octave band levels
(usually calculated as decidecade band
levels) at the receiver locations should
be reported; The sound levels reported
must be in median and linear average
(i.e., average in linear space), and in dB;
(C) Local environmental conditions,
such as wind speed, transmission loss
data collected on-site (or the sound
velocity profile), baseline pre- and postactivity ambient sound levels
(broadband and/or within frequencies of
concern); A description of depth and
sediment type, as documented in the
Construction and Operation Plan (COP),
at the recording and foundation
installation and UXO/MEC detonation
locations;
(D) The extents of the Level A
harassment and Level B harassment
zone(s); Hammer energies required for
pile installation and the number of
strikes per pile; and Charge weights and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
other relevant characteristics of UXO/
MEC detonations;
(E) Hydrophone equipment and
methods (i.e., recording device,
bandwidth/sampling rate, distance from
the monopile/pin pile and/or UXO/MEC
where recordings were made; depth of
recording device(s)); Description of the
SFV PAM hardware and software,
including software version used,
calibration data, bandwidth capability
and sensitivity of hydrophone(s), any
filters used in hardware or software, any
limitations with the equipment, and
other relevant information; and
(F) Spatial configuration of the noise
attenuation device(s) relative to the pile
and/or UXO/MEC charge; A description
of the noise abatement system and
operational parameters (e.g., bubble
flow rate, distance deployed from the
pile and/or UXO/MEC, etc.) and any
action taken to adjust the noise
abatement system.
(11) The LOA Holder must submit
situational reports if the following
circumstances occur:
(i) If a North Atlantic right whale is
observed at any time by PSOs or
personnel on or in the vicinity of any
project vessel, or during vessel transit,
the LOA Holder must immediately
report sighting information to the NMFS
North Atlantic Right Whale Sighting
Advisory System (866) 755–6622,
through the WhaleAlert app (https://
www.whalealert.org/), and to the U.S.
Coast Guard via channel 16, as soon as
feasible but no later than 24 hours after
the sighting. Information reported must
include, at a minimum: time of sighting,
location, and number of North Atlantic
right whales observed;
(ii) When an observation of a large
whale occurs during vessel transit, the
following information must be recorded
and reported to NMFS Office of
Protected Resources:
(A) Time, date, and location (latitude/
longitude; in Decimal Degrees); The
vessel’s activity, heading, and speed;
Beaufort sea state, water depth (meters),
and visibility; Marine mammal
identification to the best of the
observer’s ability (e.g., North Atlantic
right whale, whale, dolphin, seal);
Initial distance and bearing to marine
mammal from vessel and closest point
of approach; and Any avoidance
measures taken in response to the
marine mammal sighting.
(B) [Reserved]
(iii) If a North Atlantic right whale is
detected via PAM, the date, time,
location (i.e., latitude and longitude of
recorder) of the detection as well as the
recording platform that had the
detection must be reported to
nmfs.pacmdata@noaa.gov as soon as
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
37701
feasible, but no longer than 24 hours
after the detection. Full detection data
and metadata must be submitted
monthly on the 15th of every month for
the previous month via the webform on
the NMFS North Atlantic Right Whale
Passive Acoustic Reporting System
website at https://
www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/
document/passive-acoustic-reportingsystem-templates;
(iv) In the event that the personnel
involved in the Project discover a
stranded, entangled, injured, or dead
marine mammal, the LOA Holder must
immediately report the observation to
the NMFS Office of Protected Resources,
the NMFS Greater Atlantic Stranding
Coordinator for the New England/MidAtlantic area (866–755–6622), and the
U.S. Coast Guard within 24 hours. If the
injury or death was caused by a project
activity, the LOA Holder must
immediately cease all activities until
NMFS Office of Protected Resources is
able to review the circumstances of the
incident and determine what, if any,
additional measures are appropriate to
ensure compliance with the terms of the
LOA. NMFS Office of Protected
Resources may impose additional
measures to minimize the likelihood of
further prohibited take and ensure
MMPA compliance. The LOA Holder
may not resume their activities until
notified by NMFS Office of Protected
Resources. The report must include the
following information:
(A) Time, date, and location (latitude/
longitude; in Decimal Degrees) of the
first discovery (and updated location
information if known and applicable);
Species identification (if known) or
description of the animal(s) involved;
Condition of the animal(s) (including
carcass condition if the animal is dead);
Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if
alive; If available, photographs or video
footage of the animal(s); and General
circumstances under which the animal
was discovered.
(B) [Reserved]
(v) In the event of a vessel strike of a
marine mammal by any vessel
associated with the Project, the LOA
Holder must immediately report the
strike incident to the NMFS Office of
Protected Resources and the NMFS
Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries
Office within and no later than 24
hours. The LOA Holder must
immediately cease all on-water
activities until NMFS Office of
Protected Resources is able to review
the circumstances of the incident and
determine what, if any, additional
measures are appropriate to ensure
compliance with the terms of the LOA.
NMFS Office of Protected Resources
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
37702
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 / Proposed Rules
may impose additional measures to
minimize the likelihood of further
prohibited take and ensure MMPA
compliance. The LOA Holder may not
resume their activities until notified by
NMFS Office of Protected Resources.
The report must include the following
information:
(A) Time, date, and location (latitude/
longitude; in Decimal Degrees) of the
incident; Species identification (if
known) or description of the animal(s)
involved; Vessel’s speed leading up to
and during the incident; Vessel’s
course/heading and what operations
were being conducted (if applicable);
Status of all sound sources in use;
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; Environmental conditions (e.g.,
wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea
state, cloud cover, visibility)
immediately preceding the strike;
Estimated size and length of animal that
was struck; Description of the behavior
of the marine mammal immediately
preceding and following the strike; If
available, description of the presence
and behavior of any other marine
mammals immediately preceding the
strike; 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 to the extent practicable,
photographs or video footage of the
animal(s).
(B) [Reserved]
(12) LOA Holder must report any lost
gear associated with the fishery surveys
to the NOAA Greater Atlantic Regional
Fisheries Office Protected Resources
Division (nmfs.gar.incidental-take@
noaa.gov) as soon as possible or within
24 hours of the documented time of
missing or lost gear. This report must
include information on any markings on
the gear and any efforts undertaken or
planned to recover the gear.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 217.326
Letter of Authorization.
(a) To incidentally take marine
mammals pursuant to this subpart, the
LOA Holder must apply for and obtain
an LOA.
(b) An LOA, unless suspended or
revoked, may be effective for a period of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:18 Jun 07, 2023
Jkt 259001
time not to exceed March 26, 2030, the
expiration date of this subpart.
(c) In the event of projected changes
to the activity or to mitigation and
monitoring measures required by an
LOA, the LOA Holder must apply for
and obtain a modification of the LOA as
described in § 217.327.
(d) The LOA must set forth:
(1) Permissible methods of incidental
taking;
(2) Means of effecting the least
practicable adverse impact (i.e.,
mitigation) on the species, its habitat,
and on the availability of the species for
subsistence uses; and
(3) Requirements for monitoring and
reporting.
(e) Issuance of the LOA must be based
on a determination that the level of
taking must be consistent with the
findings made for the total taking
allowable under the regulations of this
subpart.
(f) Notice of issuance or denial of an
LOA must be published in the Federal
Register within 30 days of a
determination.
§ 217.327 Modifications of Letter of
Authorization.
(a) An LOA issued under §§ 217.322
and 217.326 or this section for the
activity identified in § 217.320(a) shall
be modified upon request by the LOA
Holder, provided that:
(1) The proposed specified activity
and mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting measures, as well as the
anticipated impacts, are the same as
those described and analyzed for this
subpart (excluding changes made
pursuant to the adaptive management
provision in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section); and
(2) NMFS Office of Protected
Resources determines that the
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
measures required by the previous LOA
under this subpart were implemented.
(b) For a LOA modification request by
the applicant that include changes to
the activity or the mitigation,
monitoring, or reporting (excluding
changes made pursuant to the adaptive
management provision in paragraph
(c)(1) of this section) that do not change
the findings made for the regulations in
this subpart or result in no more than a
minor change in the total estimated
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
number of takes (or distribution by
species or years), NMFS Office of
Protected Resources may publish a
notice of proposed LOA in the Federal
Register, including the associated
analysis of the change, and solicit
public comment before issuing the LOA.
(c) An LOA issued under §§ 217.322
and 217.326 or this section for the
activities identified in § 217.320(a) may
be modified by NMFS Office of
Protected Resources under the following
circumstances:
(1) Through adaptive management,
NMFS Office of Protected Resources
may modify (including augment) the
existing mitigation, monitoring, or
reporting measures (after consulting
with the LOA Holder regarding the
practicability of the modifications), if
doing so creates a reasonable likelihood
of more effectively accomplishing the
goals of the mitigation and monitoring;
(i) Possible sources of data that could
contribute to the decision to modify the
mitigation, monitoring, or reporting
measures in an LOA are:
(A) Results from the LOA Holder’s
monitoring from the previous year(s);
(B) Results from other marine
mammals and/or sound research or
studies; and
(C) Any information that reveals
marine mammals may have been taken
in a manner, extent, or number not
authorized by the regulations in this
subpart or subsequent LOA.
(ii) If, through adaptive management,
the modifications to the mitigation,
monitoring, or reporting measures are
substantial, NMFS Office of Protected
Resources shall publish a notice of
proposed LOA in the Federal Register
and solicit public comment.
(2) If NMFS Office of Protected
Resources determines that an emergency
exists that poses a significant risk to the
well-being of the species or stocks of
marine mammals specified in the LOA
issued pursuant to §§ 217.322 and
217.326 or this section, an LOA may be
modified without prior notice or
opportunity for public comment. Notice
would be published in the Federal
Register within 30 days of the action.
§§ 217.328–217.329
[Reserved]
[FR Doc. 2023–11814 Filed 6–6–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\08JNP2.SGM
08JNP2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 110 (Thursday, June 8, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37606-37702]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-11814]
[[Page 37605]]
Vol. 88
Thursday,
No. 110
June 8, 2023
Part II
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 217
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking
Marine Mammals Incidental to the New England Wind Project Offshore
Massachusetts; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 110 / Thursday, June 8, 2023 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 37606]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 217
[Docket No. 230530-0140]
RIN 0648-BL96
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the New England Wind Project
Offshore Massachusetts
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; proposed letter of authorization; request for
comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from Park City Wind, LLC (Park
City Wind) for Incidental Take Regulations (ITR) and an associated
Letter of Authorization (LOA) pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection
Act (MMPA). The requested regulations would govern the authorization of
take, by Level A harassment and/or Level B harassment, of small numbers
of marine mammals over the course of 5 years (2025-2030) incidental to
construction of the New England Wind Project. Park City Wind proposes
to develop the New England Wind Project in two phases, known as Park
City Wind (Phase 1) and Commonwealth Wind (Phase 2). Project activities
that may result in incidental take include pile driving (impact and
vibratory), drilling, unexploded ordnance or munitions and explosives
of concern (UXO/MEC) detonation, and vessel-based site assessment
surveys using high-resolution geophysical (HRG) equipment. NMFS
requests comments on this proposed rule. NMFS will consider public
comments prior to making any final decision on the promulgation of the
requested ITR and issuance of the LOA; agency responses to public
comments will be summarized in the final rule, if issued. If adopted,
the proposed regulations would be effective March 27, 2025, through
March 26, 2030.
DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than July 10,
2023.
ADDRESSES: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-
Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov and enter NOAA-NMFS-2023-
0080 in the Search box. Click on the ``Comment'' icon, complete the
required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period,
may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the
public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on
www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information,
or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender
will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter
``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).
Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word,
Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaclyn Daly, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability
A copy of Park City Wind's Incidental Take Authorization (ITA)
application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the
references cited in this document, may be obtained online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-other-energy-activities-renewable. In case of
problems accessing these documents, please call the contact listed
above (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Purpose and Need for Regulatory Action
This proposed rule would provide a framework under the authority of
the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) to allow for the authorization of
take of marine mammals incidental to construction of the New England
Wind Project within the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM)
Renewable Energy Lease Area OCS-A 0534, the southwest (SW) portion of
Lease Area OCS-A 0501, and along an export cable corridor to a landfall
location in Massachusetts. NMFS received a request from Park City Wind
for 5-year regulations and an LOA that would authorize take, by Level A
harassment and/or Level B harassment, of 39 species of marine mammals
incidental to Park City Wind's construction activities. After reviewing
the request, NMFS is proposing to authorize the take, by harassment
only, of 38 species, representing 38 stocks. No mortality or serious
injury is anticipated or proposed for authorization. Please see the
Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section below for definitions of
relevant terms.
Legal Authority for the Proposed Action
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, regulations are
promulgated, and public notice and an opportunity for public comment
are provided.
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 as ``mitigation'');
and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting
of the takings are set forth.
As noted above, no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or
proposed for authorization in this proposed rule. Relevant definitions
of MMPA statutory and regulatory terms are included below:
Citizen--individual U.S. citizens or any corporation or
similar entity if it is organized under the laws of the United States
or any governmental unit defined in 16 U.S.C. 1362(13) (see 50 CFR
216.103);
Take--to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to
harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal (16 U.S.C. 1362);
Incidental taking--an accidental taking. This does not
mean that the taking is unexpected, but rather it includes those
takings that are infrequent, unavoidable or accidental (see 50 CFR
216.103);
Serious Injury--any injury that will likely result in
mortality (50 CFR 216.3);
Level A harassment--any act of pursuit, torment, or
annoyance which has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine
mammal stock in the wild (16 U.S.C. 1362; 50 CFR 216.3); and
Level B harassment--any act of pursuit, torment, or
annoyance which
[[Page 37607]]
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 (16 U.S.C. 1362).
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA and the implementing regulations
at 50 CFR part 216, subpart I provide the legal basis for proposing
and, if appropriate, issuing 5-year regulations and an associated LOA.
This proposed rule also establishes required mitigation, monitoring,
and reporting requirements for Park City Wind's activities.
Summary of Major Provisions Within the Proposed Action
The major provisions within this proposed rule are as follows:
Authorize take of marine mammals by Level A harassment
and/or Level B harassment.
No mortality or serious injury of any marine mammal is
proposed to be authorized;
Establish a seasonal moratorium on foundation installation
and UXO/MEC detonations during the months of highest North Atlantic
right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) presence in the project area (no
foundation installation or UXO/MEC detonation from January 1-April 30;
no vibratory pile driving in May and December; impact pile driving and
drilling activities would not be planned or occur in December unless
due to unforeseen circumstances and only with NMFS' approval; UXO/MEC
detonations would not be planned or occur in December or May unless due
to unforeseen circumstances and only with NMFS' approval);
Enhanced North Atlantic right whale clearance, shutdown
and restart procedures May 1 through May 14 and November 1 through
December 31 (if a seasonally-restricted activity is approved in
December due to unforeseen circumstances);
Require both visual and passive acoustic monitoring by
trained, NOAA Fisheries-approved Protected Species Observers (PSOs) and
Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM; where required) operators before,
during, and after select activities;
Require the use of sound attenuation device(s) during all
foundation installation activities and UXO/MEC detonations to reduce
noise levels;
Delay the start of foundation installation and UXO/MEC
detonations if a North Atlantic right whale is observed at any distance
by PSOs or acoustically detected within certain distances;
Delay the start of foundation installation and UXO/MEC
detonations if other marine mammals are observed entering or within
their respective clearance zones;
Shut down pile driving (if feasible) if a North Atlantic
right whale is observed or if other marine mammals enter their
respective shut down zones;
Implement sound field verification requirements during
impact pile driving and UXO/MEC detonations to measure in situ noise
levels for comparison against the model results;
Implement soft-starts for impact pile driving and use the
least hammer energy possible;
Require PSOs to continue to monitor for the presence of
marine mammals for 30 minutes after any impact pile driving occurs;
Implement ramp-up for HRG site characterization survey
equipment;
Increase awareness of North Atlantic right whale presence
through monitoring of the appropriate networks and Channel 16, as well
as reporting any sightings to the sighting network;
Implement various vessel strike avoidance measures;
Implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) during
fisheries monitoring surveys, such as removing gear from the water if
marine mammals are considered at-risk or are interacting with gear; and
Require frequent scheduled and situational reporting
including, but not limited to, information regarding activities
occurring, marine mammal observations and acoustic detections, and
sound field verification monitoring results.
Under Section 105(a)(1) of the MMPA, failure to comply with these
requirements or any other requirements in a regulation or permit
implementing the MMPA may result in civil monetary penalties. Pursuant
to 50 CFR 216.106, violations may also result in suspension or
withdrawal of the Letter of Authorization (LOA) for the project.
Knowing violations may result in criminal penalties under Section
105(b) of the MMPA.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
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 evaluate the proposed action (i.e., promulgation of
regulations and subsequent issuance of a 5-year LOA) and alternatives
with respect to potential impacts on the human environment.
Accordingly, NMFS proposes to adopt the BOEM's Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS), provided our independent evaluation of the document
finds that it includes adequate information analyzing the effects of
promulgating the proposed regulations and LOA issuance on the human
environment. NMFS is a cooperating agency on BOEM's EIS. BOEM's draft
EIS, ``New England Wind Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for
Commercial Wind Lease OCS-A0534'', was made available for public
comment on December 23, 2022 (87 FR 78993), beginning the 60-day
comment period ending on February 21, 2023. Additionally, BOEM held
three virtual public hearings on January 27, February 1, and February
6, 2023.
Information contained within Park City Wind's incidental take
authorization (ITA) application and this Federal Register document
provide the environmental information related to these proposed
regulations and associated 5-year LOA for public review and comment.
NMFS will review all comments submitted in response to this notice of
proposed rulemaking prior to concluding the NEPA process or making a
final decision on the requested 5-year ITR and LOA.
Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST-41)
This project is covered under Title 41 of the Fixing America's
Surface Transportation Act, or ``FAST-41''. FAST-41 includes a suite of
provisions designed to expedite the environmental review for covered
infrastructure projects, including enhanced interagency coordination as
well as milestone tracking on the public-facing Permitting Dashboard.
FAST-41 also places a 2-year limitations period on any judicial claim
that challenges the validity of a Federal agency decision to issue or
deny an authorization for a FAST-41 covered project. 42 U.S.C. 4370m-
6(a)(1)(A).
Park City Wind's proposed project is listed on the Permitting
Dashboard, where milestones and schedules related to the environmental
review and permitting for the project can be found at https://www.permits.performance.gov/permitting-project/new-england-wind.
Summary of Request
On December 1, 2021, Park City Wind, a limited liability company
registered in the State of Delaware and wholly owned subsidiary of
Avangrid Renewables, LLC, submitted a request for the promulgation of
regulations and issuance of an associated 5-year LOA to
[[Page 37608]]
take marine mammals incidental to construction activities associated
with implementation of the New England Wind Project (hereafter
``Project'') offshore of Massachusetts in the BOEM Lease Area OCS-A
0534 and the possible use of their southwest (SW) portion of Lease Area
OCS-A 0501. The request was for the incidental, but not intentional,
taking of a small number of 39 marine mammal species (comprising 38
stocks). Neither Park City Wind nor NMFS expects serious injury or
mortality to result from the specified activities nor is any proposed
for authorization.
Park City Wind is proposing to develop the Project in two phases
with a maximum of 132 wind turbine generators (WTGs) and electrical
service platforms (ESP) positions. Two positions may potentially have
co-located ESPs (i.e., two foundations installed at one grid position);
hence, the 132 foundations would be installed at 130 positions in the
lease area. Phase 1 would include 41 to 62 WTGs and 1 or 2 ESPs while
Phase 2 would include 64 to 88 WTG/ESP positions (up to 3 of those
positions will be occupied by ESPs). Four or five offshore export
cables will transmit electricity generated by the WTGs to onshore
transmission systems in the Town of Barnstable, Massachusetts.
In response to our questions and comments and following extensive
information exchange between Park City Wind and NMFS, Park City Wind
submitted a final revised application on July 13, 2022. NMFS deemed it
adequate and complete on July 20, 2022. This final application is
available on NMFS' website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected-resource-regulations.
On August 22, 2022, NMFS published a notice of receipt (NOR) of
Park City Wind's adequate and complete application in the Federal
Register (87 FR 51345), requesting public comments and information on
Park City Wind's request during a 30-day public comment period. During
the NOR public comment period, NMFS received comment letters from one
private citizen and one non-governmental organization (ALLCO Renewable
Energy Limited). NMFS has reviewed all submitted material and has taken
the material into consideration during the drafting of this proposed
rule. In January 2023 and again in March 2023, Park City Wind submitted
memos to NMFS detailing updates and changes to their ITA application
(``Application Update Report''). These are available on the NMFS
website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-park-city-wind-llc-construction-new-england-wind-offshore-wind.
NMFS previously issued one Incidental Harassment Authorization
(IHA) to Park City Wind for the taking of marine mammals incidental to
marine site characterization surveys, using high-resolution geophysical
(HRG) of the Project Phase 1 in the BOEM Lease Area OCS-A 0534 (87 FR
44087, July 07, 2022). NMFS has also previously issued another IHA to
Avangrid Renewables, LLC (Avangrid), owner of Park City Wind, LLC, to
take small numbers of marine mammals incidental to an HRG survey for a
BOEM Lease Area (OCS-A 0508) off the coasts of North Carolina and
Virginia (84 FR 31032, June 28, 2019). To date, Park City Wind and
Avangrid have complied with all IHA requirements (e.g., mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting). Applicable monitoring results may be found
in the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section. If available, the full
monitoring reports can be found on NMFS' website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-other-energy-activities-renewable.
On August 1, 2022, NMFS announced proposed changes to the existing
North Atlantic right whale vessel speed regulations (87 FR 46921,
August 1, 2022) 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. Should a final vessel speed rule
be issued and become effective during the effective period of this ITR
(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. The responsibility to comply with the applicable
requirements of any vessel speed rule would become effective
immediately upon the effective date of any final vessel speed rule and,
when notice is published on the effective date, NMFS would also notify
Park City Wind if the measures in the speed rule were to supersede any
of the measures in the MMPA authorization such that they were no longer
required.
Description of the Specified Activities
Overview
Park City Wind has proposed to construct and operate a wind energy
facility in State and Federal waters in the Atlantic Ocean in lease
area OCS-A 0534. This lease area is located within the Massachusetts
Wind Energy Area (MA WEA) and adjacent to the Rhode Island/
Massachusetts Wind Energy Area (RI/MA WEA). The Project will occupy all
of Lease Area OCS-A 0534 and potentially a portion of Lease Area OCS-A
0501 in the event that Vineyard Wind 1 does not develop spare or extra
positions included in Lease Area OCS-A 0501. If Vineyard Wind 1 does
not develop spare or extra positions in Lease Area OCS-A 0501, those
positions would be assigned to Lease Area OCS-A 0534. Accordingly, for
the purposes of the LOA, Park City Wind has defined the Southern Wind
Development Area (SWDA) as all of Lease Area OCS-A 0534 and the
southwest portion of Lease Area OCS-A 0501.
The Project would consist of several different types of permanent
offshore infrastructure, including wind turbine generators (WTGs) and
associated foundations, ESPs, and offshore cabling. Onshore cabling,
substations, and operations and maintenance (O&M) facilities are also
planned. The Project is divided into two phases: Park City Wind (Phase
1) and Commonwealth Wind (Phase 2). Phase 1 would occupy 150-231 km\2\
(37,066-57,081 acres) which would include 41-62 WTGs and 1-2 ESPs.
Phase 1 includes two WTG foundation types: monopiles and piled jackets.
The ESP(s) will also be supported by a monopile or jacket foundation.
Strings of WTGs will connect with the ESP(s) via a submarine inter-
array cable transmission system. Two high-voltage alternating current
(HVAC) offshore export cables, up to 101 km (62.8 mi) in length per
cable, would be installed within the SWDA. An Offshore Export Cable
Corridor (OECC) would transmit electricity from the ESP(s) to a
landfall site.
Phase 2 depends upon the final footprint of Phase 1. Phase 2 is
expected to contain 64 to 88 WTGs and 1-3 ESP positions within an area
ranging from 222-303 km\2\ (54,857-74,873 acres). Phase 2 includes
three general WTG foundation types: monopiles, jackets (with piles or
suction buckets), or bottom-frame foundations (with piles or suction
buckets). Inter-array cables will transmit electricity from the WTGs to
[[Page 37609]]
the ESP(s). The ESP(s) will also be supported by a monopile or jacket
foundation (with piles or suction buckets). Two or three HVAC offshore
export cables, each with a maximum length of 116-124 km (63-67 NM) per
cable, will transmit power from the ESP(s) to shore. All Phase 2
offshore export cables are planned to use the same OECC as the Phase 1.
Cables for Phase 1 and Phase 2 will diverge 2-3 km (1-2 mi) from shore
to unique landfall locations.
The installation of WTGs and ESPs, would require impact and
vibratory pile driving and drilling. Work would also include HRG
vessel-based site characterization surveys using active acoustic
sources with frequencies of less than 180 kHz and the potential
detonations of 10 unexploded ordnances or Munitions and Explosives of
Concern (UXO/MEC) of different charge weights. Additionally, project
plans include trenching, laying, and burial activities associated with
the installation of the export cable route from the ESP to the shore-
based landing locations and the inter-array cables between turbines;
site preparation work (e.g., boulder removal); placement of scour
protection around foundations; and several types of fishery and
ecological monitoring surveys. Vessels would transit within the project
area and between ports and the wind farm to transport crew, supplies,
and materials to support pile installation. All offshore cables will
connect to onshore export cables, substations, and grid connections,
which would be located in Barnstable County, Massachusetts. Marine
mammals exposed to elevated noise levels during impact and vibratory
pile driving, drilling, detonations of UXOs, or site characterization
surveys may be taken by Level A harassment and/or Level B harassment
depending on the specified activity. No serious injury or mortality is
anticipated or proposed for authorization.
Dates and Duration
Park City Wind anticipates that the Project activities with the
potential to result in harassment of marine mammals would occur
throughout all 5 years of the proposed regulations which, if
promulgated, would be effective from March 27, 2025 through March 26,
2030. The estimated schedule, including dates and duration, for various
activities is provided in Table 1 (also see Tables 1-3 in Application
Update Report). However, this proposed rule considers the potential for
activity schedules to shift. Detailed information about the activities
themselves may be found in the Detailed Description of the Specific
Activities subsection.
Table 1--Estimated Activity Schedule To Construct and Operate the
Project
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project activity Estimated schedule Estimated duration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HRG Surveys..................... Q1 2025-Q4 2029... Any time of the
year, up to 25
days per year.
Scour Protection Pre- or Post- Q1 2025-Q4 2029... Any time of the
Installation. year.
WTG and ESP Foundation Q2-Q4 2026 and Up to 8 months per
Installation, Schedule A. 2027 \1\. year.
WTG and ESP Foundation Q2-Q4 2026, 2027, Up to 8 months per
Installation, Schedule B. and 2028 \1\. year.
Horizontal Directional Drilling Q4 2025-Q2 2026... Up to 150 days.
at Cable Landfall Sites.
UXO/MEC Detonations............. Q2-Q4 2025 and Up to 6 days in
2026 \3\. 2025 and 4 days
in 2026. No more
than 10 days
total.
Inter-array Cable Installation.. Q3-Q4 2026 and Q2 Phase 1: 5 months;
2027-Q2 2028. \2\ Phase 2: 10
months.\2\
Export Cable Installation and Q2 2026-Q2 2028... Phase 1: 8-9
Termination. months; \1\ Phase
2: 13-17
months.\1\
Fishery Monitoring Surveys...... Q1 2025-Q4 2029... Any time of year.
---------------------------------------
Turbine Operation............... Initial turbines operational 2027, all
turbines operational by 2028.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Foundation installation pile driving would be limited to May 1-
December 31, annually; however, pile driving in December will not be
planned but may occur due to unforeseen circumstances (e.g.,
unanticipated extended weather delays, unexpected technical
difficulties) and with NMFS approval.
\2\ The Project is divided into 2 phases: Park City Wind (Phase 1) and
Commonwealth Wind (Phase 2).
\3\ Park City Wind requested UXO/MEC detonations be allowed Q1 2025-Q4
2026. We propose to only allow it May-December 2025 and 2026.
Specific Geographic Region
Park City Wind would construct the Project in Federal waters
offshore of Massachusetts (Figure 1). The project area is part of the
Rhode Island/Massachusetts Wind Energy Area (RI-MA WEA). The project
area covers approximately 101,590 acres (411 km\2\) in Lease Area OCS-A
0534. The project area is located about 20 miles (32 km) southwest of
Martha's Vineyard, about 24 miles (39 km) south of Nantucket, and
adjacent to the southwest boundary of the BOEM-approved Vineyard Wind 1
energy project (Lease Area OCS-A 0501; 65,296 acres (262 km\2\)
assigned for potential Project development). Water depths in the
project area range from 43 to 62 m (141-203 ft) and in the OECC range
from less than 2 m to 46 m (<7-151 ft). The onshore components of the
Project will include up to three export cable landfalls in Barnstable
County, Massachusetts (one for Phase 1 and up to two for Phase 2).
Park City Wind's specified activities would occur in the Northeast
U.S. Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem (NES LME), an area of
approximately 260,000 km\2\ from Cape Hatteras in the south to the Gulf
of Maine in the north. Specifically, the lease area and cable corridor
are located within the Mid-Atlantic Bight subarea of the NES LME, which
extends between Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, and Martha's Vineyard,
Massachusetts, extending westward into the Atlantic to the 100-m
isobath. In the Mid-Atlantic Bight, which extends from Massachusetts to
North Carolina, the pattern of sediment distribution is relatively
simple. The continental shelf south of New England is broad and flat,
dominated by fine grained sediments. Most of the surficial sediments on
the continental shelf are sands and gravels. Silts and clays
predominate at and beyond the shelf edge, with most of the slope being
70-100 percent mud. Fine sediments are also common in the shelf valleys
leading to the submarine canyons, as well as in areas such as the ``Mud
Patch'' south of Rhode Island. There are some larger materials,
including boulders and rocks, left on the seabed by retreating
glaciers, along the
[[Page 37610]]
coast of Long Island and to the north and east.
In support of the Rhode Island Ocean Special Area Management Plan
development process, Codiga and Ullman (2011) reviewed and summarized
the physical oceanography of coastal waters off Rhode Island.
Conditions off the coast of Rhode Island are shaped by a complex
interplay among wind-driven variability, tidal processes, and density
gradients that arise from combined effects of interaction with adjacent
estuaries, solar heating, and heat flux through the air-sea interface.
In winter and fall, the stratification is minimal and circulation is a
weak upwelling pattern directed offshore at shallow depths and onshore
near the seafloor. In spring and summer, strong stratification develops
due to an important temperature contribution, and a system of more
distinct currents occurs, including a narrow flow that proceeds
counterclockwise around the perimeter of Rhode Island Sound (RIS)
likely in association with a tidal mixing front.
The waters in the vicinity of the Project are transitional waters
positioned between the continental slope and the coastal environments
of Rhode Island Sound and Nantucket Sound. The region is generally
characterized by predominantly mobile sandy substrate, and the
associated benthic communities are adopted to survive in a dynamic
environment. The WEAs are composed of a mix of soft and hard bottom
environments as defined by the dominant sediment grain size and
composition (Continental Margin Mapping Program [Department of the
Interior, 2020]; usSEABED (USGS, 2020)).
The benthic environment of the RI-MA WEA is dominated by sandy
sediments that ranged from very fine to medium sand; very fine sands
tend to be more prevalent in deeper, lower energy areas (i.e., the
southern portion of the MA WEA), whereas coarser sediments, including
gravels (e.g., patchy cobbles and boulders) were found in shallower
areas (Bay State Wind, 2019; Deepwater Wind South Fork, LLC, 2019; DWW
Rev I, LLC, 2020; Stokesbury, 2014; LaFrance et al., 2010; McMaster,
1960; Popper et al., 2014). The species that inhabit the benthic
habitats of the OCS are typically described as infaunal species, those
living in the sediments (e.g., polychaetes, amphipods, mollusks), and
epifaunal species, those living on the seafloor surface (mobile, e.g.,
sea starts, sand dollars, sand shrimp) or attached to substrates
(sessile, e.g., barnacles, anemones, tunicates). Further detail on the
benthic habitats found in the project area, including the results of
site-specific benthic habitat assessments, can be found within
Construction and Operations Plan (COP) Volume II-A, Section 5--Results
Of Biological Surveys and COP Volume II-A Appendices--Appendix II-H
2016-2020 Benthic Reports.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 37611]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08JN23.000
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
Detailed Description of Specific Activities
Below, we provide detailed descriptions of Park City Wind's
activities, explicitly noting those that are anticipated to result in
the take of marine mammals and for which incidental take authorization
is requested. Additionally, a brief explanation is provided for those
activities that are not expected to result in the take of marine
mammals.
WTG and ESP Foundation Installation
Park City Wind proposes to install a maximum of 130 wind turbine
generator (WTG) and electrical service platform (ESP) positions. Two
positions may potentially have co-located ESPs (i.e., 1
[[Page 37612]]
WTG and 1 ESP foundation installed at 1 grid position), resulting in
132 foundations. The WTGs would have a maximum tip height of 357 m
(1,171 ft) and a maximum penetration depth of 85 m (279 ft). Each
turbine would be spaced 1 nautical mile (nmi) apart in fixed east-to-
west rows and north-to-south columns to create the 1 nmi by 1 nmi grid
arrangement. Park City Wind anticipates that the initial WTGs (41-62
WTGs) would become operational in 2027 after installation is completed
and all necessary components, such as array cables, ESPs, export cable
routes, and onshore substations. Park City Wind expects that all
remaining turbines will be operational by 2028. No more than one
foundation will be installed at a time (i.e., concurrent/simultaneous
pile driving of foundations would not occur).
Phase 1 will include 41 to 62 WTGs and 1 or 2 ESPs for a total of
42 to 64 foundations. The total number of foundations in Phase 2
depends upon the final footprint of Phase 1. Phase 2 is expected to
contain 64 to 88 WTG/ESP foundations (up to 3 of those positions will
be occupied by ESPs). While only 132 foundations would be permanently
installed, Park City Wind has accounted for up to 133 pile driving
events in its take request to account for the instance wherein
foundation installation began but is unable to be completed due to
environmental or engineering constraints and the pile is re-driven at
another position.
Phase 1 foundation types would be monopiles or jackets while Phase
2 foundation types include monopiles, jackets, or bottom-frame
foundations. Jacket foundations require the installation of three to
four jacket securing piles, known as pin piles. The bottom-frame
foundation is similar to a conventional jacket foundation, but
generally has fewer, larger structural tubular members, has a
triangular space frame, no small-diameter lattice cross-bracing, and a
single central vertical tubular column. At each foot, the structure
would be secured to the seafloor using driven piles similar to those
used by piled jacket foundations or suction buckets. For purposes of
this analysis, the use of suction buckets to secure bottom-frame
foundations is not being considered further in this analysis as
installation of bottom-frame foundations using suction buckets is not
anticipated to result in noise levels that would cause harassment to
marine mammals.
The applicant proposed two construction schedules, A and B.
Construction schedule A assumes a single 2-year construction scenario.
Overall, 89 monopile foundations and 2 jacket foundations (8 pin piles)
would be installed in 2026 over 52 days and 18 monopile foundations and
24 jacket foundations (96 pin piles) would be installed in 2027 over 35
days for a total of 87 days of pile driving to install all 133
foundations. All days would include impact pile driving and a subset
may include vibratory pile driving and drilling. No more than one
foundation would be installed at a time (i.e., concurrent/simultaneous
installation of more than one foundation would not occur). Park City
Wind anticipates that a maximum of two monopiles or one jacket (up to
four pin piles) is expected to be installed per day.
Construction schedule B assumes that all construction would occur
over a 3-year period (2026-2028). Overall, 55 monopile foundations and
3 jacket foundations (12 pin piles) would be installed in 2026 over 38
days, 53 jackets (212 piles) would be installed in 2027 over 53 days,
and 22 jackets (88 pin piles) would be installed over 22 days in 2028.
In total, 133 foundations would be installed over 113 days. Similar to
Schedule A, all days would include impact pile driving and a subset may
include vibratory pile driving and drilling. Please see Table 2 and 3
in Park City Wind's March 2023 Application Update Report. Table 2
provides a summary of Construction Schedule A and B.
Table 2--Foundation Installation Construction Schedules
[Days]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schedule A Schedule B
Foundation type -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2026 2027 Total 2026 2027 2028 Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monopiles................................................... 89 18 107 55 0 0 55
Jackets..................................................... 2 24 26 3 53 22 78
No. of Days................................................. 52 35 87 38 53 22 113
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monopiles would be up to 12 m (39.37 ft) or 13 m (42.7 ft) in
diameter and could be installed in both Phases 1 and 2. Jacket
foundations require up to four pin piles and each would have a maximum
diameter of 4 m (13.1 ft) diameter (see Figures 3-6 in the ITA
application). When accounting for pre-piling preparatory work and post-
piling activities, installation of a single monopile or jacket pile
will take approximately 6-13 hours. Park City Wind anticipates at least
1 hour between monopile installations and 30 minutes between jacket pin
pile installations. Park City Wind anticipates that a maximum of two
monopiles or one jacket (up to four pin piles) is expected to be
installed per day. Pile driving activities could occur within the 8-
month period of May through December.
A WTG monopile foundation typically consists of a single steel
tubular section with several sections of rolled steel plate welded
together and secured to the seabed. Secondary structures on each WTG
monopile foundation will include a boat landing or alternative means of
safe access, ladders, a crane, and other ancillary components. A
typical monopile installation sequence begins with the monopiles
transported directly to the project area for installation or to the
construction staging port by an installation vessel or a feeding barge.
At the foundation location, the main installation vessel upends the
monopile in a vertical position in the pile gripper mounted on the side
of the vessel. The hammer is then lifted on top of the pile and pile
driving commences with a soft-start and proceeds to completion. Piles
are driven until the target embedment depth is met (up to 50 m), then
the pile hammer is removed and the monopile is released from the pile
gripper. Once installation of the monopile is complete, the vessel
moves to the next installation location.
Monopiles would be installed using a 5,000 kJ to 6,000 kJ hammer to
a maximum penetration depth of 40 m (131 ft). Park City Wind estimates
that a monopile could require up to 6,970 strikes at up to 30.0 blows
per minute (bpm) to reach full penetration depth. It is expected that
each monopile installation will last less than 6 hours,
[[Page 37613]]
with most installations anticipated to last between 3-4 hours. Figures
3-6 in Park City Wind's ITA application provide a conceptual example of
the WTG support structures (i.e., towers and foundations). WTGs would
be designed to withstand severe weather conditions anticipated at the
SWDA (COP Appendix I-E). While major storms, winter nor'easters, and,
to a lesser extent, hurricanes pass through the SWDA regularly, the
Project's offshore facilities are designed to withstand such severe
weather events (COP Volume I).
Jacket foundations may be used. Once delivered to the SWDA, the
jacket will be lifted off the transport or installation vessel and
lowered to the seabed with the correct orientation. The piles will be
driven to the engineered depth, following the same process described
above for monopiles. The WTG jacket piles are expected to be pre-piled
(i.e., the jacket structure will be set on pre-installed piles). Up to
three ESP jackets are expected to be post-piled (i.e., the jacket is
placed on the seafloor and piles are subsequently driven through guides
at the base of each leg). For the ESP post-piled jackets, piling would
be initiated during daylight hours (no later than 1.5 hours prior to
civil sunset) and need to continue until all piles are installed due to
health and safety concerns.
Jacket foundations would be installed using a 3,500 kJ hammer
energy pile driving for a 4-m pin pile to reach their maximum
penetration depth of 50 m (164 ft). There are four pins per jacket
foundation, Park City Wind estimates that each pin will take up to
9,805 hammer strikes at up 30.0 bpm to reach full penetration depth
(Table 1 in the ITA application). Foundation installation would use a
20-minute soft-start to ensure that the monopile or jacket foundation
pile remains vertical and to allow any motile marine life to leave the
area before the pile driving intensity is increased. Jacket foundation
installation times will vary, but will likely take up to 6 hours per
pin pile, depending on whether the jacket is pre- or post-piled (Table
4 ITA application). The bottom-frame foundation (for Phase 2 only) is
similar to the jacket foundation, with shorter piles and shallower
penetration. The potential acoustic impact of the bottom-frame
foundation installation is equivalent to or less than that predicted
for the jacket foundation. As the design and installation methods for
bottom-frame foundations would be equivalent to or less than jacket
foundations, bottom-frame foundations are not carried forward in this
document.
During construction of the Project, it may be necessary to start
pile installation using a vibratory hammer rather than using an impact
hammer, a technique known as vibratory setting of piles. The vibratory
method is particularly useful when soft seabed sediments are not
sufficiently stiff to support the weight of the pile during the initial
installation, increasing the risk of `pile run' where a pile sinks
rapidly through seabed sediments. Piles which experience pile run can
be difficult to recover and pose significant safety risks to the
personnel and equipment on the construction vessel. The vibratory
hammer mitigates this risk by forming a hard connection to the pile
using hydraulic clamps, thereby acting as a lifting/handling tool as
well as a vibratory hammer. The tool is inserted into the pile on the
construction vessel deck, and the connection made. The pile is then
lifted, upended and lowered into position on the seabed using the
vessel crane. After the pile is lowered into position, vibratory pile
installation will commence. Vibratory pile installation is a technique
where piles are driven into soil using a longitudinal vibration motion.
The vibratory hammer installation method can continue until the pile is
inserted to a depth that is sufficient to fully support the structure,
and then the impact hammer can be positioned and operated to complete
the pile installation. Of the 132 WTG/ESPs, Park City Wind estimates
approximately 70 total foundations (53 percent) may require vibratory
hammering before impact hammering. Table 7 and 8 in Park City Wind's
application provides a breakdown of the number of potential days of
pile installation, by activity, per month under the maximum design
scenario for Schedules A and B, respectively.
Construction schedule A anticipates 20 days of vibratory hammering
in 2026 and 25 days in 2027 (total 45 days) (Table 2). Construction
schedule B anticipates 20 days of vibratory hammering in 2026, 25 days
in 2027, and 9 days in 2028 (total 54 days) (Table 2). Comparisons of
vibratory pile installation versus impulsive hammer pile installation
indicate that vibratory pile installation typically produces lower
amplitude sounds in the marine environment than impact hammer
installation (Rausche and Beim 2012). The average expected duration of
vibratory setting is approximately 30 minutes per pile for the Project.
Due to the small size of the permanent threshold shift (PTS) ranges and
the mitigation that will be applied during construction, no Level A
harassment is expected. More information on vibratory pile setting is
in Section 1.2.2 of the ITA application.
Drilling is a contingency measure that may be required to remove
soil and/or boulders from inside the pile in cases of pile refusal
during installation. A pile refusal can occur if the total frictional
resistance of the soil becomes too much for the structural integrity of
the pile and the capability of the impact hammer. Continuing to drive
in a refused condition can lead to overstress in the pile and potential
to buckle (tear) the pile material. The use of an offshore drill can
reduce the frictional resistance by removing the material from inside
the pile and allowing the continuation of safe pile driving. An
offshore drill is an equipment piece consisting of a motor and bottom
hole assembly (BHA). The drill is placed on top of the refused pile
using the construction vessel crane, and the BHA is lowered down to the
soil inside the pile. On the bottom face of the BHA is a traditional
``drill bit,'' which slowly rotates (at 4 or 5 revolutions per minute
or approximately 0.4 m per hour) and begins to disturb the material
inside the pile. As the disturbed material mixes with seawater which is
pumped into the pile, it begins to liquefy. The liquefied material is
pumped out to a pre-designated location, leaving only muddy seawater
inside the pile instead of a solid ``soil plug,'' and largely reducing
the frictional resistance generated by the material inside the pile.
When enough material has been removed from inside the pile and the
resistance has reduced sufficiently, the drill is then lifted off the
pile and recovered to the vessel. The impact hammer is then docked onto
the pile and impact pile driving commences. It may be necessary to
remove and replace the drill several times in the driving process to
achieve sufficiently low frictional resistance to achieve the design
penetration through impact pile driving. Of the 132 WTG/ESPs, Park City
Wind estimates 48 foundations (36 percent) may require drilling to
remove soil and/or boulders from inside the pile that would otherwise
affect the capability of the impact hammer. Construction schedule A
anticipates 33 days of drilling in 2026 and 15 days in 2027 (total 48
days) (Table 2). Construction schedule B anticipates 20 days of
drilling in 2026, 19 days in 2027, and 9 days in 2028 (total 48 days)
(Tables 2).
While pre-piling preparatory work and post-piling activities could
be ongoing at one foundation position as pile driving is occurring at
another position, there is no concurrent/
[[Page 37614]]
simultaneous pile driving of foundations planned (see Dates and
Duration section). Impact pile driving associated with foundation
installation would be limited to the months of May through December and
is currently scheduled to be conducted during 2026-2028 (depending
which construction schedule is done, A or B). Installation of
foundations is anticipated to result in the take of marine mammals due
to noise generated during pile driving.
Park City Wind has proposed to conduct pile driving 24 hours per
day. Once construction begins, Park City Wind would proceed as rapidly
as possible, while meeting all required mitigation and monitoring
measures, to reduce the total duration of construction. NMFS
acknowledges the benefits of completing construction quickly during
times when North Atlantic right whales are unlikely to be in the area
but also recognizes challenges associated with monitoring during
reduced visibility conditions such as night. Should Park City Wind
submit a NMFS-approved Alternative Monitoring Plan, pile driving may be
initiated at night. NMFS intends to condition the final rule, if
issued, identifying if initiating pile driving at night may occur.
Installation of the WTG and ESP foundations is anticipated to
result in the take of marine mammals due to noise generated during pile
driving and drilling.
HRG Surveys
High-resolution geophysical site characterization surveys would
occur annually throughout the 5 years the rule and LOA would be
effective with duration dependent on the activities occurring in that
year (i.e., construction versus non-construction year). HRG surveys
would utilize up to a maximum of three vessels working concurrently in
different sections of the Lease Area and OECC corridor. Park City Wind
estimates that no more than 3 years will have HRG surveys and each year
would have at least 6,000 km surveyed. In total, no more than 18,000 km
may be surveyed across the 5-years with a total of no more than 225
vessel days within the Lease Area and along the OECC corridor in water
depths ranging from 1 m (3.6 ft) to 61.9 m (203 ft). Each day that a
survey vessel covers 80 km (50 miles) of survey trackline is considered
vessel day. For example, three vessels operating concurrently on the
same calendar day, covering 80 km each, would be 3 vessel days.
HRG surveys would be conducted to identify any seabed debris and to
support micrositing of the WTG and ESP foundations and cable routes.
Geophysical survey instruments may include side scan sonar, synthetic
aperture sonar, single and multibeam echosounders, sub-bottom profilers
(SBP), and magnetometers/gradiometers, some of which are expected to
result in the take of marine mammals (LOA Section 1.2.5.). Equipment
may be mounted to the survey vessel or the Project may use autonomous
surface vehicles (SFV) to carry out this work. Surveys would occur
annually, with durations dependent on the activities occurring in that
year (i.e., construction years versus operational years).
As summarized previously, HRG surveys will be conducted using up to
three vessels concurrently. Up to 80 km of survey lines will be
surveyed per vessel each survey day at approximately 7.4 km/hour (4
knots) on a 24-hour basis. HRG surveys are anticipated to operate at
any time of year for 25 days per year, a maximum of 125 days for the
maximum of the 3 planned years covered under the 5-years of the LOA. Of
the HRG equipment types proposed for use, the following sources have
the potential to result in take of marine mammals:
Medium penetration SBPs (boomers) to map deeper subsurface
stratigraphy as needed. A boomer is a broad-band sound source operating
in the 0.2 kHz to 15 kHz frequency range. This system is typically
mounted on a sled and towed behind the vessel.
Medium penetration SBPs (sparkers) to map deeper
subsurface stratigraphy as needed. A sparker creates acoustic pulses
from 0.05 kHz to 3 kHz omni-directionally from the source that can
penetrate several hundred meters into the seafloor. These are typically
towed behind the vessel with adjacent hydrophone arrays to receive the
return signals.
Table 3 identifies all the representative survey equipment that
operate below 180 kilohertz (kHz) (i.e., at frequencies that are
audible and have the potential to disturb marine mammals) that may be
used in support of planned geophysical survey activities and are likely
to be detected by marine mammals given the source level, frequency, and
beamwidth of the equipment. Equipment with operating frequencies above
180 kHz and equipment that does not have an acoustic output (e.g.,
magnetometers) may also be used but are not discussed further because
they are outside the general hearing range of marine mammals likely to
occur in the project area. In addition, due to the characteristics of
non-impulsive sources (i.e., Ultra-Short BaseLine (USBL), Innomar, and
other parametric sub-bottom profilers), take is not anticipated due to
operating characteristics like very narrow beam width which limit
acoustic propagation. Therefore, no Level A harassment or B harassment
can be reasonably expected from the operation of these sources. The
sources that have the potential to result in harassment to marine
mammals include boomers and sparkers (Table 3).
Table 3--Summary of Representative HRG Survey Equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Peak source
Representative Operating level (dB level 0-pk Pulse Repetition Beamwidth Information
Equipment type Name model frequency re 1 (dB re 1 duration rate (Hz) (degrees) source
(kHz) [mu]Pa m) [mu]Pa m) (ms)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boomer............... Applied Acoustics Applied Acoustics 0.2-15 205 212 0.8 \e\ 2 180 CF
AA251. AA251 \a\.
Sparker.............. GeoMarine Geo SIG ELC 820 \c\ 0.05-3 203 213 3.4 \e\ 1 \d\ 180 CF
Spark 2000 (400 Sparker \b\.
tip).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Frequency estimated from Figures 14 and 16 in Crocker and Fratantonio (2016). Source levels, beam width, and pulse duration from Table 5 in Crocker
and Fratantonio (2016) at 300 J.
\b\ SIG ELC 820 has similar operation settings as Geo Spark 2000 (Sect. I.5.1). See Table 9 in Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) source for levels at 5 m
source depth, 750 J setting.
\c\ Frequency source specifications provided by Vineyard Wind.
\d\ Assumes omnidirectional source.
\e\ Vineyard Wind indicates they will use this repetition rate.
[[Page 37615]]
UXO/MEC Detonations
Park City Wind anticipates encountering UXO/MECs during Project
construction. UXO/MECs include explosive munitions (such as bombs,
shells, mines, torpedoes, etc.) that did not explode when they were
originally deployed or were intentionally discarded in offshore
munitions dump sites to avoid land-based detonations. The risk of
incidental detonation associated with conducting seabed-altering
activities, such as cable laying and foundation installation, in
proximity to UXO/MECs jeopardizes the health and safety of project
participants.
For UXO/MECs that are positively identified in proximity to planned
activities on the seabed, several alternative strategies will be
considered prior to in-situ UXO/MEC disposal. These may include: (1)
relocating the activity away from the UXO/MEC (avoidance), (2) physical
UXO/MEC removal (lift and shift), (3) alternative combustive removal
technique (low order disposal), (4) cutting the UXO/MEC open to
apportion large ammunition or deactivate fused munitions (cut and
capture), or (5) using shaped charges to ignite the explosive materials
and allow them to burn at a slow rate rather than detonate
instantaneously (deflagration). Only after these alternatives are
considered and found infeasible would in-situ high-order UXO/MEC
detonation be pursued. If detonation is necessary, detonation noise
could result in the take of marine mammals by Level A harassment and
Level B harassment.
Park City wind anticipates that up to 10 UXO/MECs may require
disposal through high-order detonation and that these detonations would
occur in 2025 and 2026. To better assess the likelihood of encountering
UXO/MECs during project construction, Park City Wind is conducting HRG
surveys to identify potential UXO/MECs that have not been previously
mapped. As these surveys and analysis of data from them are still
underway, the exact number and type of UXO/MECs in the project area are
not yet known. However, Park City Wind assumes that up to 10 UXO/MECs
charges, of up to 454-kg (1,000 pounds; lbs), which is the largest
charge that is reasonably expected to be encountered (See Estimated
Take of Marine Mammals for detailed description of UXO/MEC charge
weights), may require in-situ detonation. Although it is highly
unlikely that all charges would weigh 454 kg, this approach was
determined to be the most conservative for the purposes of impact
analysis. If necessary, these detonations would occur on up to 10
different days (i.e., only one detonation would occur per day). Park
City Wind anticipates up to six detonations could occur in 2025 and
four in 2026. All detonations would occur during daylight hours only
and would not occur from December 1 through May 31, annually; however,
NMFS may approve detonating UXO/MECs on a case-by-case basis in
December and May.
NMFS concurs with Park City Wind that Levels A and Level B
harassment are possible for UXO/MEC detonation activities. Auditory
injury or behavioral harassment may result from exposure to the sounds
produced by UXO/MEC detonation; no non-auditory injury is anticipated.
Cable Laying and Installation
Up to five offshore export cables will transmit electricity
generated by the WTGs to onshore transmission systems in the Town of
Barnstable, Massachusetts. Underground onshore export cables, located
primarily within existing roadway layouts, will connect the landfall
site(s) to one or two new onshore substations in the Town of
Barnstable, Massachusetts. Grid interconnection cables will then
connect the Phase 1 onshore substation to the ISO New England (ISO-NE)
electric grid at Eversource's existing 345 kilovolt substation in West
Barnstable. Park City Wind intends to install all Phase 2 offshore
export cables within the same OECC as the Phase 1 cables but will use
separate landfall sites than Phase 1 in Barnstable. The offshore export
cables will likely be transported directly to the Offshore Development
Area in a cable laying vessel, on an ocean-going barge, or on a heavy
transport vessel (which may also transport the cable laying vessel
overseas) and installed by the cable laying vessel upon arrival. Vessel
types under consideration for cable installation activities are
presented in the COP Volume 1 Table 4.3-1.
Cable burial operations will occur both in the SWDA for the inter-
array cables connecting the WTGs to the ESPs and in the Offshore Export
Cable Corridor (OECC) for the cables carrying power from the ESPs to
the landfall sites. Construction of the OECC and the inter-array cable
installation would take place in 2026 through 2028 (Table 2). The
target depth for cable burial is 1.5 m to 2.5 m (5-8 ft). Therefore,
the seafloor in the direct path of the inter-array, inter-link, and
offshore export cables within the SWDA will be disturbed from the
surface to a depth of 1.5 to 2.5 m (5-8 ft). Where sufficient cable
burial depths cannot be achieved, cable protection would be used. Cable
laying, cable installation, and cable burial activities planned to
occur during the construction of the project may include the following:
jetting (e.g., jet plow or jet trenching); vertical injection;
leveling; mechanical cutting; plowing (with or without jet-assistance);
pre-trenching; boulder removal; and controlled flow excavation. During
construction related activities, including cable laying and
construction material delivery, dynamic positioning (DP) thrusters may
be used to maneuver and maintain station. No blasting is proposed for
cable installation.
Bottom habitat may also be permanently altered to hard bottom
substrate through the installation of cable protection (as described in
Sections 3.2.1.5.4 and 4.2.1.5.4 of BOEM COP Volume I). Potential cable
protection methods include: rock placement on top of the cables (6.4 cm
in diameter or larger); Gabion rock bags on top of the cables; concrete
mattresses; or half-shell pipes or similar (only for cable crossings or
where the cable is laid on the seafloor). Cable protection will be up
to 9 m (30 ft) wide. The offshore export cables will likely be
transported directly to the Offshore Development Area in a cable laying
vessel, on an ocean-going barge, or on a heavy transport vessel (which
may also transport the cable laying vessel overseas) and installed by
the cable laying vessel upon arrival. Phase 1 will consist of two
offshore export cables with a maximum total length of ~202 km (~109
nmi). Phase 2 will consist of two or three offshore export cables with
a maximum total length (assuming three cables) of 356 km (~192 nmi).
The ends of the offshore export cables will likely be protected using
protection conduits put in place at the approach to the ESP
foundation(s). Installation of an offshore export cable is anticipated
to last approximately 9 months for Phase 1 and approximately 13.5
months for Phase 2. Cable installation for each Phase may be continuous
and take up to 2 years. The estimated installation time frame for the
inter-array cables is over a period of approximately 4-5 months for
Phase 1 and 9 months for Phase 2.
The ends of the offshore export cables will likely be protected
using protection conduits put in place at the approach to the ESP
foundation(s) (see COP Volume I Figure 3.2-8). This cable entry
protection system consists of different components of composite
material and/or cast-iron half-shells with suitable corrosion
protection, which protect the cables from fatigue and mechanical loads
as they transition above the seabed and enter the foundation.
[[Page 37616]]
Although a large majority of the cable entry protection system will
likely lie on top of the monopile scour protection (if used), it will
likely extend a short distance beyond the edge of the scour protection.
Additional cable protection may be placed on top of the cable entry
protection system (within the footprint of the scour protection) to
secure the cable entry protection system in place and limit movement of
the cable, which can damage the cable (for specific details see COP
Volume I section 3.2.1.5.4).
For Phases 1 and 2, 66 to 132 kilovolt (kV) inter-array cables will
connect ``strings'' of WTGs to an ESP. The maximum anticipated total
length of the Phase 1 inter-array cables is approximately 225 km (121
nmi) and the maximum anticipated total length of the inter-link cable
is approximately 20 km (11 nmi). The maximum anticipated total length
of the Phase 2 inter-array cables is approximately 325 km (175 nmi) and
the maximum anticipated total length of the inter-link cable is
approximately ~60 km (~32 nmi). The target burial depth of the offshore
export cables will be at least 1.5-2.5 m (5-8 ft) along their entire
length. Like the offshore export cables, all inter-array cables and
inter-link cables will likely be protected with cable entry protection
systems at the approach to the WTG and ESP foundations.
Some dredging of the upper portions of sand waves may be required
prior to cable laying to achieve sufficient burial depth below the
stable sea bottom; large boulders may also need to be relocated.
Dredging may be used to remove the upper portions of sand waves within
the OECC and will be limited only to the extent required to achieve
adequate cable burial depth during cable installation. Dredging could
be accomplished by a trailing suction hopper dredge (TSHD) or
controlled flow excavation.
The amount of habitat disturbance from the use of jack-up and/or
anchored vessels, cable installation, and metocean buoy anchors would
be approximately 4.08 km\2\ (1.58 miles\2\). The total area of
alteration within the SWDA due to foundation and scour protection
installation, jack-up and/or anchored vessel use, inter-array and
inter-link cable installation, potential cable protection (if
required), and metocean buoy anchors is 5.19 km\2\, (2.00 miles\2\)
which is 1.1 percent of the maximum size of the SWDA. Metocean buoys
are small buoys that collect various ocean data. As the noise levels
generated from cable laying and installation work are low, the
potential for take of marine mammals to result is discountable. Park
City Wind is not requesting, and NMFS is not proposing to authorize,
take associated with cable laying activities. Therefore, cable laying
activities are not analyzed further in this document.
Site Preparation
Seabed preparation may be required prior to foundation
installation, scour protection installation, or cable-laying (see
Section 3.3.1.2 and 4.3.1.2 of the COP Volume I). This could include
the removal of large obstructions and/or leveling of the seabed. Large
boulders along the route may need to be relocated prior to cable
installation. Some dredging of the upper portions of sand waves may
also be required prior to cable laying to achieve sufficient burial
depth below the stable sea bottom. However, depending on bottom
conditions, water depth, and contractor preferences, other specialty
techniques may be used in certain areas to ensure sufficient burial
depth. For monopile and jacket pile installation, seafloor preparation
will include required boulder clearance and removal of any obstructions
within the seafloor preparation area at each foundation location. Scour
protection installation will occur pre- or post-installation and will
involve a rock dumping vessel placing scour using fall-pipes, side
dumping, and/or placement using a crane/bucket at each foundation
location (more details can be found in Park City Wind's COP Volume 1
Section 3.3.1.2).
For Phases 1 and 2, a pre-lay grapnel run and pre-lay survey are
expected to be performed to clear obstructions, such as abandoned
fishing gear and other marine debris, and inspect the route prior to
cable laying. A specialized vessel will tow a grapnel rig that hooks
and recovers obstructions, such as fishing gear, ropes, and wires from
the seafloor. Boulder clearance may be required in targeted locations
to clear boulders along the OECC, inter-array cable (IAC) routes, and/
or foundations prior to installation.
Boulder removal would occur prior to installation and would be
completed by a support vessel based. It is currently anticipated that
boulders larger than approximately 0.2-0.3 m (0.7-1 ft) will be avoided
or relocated outside of the final installation corridor to create an
installation corridor wide enough to allow the installation tool to
proceed unobstructed along the seafloor. If there are boulders along
the final route that cannot be moved, a reasonable buffer of up to 5 m
(16 ft) could be utilized. Further details on boulder relocation can be
found in COP Volume 1 Section 3.3.1.3.2.
Dredging would also occur and be limited to the extent required to
achieve adequate cable burial depth during cable installation. Where
dredging is necessary, Park City Wind conservatively assumed that the
dredge corridor would typically be 15 m (50 ft) wide at the bottom (to
allow for equipment maneuverability) with approximately 1:3 sideslopes
for each cable. However, the depth of dredging will vary with the
height of sand waves and the dimensions of the sideslopes will likewise
vary with the depth of dredging and sediment conditions. This dredge
corridor includes up to 1 m (3.3 ft) wide cable installation trench and
up to 3 m (10 ft) wide temporary disturbance zone from the tracks or
skids of the cable installation equipment. The average dredge depth is
approximately 0.5 m (1.6 ft) and may range up to 5.25 m (17 ft) in
localized areas. The total vertical disturbance within sand waves is up
to 8 m (26 ft), which includes dredging and cable installation.
Two installation methods may be used to complete sand leveling
including Trailing Suction Hopper Dredging (TSHD) and controlled flow
excavation (CFE). A TSHD can be used in sand waves of most sizes,
whereas the controlled flow excavation technique is most likely to be
used in areas where sand waves are less than 2 m (6.6 ft) high. A TSHD
vessel contains one or more drag arms that extend from the vessel, rest
on the seafloor, and suction up sediments. Any sediment removed would
be deposited in the dredged material within the OECC. Bottom dumping of
dredged material would only occur within sand waves. CFE is a
contactless dredging tool, providing a method of clearing loose
sediment below submarine cables, enabling burial. The CFE tool draws in
seawater from the sides and then jets this water out from a vertical
down pipe at a specified pressure and volume, which is then positioned
over the cable alignment, enabling the stream of water to fluidize the
sands around the cable. This allows the cable to settle into the trench
under its own weight. Further details on dredging and sand level can be
found in COP Volume I 3.3.1.3.5.
NMFS does not expect site preparation work, including boulder
removal and sand leveling (i.e., dredging), to generate noise levels
that would cause take of marine mammals. Underwater noise associated
with these activities is expected to be similar in nature to the sound
produced by the dynamic positioning (DP) cable lay vessels used during
cable installation activities within the project. Sound
[[Page 37617]]
produced by DP vessels is considered non-impulsive and is typically
more dominant than mechanical or hydraulic noises produced from the
cable trenching or boulder removal vessels and equipment. Therefore,
noise produced by those vessels would be comparable to or less than the
noise produced by DP vessels, so impacts are also expected to be
similar. Additionally, boulder clearance is a discreet action occurring
over a short duration resulting in short term direct effects and sound
produced by boulder clearance equipment would be preceded by, and
associated with, sound from ongoing vessel noise and would be similar
in nature.
NMFS expects that marine mammals would not be exposed to sounds
levels or durations from seafloor preparation work that would disrupt
behavioral patterns. Therefore, the potential for take of marine
mammals to result from these activities is discountable and Park Wind
did not request, and NMFS does not propose to authorize, any Level A
harassment or Level B harassment takes associated with seafloor
preparation work and these activities are not analyzed further in this
document.
Vessel Operation
Park City Wind will utilize various types of vessels over the
course of the 5-year proposed regulations. Park City Wind has
identified several existing port facilities located in Massachusetts,
Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, and/or New Jersey to support
offshore construction, assembly and fabrication, crew transfer and
logistics, and other operational activities. In addition, some
components, materials, and vessels could come from Canadian and
European ports. A variety of vessels would be used throughout the
construction activities. These range from crew transportation vessels,
tugboats, jack-up vessels, cargo ships, and various support vessels
(Table 4). Details on the vessels, related work, operational speeds,
and general trip behavior can be found in Table 2 of the ITA
application and Table 3.3-1 in the COP Volume 1. In addition to
vessels, helicopters may be used for crew transfer and fast response
visual inspections and repair activities during both construction and
operations. It is not possible at this stage of the project to quantify
the expected use of helicopters and any potential reduction in the
number of vessel trips.
As part of various vessel-based construction activities, including
cable laying and construction material delivery, dynamic positioning
thrusters may be utilized to hold vessels in position or move slowly.
Sound produced through use of dynamic positioning thrusters is similar
to that produced by transiting vessels, and dynamic positioning
thrusters are typically operated either in a similarly predictable
manner or used for short durations around stationary activities. Sound
produced by dynamic positioning thrusters would be preceded by, and
associated with, sound from ongoing vessel noise and would be similar
in nature; thus, any marine mammals in the vicinity of the activity
would be aware of the vessel's presence. Construction-related vessel
activity, including the use of dynamic positioning thrusters, is not
expected to result in take of marine mammals. Park City Wind did not
request, and NMFS does not propose to authorize, any take associated
with vessel activity.
During construction and operation, crew transfer vessels (CTVs) and
a service operation vessel (SOV) will be used to conduct maintenance
activities. Although less likely, if an SOV is not used, several CTVs
and helicopters would be used to frequently transport crew to and from
the offshore facilities. Park City Wind has also included potential for
helicopters to be used when rough weather limits or precludes the use
of CTVs and during fast response visual inspections and repair
activities during both construction and operations (COP Volume 1
Sections 3.3.1.12.1 and 4.3.1.12.1). The total vessels expected for use
during the Project are in Table 4; more details can be found in Table 2
of the ITA application.
Assuming the maximum design scenario for each Phase individually,
~3,200 total vessel round trips (an average of approximately six round
trips per day) are expected to occur during offshore construction of
Phase 1 and ~3,800 total vessel round trips (an average of
approximately seven round trips per day) are expected to occur during
offshore construction of Phase 2 (For the purposes of estimating vessel
trips, tugboats and barges are considered one vessel). Due to the range
of buildout scenarios for Phases 1 and 2, Park City Wind expects the
total number of vessel trips from both Phases of New England Wind
combined to be less than the sum of vessel trips estimated for each
Phase independently (section 1.1.2 ITA application). Park City Wind
estimates that, between the 5 major port areas they intend to use, they
expect an average of 15 round trips per day and 443 round trips per
month during peak construction (Table 1 ITA application). Throughout
the entire construction period, they expect an average of 8 round trips
per day and 215 round trips per month (Table 1 ITA application).
Table 4--Type and Number of Vessels Anticipated During Construction and
Operations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max number of
Project period Vessel types vessels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Foundation Installation.... Transport, 20
Installation, and
Support.
All Foundation Installation.... Crew Transfer.......... 3
All Foundation Installation.... Environmental 8
Monitoring and
Mitigation.
WTG Installation............... Transport, 21
Installation, and
Support.
WTG Installation............... Crew Transfer Vessel... 3
Inter-array Cable Installation. Transport, 7
Installation, and
Support.
Inter-array Cable Installation. Crew Transfer Vessel... 2
ESP Installation............... Transport, 9
Installation, and
Support.
ESP Installation............... Crew Transfer Vessel... 1
Offshore Export Cable Transport, 13
Installation. Installation, and
Support.
Offshore Export Cable Crew Transfer Vessel... 1
Installation.
All Other Construction Crew Transfer Vessel... 4
Activities.
All Other Construction Transport, Survey, and 4
Activities. Support.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NMFS is proposing to require extensive vessel strike avoidance
measures that would avoid vessel strikes from occurring (see Proposed
Mitigation section). Park City Wind has not requested, and NMFS is not
[[Page 37618]]
proposing to authorize, take from vessel strikes.
Fisheries and Benthic Monitoring
Fisheries and benthic monitoring surveys are being designed for the
project in accordance with recommendations set forth in ``Guidelines
for Providing Information on Fisheries for Renewable Energy Development
on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf'' (BOEM, 2019). Park City Wind
would conduct trawl net sampling, video surveillance (drop camera),
plankton (Neuston) net, ventless trap, and tagging surveys.
Specifically, Park City Wind would conduct seasonal trawl surveys
following the Northeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (NEAMAP)
survey protocol to sample fish and invertebrates in the SWDA and
control area. The surveys would be comprised of 200 tows per year
conducted for 20 minutes at vessel speed of 3.0 knots. The ventless
trap surveys would follow Massachusetts and Rhode Island Division of
Marine Fisheries protocol to sample lobster, black sea bass, and Jonah
crab. Surveys would be conducted twice per month from May to December
in 30 stations across the SWDA and control areas with 6 lobster traps
and 1 fish pot at each station. Because the drop camera, tagging
efforts, and Neuston nets do not have components with which marine
mammals are likely to interact (i.e., become entangled in or hooked
by), these activities are not anticipated to result in take of marine
mammals and will not be discussed further. Only trap and trawl surveys
have the potential to result in harassment to marine mammals. However,
Park City Wind would implement mitigation and monitoring measures to
avoid taking marine mammals, including, but not limited to, monitoring
for marine mammals before and during trawling activities, not deploying
or pulling trawl gear in certain circumstances, limiting tow times, and
fully repairing nets. A full description of mitigation measures can be
found in the Proposed Mitigation section.
With the implementation of these measures, Park City Wind does not
anticipate, and NMFS is not proposing to authorize, take of marine
mammals incidental to research trap and trawl surveys. Given no take is
anticipated from these surveys, impacts from fishery surveys will not
be discussed further in this document (with the exception of the
description of measures in the Proposed Mitigation section).
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities
Thirty-eight marine mammal species under NMFS' jurisdiction have
geographic ranges within the western North Atlantic OCS (Hayes et al.,
2022). Park City Wind requested take of all 38 species (comprising 38
stocks) of marine mammals. The majority of takes are requested for only
17 species; the remaining 22 stocks are considered rare in the project
area and Park City Wind is requested a limited amount of take for those
species (e.g., one group size). Sections 3 and 4 of Park City Wind's
ITA 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 in
the application instead of reprinting the information. Additional
information regarding population trends and threats may be found in
NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SARs), https://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's website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species).
Table 5 lists all species and stocks for which take is expected and
proposed to be authorized for this action 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) level, where known. The MMPA defines PBR 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'' (16 U.S.C. 1362(20)).
PBR values are identified in NMFS's SARs. While no mortality is
anticipated or proposed to be authorized, 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's stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total
estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that
comprises that stock. For some stocks, this geographic area may extend
beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in
NMFS's U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico SARs. All values presented in
Table 5 are the most recent available at the time of publication and,
unless noted otherwise, use NMFS' 2022 SARs (Hayes et al., 2023)
available online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports.
Table 5--Marine Mammal Species That May Occur in the Project Area and Be Taken, by Harassment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual
ESA/ MMPA Stock abundance (CV, mortalities
Common name Scientific name Stock status; Nmin, most recent PBR or serious
strategic (Y/N) abundance survey) injuries (M/
\1\ \2\ SI) \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Artiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Balaenidae:
North Atlantic right whale... Eubalaena glacialis............ Western Atlantic.... E,D,Y 338 (0; 332; 2020).. 0.7 8.1
Family Balaenopteridae
(rorquals):
Blue whale................... Balaenoptera musculus.......... Western North E,D,Y UNK (UNK, 402, 2019) 0.8 0
Atlantic.
Fin whale.................... Balaenoptera physalus.......... Western North E,D,Y 6,802 (0.24; 5,573; 11 1.8
Atlantic. 2016).
Humpback whale............... Megaptera novaeangliae......... Gulf of Maine....... -,-,Y 1,396 (0; 1,380; 22 12.15
2016).
Minke whale.................. Balaenoptera acutorostrata..... Canadian Eastern -,-,N 21,968 (0.31; 170 10.6
Coastal. 17,002; 2016).
Sei whale.................... Balaenoptera borealis.......... Nova Scotia......... E,D,Y 6,292 (1.02; 3,098; 6.2 0.8
2016).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 37619]]
Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Physeteridae:
Sperm whale.................. Physeter macrocephalus......... North Atlantic...... E,D,Y 4,349 (0.28; 3,451; 3.9 0
2016).
Family Kogiidae:
Dwarf sperm whale \4\........ Kogia sima..................... Western North -,-,N 7,750 (0.38; 5,689; 46 0
Atlantic. 2016).
Pygmy sperm whale \4\........ Kogia breviceps................ Western North -,-,N 7,750 (0.38; 5,689; 46 0
Atlantic. 2016).
Family Ziphiidae:
Cuvier's beaked whale........ Ziphius cavirostris............ Western North -,-,N 5,744 (0.36, 4,282, 43 0.2
Atlantic. 2016).
Blainville's beaked whale.... Mesoplodon densirostris........ Western North -,-,N 10,107 (0.27, 8,085, 81 \5\ 0.2
Atlantic. 2016).
Gervais' beaked whale........ Mesoplodon europaeus........... Western North -,-,N 5,744 (0.36, 4,282, 81 \5\ 0
Atlantic. 2016).
Sowerby's beaked whale....... Mesoplodon bidens.............. Western North -,-,N 10,107 (0.27, 8,085, 81 \5\ 0
Atlantic. 2016).
True's beaked whale.......... Mesoplodon mirus............... Western North -,-,N 10,107 (0.27, 8,085, 81 \5\ 0
Atlantic. 2016).
Northern bottlenose whale.... Hyperoodon ampullatus.......... Western North -,-,N UNK (UNK, UNK, 2016) UNK 0
Atlantic.
Family Delphinidae:
Atlantic spotted dolphin..... Stenella frontalis............. Western North -,-,N 39,921 (0.27; 320 0
Atlantic. 32,032; 2016).
Atlantic white-sided dolphin. Lagenorhynchus acutus.......... Western North -,-,N 93,233 (0.71; 544 27
Atlantic. 54,433; 2016).
Bottlenose dolphin........... Tursiops truncatus............. Western North -,-,N 62,851 (0.23; 519 28
Atlantic--Offshore. 51,914; 2016).
Clymene dolphin.............. Stenella clymene............... Western North -,-,N 4,237 (1.03; 2,071; 21 0
Atlantic. 2016).
Common dolphin............... Delphinus delphis.............. Western North -,-,N 172,897 (0.21; 1,452 390
Atlantic. 145,216; 2016).
Long-finned pilot whale...... Globicephala melas............. Western North -,-,N 39,215 (0.3; 30,627; 306 29
Atlantic. 2016).
Short-finned pilot whale..... Globicephala macrorhynchus..... Western North -,-,Y 28,924 (0.24, 236 136
Atlantic. 23,637, See SAR).
Risso's dolphin.............. Grampus griseus................ Western North -,-,N 35,215 (0.19; 301 34
Atlantic. 30,051; 2016).
False killer whale........... Pseudorca crassidens........... Western North -,-,N 1,791 (0.56, 1,154, 12 0
Atlantic. 2016).
Fraser's dolphin............. Lagenodelphis hosei............ Western North -,-,N UNK (UNK, UNK, 2016) UNK 0
Atlantic.
Killer whale................. Orcinus orca................... Western North -,-,N UNK (UNK, UNK, 2016) UNK 0
Atlantic.
Melon-headed whale........... Peponocephala electra.......... Western North -,-,N UNK (UNK, UNK, 2016) UNK 0
Atlantic.
Pantropical spotted dolphin.. Stenella attenuata............. Western North -,D,N 6,593 (0.52, 4,367, 44 0
Atlantic. 2016).
Pygmy killer whale........... Feresa attenuata............... Gulf of Maine/Bay of -,-,N UNK (UNK, UNK, 2016) UNK 0
Fundy.
Rough-toothed dolphin........ Steno bredanensis.............. Western North -,-,N 136 (1.0, 67, 2016). 0.7 0
Atlantic.
Spinner dolphin.............. Stenella longirostris.......... Western North -,D,N 4,102 (0.99, 2,045, 20 0
Atlantic. 2016).
Striped dolphin.............. Halichoerus grypus............. Western North -,-,N 67,036 (0.29; 529 0
Atlantic. 52,939; 2016).
White-beaked dolphin......... Phoca vitulina................. Western North -,-,N 536,016 (0.31; 4,153 0
Atlantic. 415,344; 2016).
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
Harbor porpoise.............. Phocoena phocoena.............. Gulf of Maine/Bay of -,-,N 95,543 (0.31; 851 16
Fundy. 74,034; 2016).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
Gray seal \6\................ Halichoerus grypus............. Western North -,-,N 27,300 (0.22; 1,389 4,453
Atlantic. 22,785; 2016).
Harbor seal.................. Phoca vitulina................. Western North -,-,N 61,336 (0.08; 1,729 339
Atlantic. 57,637; 2018).
Harp seal.................... Pagophilus groenlandicus....... Western North -,-,N 7.6M (UNK; 7.1M; 426,000 178,573
Atlantic. 2019).
Hooded seal.................. Cystophora cristata............ Western North -,-,N UNK (UNK, UNK, N/A). UNK 1,680
Atlantic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 can be found online at www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments 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). (https://marinemammalscience.org/science-and-publications/list-marine-mammal-species-subspecies/; Committee on Taxonomy
(2022)).
\4\ Accounts for both Kogia species.
\5\ Accounts for all Mesoplodon species.
\6\ NMFS' stock abundance estimate (and associated PBR value) applies to the 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.
In addition to the species listed in Table 5, the Florida manatees
(Trichechus manatus; a sub-species of the West Indian manatee) has been
previously documented as an occasional visitor to the Northeast region
during summer months (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2019).
However, manatees are managed by the USFWS
[[Page 37620]]
and are not considered further in this document.
Park City Wind also requested take for beluga whales
(Delphinapterus leucas), however, beluga whales are so rare in the
project area that there is no beluga whale stock designated along the
U.S. Eastern Seaboard as it is a more northerly species. In 2014, a
beluga whale was observed in Taunton River, Massachusetts, however,
experts opined that this whale was far from its natural habitat (which
include arctic and subarctic waters) (Swaintek, 2014). It is not
anticipated that beluga whales would occur in the project area;
therefore, beluga whales are not considered further in this document.
Between October 2011 and June 2015, a total of 76 aerial surveys
were conducted throughout the MA and RI/MA WEAs (the Project is
contained within the MA WEA and adjacent to the RI/MA WEA along with
several other offshore renewable energy Lease Areas). Between November
2011 and March 2015, Marine Autonomous Recording Units (MARU; a type of
static passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) recorder) were deployed at
nine sites in the MA and RI/MA WEAs. The goal of the study was to
collect visual and acoustic baseline data on distribution, abundance,
and temporal occurrence patterns of marine mammals (Kraus et al.,
2016). The New England Aquarium conducted additional aerial surveys
throughout the MA and RI/MA WEAs from February 2017 through July 2018
(38 surveys), October 2018 through August 2019 (40 surveys), and March
2020 through July 2021 (12 surveys) (Quintana and Kraus, 2019; O'Brien
et al., 2021a; O'Brien et al., 2021b). As indicated above, 17 species
and stocks in Table 5 are known to temporally and spatially co-occur
with the activity. Additionally, 22 stocks are rare in the project
area. However, Park City Wind has conservatively requested a limited
amount of take to ensure MMPA compliance in the unlikely event that one
or more of these rare species are encountered during project activities
that may result in take (Table 32). Five of the marine mammal species
for which take is requested are listed as threatened or endangered
under the ESA: North Atlantic right, blue, fin, sei, and sperm whales.
In addition to what is included in Sections 3 and 4 of Park City
Wind's ITA application (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-park-city-wind-llc-construction-new-england-wind-offshore-wind), the SARs (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments), and
NMFS' website (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species-directory/marine-mammals), we provide further detail below informing the baseline for
select species (e.g., information regarding current Unusual Mortality
Events (UME) and known important habitat areas, such as Biologically
Important Areas (BIAs) (Van Parijs, 2015)). There are no ESA-designated
critical habitats for any species within the project area (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/map/national-esa-critical-habitat-mapper).
Under the MMPA, a UME is defined as ``a stranding that is
unexpected; involves a significant die-off of any marine mammal
population; and demands immediate response'' (16 U.S.C. 1421h(6)). As
of May 2023, five UMEs are active. Four of these UMEs are occurring
along the U.S. Atlantic coast for various marine mammal species. Of
these, the most relevant to the project area are the North Atlantic
right whale, humpback whale, and harbor and gray seal UMEs given the
prevalence of these species in the project area. More information on
UMEs, including all active, closed, or pending, can be found on NMFS'
website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/active-and-closed-unusual-mortality-events.
Below, we include information for a subset of the species that
presently have an active or recently closed UME occurring along the
Atlantic coast or for which there is information available related to
areas of biological significance. Blue whales have been included due to
their ESA-listing and not due to any UME or area of biological
significance. For the majority of species potentially present in the
specific geographic region, NMFS has designated only a single generic
stock (e.g., ``western North Atlantic'') for management purposes. This
includes the ``Canadian east coast'' stock of minke whales, which
includes all minke whales found in U.S. waters and is also a generic
stock for management purposes. For humpback and sei whales, NMFS
defines stocks on the basis of feeding locations (i.e., Gulf of Maine
and Nova Scotia, respectively). However, references to humpback whales
and sei whales in this document refer to any individuals of the species
that are found in the project area. Any areas of known biological
importance (including the BIAs identified in LaBrecque et al., 2015)
that overlap spatially (or are adjacent) with the project area are
addressed in the species sections below.
North Atlantic Right Whales
The North Atlantic right whale has been listed as Endangered since
the ESA's enactment in 1973. The species was recently uplisted from
Endangered to Critically Endangered on the International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species (Cooke,
2020). The uplisting was due to a decrease in population size (Pace et
al., 2017), an increase in vessel strikes and entanglements in fixed
fishing gear (Daoust et al., 2017; Davis & Brillant, 2019; Knowlton et
al., 2012; Knowlton et al., 2022; Moore et al., 2021; Sharp et al.,
2019), and a decrease in birth rate (Pettis et al., 2022; Reed et al.,
2022). The Western Atlantic stock is considered depleted under the MMPA
(Hayes et al., 2022). There is a recovery plan (NMFS, 2005) for the
North Atlantic right whale, and NMFS completed 5-year reviews of the
species in 2012, 2017, and 2022 which concluded no change to the
listing status is warranted.
Designated by NMFS as a Species in the Spotlight, the North
Atlantic right whale is considered among the species with the greatest
risk of extinction in the near future (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/endangered-species-conservation/species-in-the-spotlight).
The North Atlantic right whale population had only a 2.8 percent
recovery rate between 1990 and 2011 and an overall abundance decline of
23.5 percent from 2011-2019 (Hayes et al., 2022). Since 2010, the North
Atlantic right whale population has been in decline (Pace et al., 2017;
Pace et al., 2021), with a 40 percent decrease in calving rate (Kraus
et al., 2016; Moore et al., 2021). North Atlantic right whale calving
rates dropped from 2017 to 2020 with zero births recorded during the
2017-2018 season. The 2020-2021 calving season had the first
substantial calving increase in 5 years with 20 calves born followed by
15 calves during the 2021-2022 calving season. However, mortalities
continue to outpace births, and best estimates indicate fewer than 70
reproductively active females remain in the population.
Critical habitat for North Atlantic right whales is not present in
the project area. However, the project area both spatially and
temporally overlaps a portion of the migratory corridor BIA within
which North Atlantic right whales migrate south to calving grounds
generally in November and December, followed by a northward migration
into feeding areas east and north of the project area in March and
April (LaBrecque et al., 2015; Van Parijs et al.,
[[Page 37621]]
2015). While the project does not overlap any North Atlantic right
whale feeding BIAs, it does spatially overlap a more recently described
important feeding area. North Atlantic right whales have recently been
observed feeding year-round in the region south of Martha's Vineyard
and Nantucket with larger numbers in this area in the winter making it
the only known winter foraging habitat for the species (Leiter et al.,
2017; Quintana-Rizzo et al., 2021).
NMFS' regulations at 50 CFR 224.105 designated Seasonal Management
Areas (SMAs) for North Atlantic right whales in 2008 (73 FR 60173,
October 10, 2008). SMAs were developed to reduce the threat of
collisions between ships and North Atlantic right whales around their
migratory route and calving grounds. The Block Island SMA is near the
proposed project area; this SMA is currently active from November 1
through April 30 of each year and may be used by North Atlantic right
whales for feeding (although to a lesser extent than the area to the
east near Nantucket Shoals) and/or migrating. As noted above, NMFS is
proposing changes to the North Atlantic right whale speed rule (87 FR
46921, August 1, 2022). Due to the current status of North Atlantic
right whales and the spatial proximity overlap of the proposed project
with areas of biological significance, (i.e., a migratory corridor,
SMA), the potential impacts of the proposed project on North Atlantic
right whales warrant particular attention.
North Atlantic right whale presence in the project area is
predominately seasonal; however, year-round occurrence is documented.
Abundance is highest in winter with irregular occurrence during summer
months and similar occurrence rates in spring and fall (O'Brien et al.,
2022; Quintana-Rizzo et al., 2021; Estabrook et al., 2022). Model
outputs suggest that 23 percent of the North Atlantic right whale
population is present from December through May, and the mean residence
time has tripled to an average of 13 days during these months
(Quintana-Rizzo et al., 2021).
North Atlantic right whale distribution can also be derived from
acoustic data. A review of passive acoustic monitoring data from 2004
to 2014 collected throughout the western North Atlantic demonstrated
nearly continuous year-round North Atlantic right whale presence across
their entire habitat range with a decrease in summer months, including
in locations previously thought of as migratory corridors suggesting
that not all of the population undergoes a consistent annual migration
(Davis et al., 2017). To describe seasonal trends in North Atlantic
right whale presence, Estabrook et al. (2022) analyzed North Atlantic
right whale acoustic detections collected between 2011-2015 during
winter (January-March), spring (April-June), summer (July-September),
and autumn (October-December). Winter had the highest presence (75
percent array-days, n = 193), and summer had the lowest presence (10
percent array-days, n = 27). Spring and autumn were similar, where 45
percent (n = 117) and 51 percent (n = 121) of the array-days had
detections, respectively. Across all years, detections were
consistently lowest in August and September. In Massachusetts Bay and
Cape Cod Bay, located outside of the project area, acoustic detections
of North Atlantic right whales increased in more recent years in both
the peak season of late winter through early spring and in summer and
fall, likely reflecting broad-scale regional habitat changes (Charif et
al., 2020). NMFS' Passive Acoustic Cetacean Map (PACM) contains up-to-
date acoustic data that contributes to our understanding of when and
where specific whales (including North Atlantic right whales), dolphin,
and other cetacean species are acoustically detected in the North
Atlantic. These data support the findings of the aforementioned
literature.
In late fall (i.e., November), a portion of the right whale
population (including pregnant females) typically departs the feeding
grounds in the North Atlantic, moves south along the migratory corridor
BIA, including through the project area, to right whale calving grounds
off Georgia and Florida. However, recent research indicates
understanding of their movement patterns remains incomplete and not all
of the population undergoes a consistent annual migration (Davis et
al., 2017; Gowan et al., 2019; Krzystan et al., 2018). The results of
multistate temporary emigration capture-recapture modeling, based on
sighting data collected over the past 22 years, indicate that non-
calving 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 (Gowan et al., 2019).
Southern New England waters are a migratory corridor in the spring
and early winter and a primary feeding habitat for North Atlantic right
whales during late winter through spring. Right whales feed primarily
on the copepod Calanus finmarchicus, a species whose availability and
distribution has changed both spatially and temporally over the last
decade due to an oceanographic regime shift that has been ultimately
linked to climate change (Meyer-Gutbrod et al., 2021; Record et al.,
2019; Sorochan et al., 2019). This distribution change in prey
availability has led to shifts in North Atlantic right whale habitat-
use patterns within the region over the same time period (Davis et al.,
2020; Meyer-Gutbrod et al., 2022; Quintana-Rizzo et al., 2021; O'Brien
et al., 2022). Since 2010, North Atlantic right whales have reduced
their use of foraging 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). The SWDA and OECC are south and east of
Martha's Vineyard and south and west of Nantucket Islands.
Since 2017, 98 dead, seriously injured, or sublethally injured or
ill North Atlantic right whales along the U.S. and Canadian coasts have
been documented, necessitating a UME declaration and investigation. The
leading category for the cause of death for this ongoing UME is ``human
interaction,'' specifically from entanglements or vessel strikes. As of
May 17, 2023, there have been 36 confirmed mortalities (dead stranded
or floaters) and 33 seriously injured free-swimming whales for a total
of 69 whales. Beginning on October 14, 2022, the UME also considers
animals with sublethal injury or illness bringing the total number of
whales in the UME to 98. Approximately 42 percent of the population is
known to be in reduced health (Hamilton et al., 2021) likely
contributing to smaller body sizes at maturation, making them more
susceptible to threats and reducing fecundity (Moore et al., 2021; Reed
et al., 2022; Stewart et al., 2022). More information about the North
Atlantic right whale UME is available online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2017-2023-north-atlantic-right-whale-unusual-mortality-event.
Humpback Whales
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 once single species into 14
distinct population segments (DPS), removed the 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
[[Page 37622]]
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. Bettridge et al. (2015) estimated the size of the West
Indies DPS population at 12,312 (95 percent confidence interval (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). Kraus et al. (2016) observed humpbacks in
the RI/MA & MA WEAs and surrounding areas during all seasons but most
often during spring and summer months with a peak from April to June.
Acoustic data indicate that this species may be present within the RI/
MA WEA year-round with the highest rates of acoustic detections in the
winter and spring (Kraus et al., 2016).
The project area does not overlap any ESA-designated critical
habitat, BIAs, or other important areas for the humpback whales. A
humpback whale feeding BIA extends throughout the Gulf of Maine,
Stellwagen Bank, and Great South Channel from May through December,
annually (LaBrecque et al., 2015). However, this BIA is located further
east and north of, and thus, does not overlap, the project area.
Since January 2016, elevated humpback whale mortalities along the
Atlantic coast from Maine to Florida led to the declaration of a UME.
As of May 17, 2023, 191 humpback whales have stranded as part of this
UME. Partial or full necropsy examinations have been conducted on
approximately 90 of the known cases. Of the whales examined, about 40
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. More information is available at
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/active-and-closed-unusual-mortality-events.
Fin Whales
Fin whales typically feed in the Gulf of Maine and the waters
surrounding New England, but their mating and calving (and general
wintering) areas are largely unknown (Hain et al., 1992; Hayes et al.,
2022). Acoustic detections of fin whale singers augment and confirm
these visual sighting conclusions for males. Recordings from
Massachusetts Bay, New York Bight, and deep-ocean areas have detected
some level of fin whale singing from September through June (Watkins et
al., 1987; Clark and Gagnon, 2002; Morano et al., 2012). These acoustic
observations from both coastal and deep-ocean regions support the
conclusion that male fin whales are broadly distributed throughout the
western North Atlantic for most of the year (Hayes et al., 2022).
Kraus et al. (2016) suggest that, compared to other baleen whale
species, fin whales have a high multi-seasonal relative abundance in
the RI/MA & MA WEAs and surrounding areas. Fin whales were observed in
the MA WEA in spring and summer. This species was observed primarily in
the offshore (southern) regions of the RI/MA & MA WEAs during spring
and was found closer to shore (northern areas) during the summer months
(Kraus et al., 2016). Calves were observed three times and feeding was
observed nine times during the Kraus et al. (2016) study. Although fin
whales were largely absent from visual surveys in the RI/MA & MA WEAs
in the fall and winter months (Kraus et al., 2016), acoustic data
indicate that this species is present in the RI/MA & MA WEAs during all
months of the year, although less so in summer months (Morano et al.,
2012; Muirhead et al., 2018; Davis et al., 2020).
New England waters represent a major feeding ground for fin whales.
The project area partially overlaps the fin whale feeding BIA (2,933
km\2\) offshore of Montauk Point, New York from March to October (Hain
et al., 1992; LaBrecque et al., 2015). A separate larger year-round
feeding BIA (18,015 km\2\) located far to the northeast in the southern
Gulf of Maine does not overlap with the project area and would thus not
be impacted by project activities.
Minke Whales
Minke whales are common and widely distributed throughout the U.S.
Atlantic EEZ (Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program (CETAP), 1982;
Hayes et al., 2022), although their distribution has a strong seasonal
component. Minke whale occurrence is common and widespread in New
England from spring to fall, although the species is largely absent in
the winter (Hayes et al., 2022; Risch et al., 2013). Surveys conducted
in the RI/MA WEAs from October 2011 through June 2015 reported 103
minke whale sightings within the area, predominantly in the spring
followed by summer and fall (Kraus et al., 2016). Recent surveys
conducted in the RI/MA WEAs from February 2017 through July 2018,
October 2018 through August 2019, and March 2020 through July 2021
documented minke whales as the most common rorqual (baleen whales with
pleated throat grooves) sighted in the WEAs. Surveys also reported a
shift in the greatest seasonal abundance of minke whales from spring
(2017-2018) (Quintana and Kraus, 2018) to summer (2018-2019 and 2020-
2021) (O'Brien et al., 2021a, b).
There are two minke whale feeding BIAs identified in the southern
and southwestern section of the Gulf of Maine, including Georges Bank,
the Great South Channel, Cape Cod Bay and Massachusetts Bay, Stellwagen
Bank, Cape Anne, and Jeffreys Ledge from March through November,
annually (LaBrecque et al., 2015). However, these BIAs do not overlap
the project area as they are located further east and north. A
migratory route for minke whales transiting between northern feeding
grounds and southern breeding areas may exist to the east of the
proposed project area as minke whales may track warmer waters along the
continental shelf while migrating (Risch et al., 2014).
From 2017 through 2022, elevated minke whale mortalities detected
along the Atlantic coast from Maine through South Carolina resulted in
the declaration of a UME. As of April 14, 2023, a total of 142 minke
whale mortalities have occurred during this 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 minke whales examined, so
more research is needed. More information is available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2017-2022-minke-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-atlantic-coast.
Sei Whale
The Nova Scotia stock of sei whales can be found in deeper waters
of the continental shelf edge of the eastern United States and
northeastward to
[[Page 37623]]
south of Newfoundland (Mitchell, 1975; Hain et al., 1985; Hayes et al.,
2022). During spring and summer, the stock is mainly concentrated in
northern feeding areas, including the Scotian Shelf (Mitchell and
Chapman, 1977), the Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank, the Northeast Channel,
and south of Nantucket (CETAP, 1982; Kraus et al., 2016; Roberts et
al., 2016; Palka et al., 2017; Cholewiak et al., 2018; Hayes et al.,
2022). Sei whales have been detected acoustically along the Atlantic
Continental Shelf and Slope from south of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina
to the Davis Strait, with acoustic occurrence increasing in the mid-
Atlantic region since 2010 (Davis et al., 2020).
Although their migratory movements are not well understood, sei
whales are believed to migrate north in June and July to feeding areas
and south in September and October to breeding areas (Mitchell, 1975;
CETAP, 1982; Davis et al., 2020). Although sei whales generally occur
offshore, individuals may also move into shallower, more inshore waters
(Payne et al., 1990; Halpin et al., 2009; Hayes et al., 2022). A sei
whale feeding BIA occurs in New England waters from May through
November (LaBrecque et al., 2015). This BIA is located nearby but not
within the project area and is not expected to be impacted by the
Project activities.
Blue Whales
Blue whales are included within this section due to their ESA-
listing status and not to any active BIA or UME in the project area.
Blue whales are widely distributed throughout the world's oceans and
are an ESA-listed species throughout their range. Their Western North
Atlantic Stock occurs in the western North Atlantic and generally
ranges from the Arctic to at least mid-latitude waters. Blue whales are
most frequently sighted in more northerly waters off eastern Canada,
with the majority of records from the Gulf of St. Lawrence by
Newfoundland, Canada (Hayes et al., 2019). They often are found near
the continental shelf edge where upwelling produces concentrations of
krill, their main prey species (Yochem and Leatherwood, 1985; Fiedler
et al., 1998; Gill et al., 2011). The blue whale is not common in the
project area. A 2008 study detected blue whale calls in offshore areas
of the New York Bight on 28 out of 258 days of recordings (11 percent
of the days), mostly during winter (Muirhead et al., 2018). Kraus et
al. (2016) conducted aerial and acoustic surveys between 2011-2015 in
the MA and RI/MA WEAs and surrounding areas. Blue whales were not
visually observed and were only sparsely acoustically detected in the
MA and RI/MA WEAs during winter; the acoustic detection could have been
due to very distant vocalizations. These data suggest that blue whales
are rarely, if at all, present in the MA and RI/MA WEAs (Kraus et al.,
2016). Surveys conducted in 2018-2020, did not result in any sightings
of blue whales in MA and RI/MA WEAs (O'Brien et al., 2021a; O'Brien et
al., 2021b). However, Park City Wind has requested a small amount of
take for blue whales on the minimal chance of encounter.
Much is not known about the blue whale populations, the last
minimum population abundance was estimated at 402 (Hayes et al., 2023).
There are insufficient data to determine population trends for blue
whales. The total level of human caused mortality and serious injury is
unknown, but it is believed to be insignificant and approaching a zero
mortality and serious injury rate (Hayes et al., 2019). There are no
blue whale BIAs or ESA-protected critical habitat identified in the
project area or along the U.S. Eastern Seaboard. There is no UME for
blue whales. More information is available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/blue-whale.
Pinnipeds
Since June 2022, elevated numbers of harbor seal and gray seal
mortalities have occurred across the southern and central coast of
Maine. This event has been declared a UME. Preliminary testing of
samples has found some harbor and gray seals positive for highly
pathogenic avian influenza. While the UME is not occurring in the
project area, the populations affected by the UME are the same as those
potentially affected by the project. Information on this UME is
available online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/2022-2023-pinniped-unusual-mortality-event-along-maine-coast.
The above event was preceded by a different UME, occurring from
2018-2020 (closure of the 2018-2020 UME is pending). Beginning in July
2018, elevated numbers of harbor seal and gray seal mortalities
occurred across Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts. Additionally,
stranded seals have shown clinical signs as far south as Virginia,
although not in elevated numbers, therefore the UME investigation
encompassed all seal strandings from Maine to Virginia. A total of
3,152 reported strandings (of all species) occurred from July 1, 2018,
through March 13, 2020. Full or partial necropsy examinations have been
conducted on some of the seals and samples have been collected for
testing. Based on tests conducted thus far, 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,
which is pending closure. Information on this UME is available online
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. Current data indicate that not all marine
mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (e.g., Richardson et
al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect
this, Southall et al. (2007) recommended that marine mammals be divided
into functional hearing groups based on directly measured or estimated
hearing ranges on the basis of available behavioral response data,
audiograms derived using auditory evoked potential techniques,
anatomical modeling, and other data. Note that no direct measurements
of hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes
(i.e., low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (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 6.
[[Page 37624]]
Table 6--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).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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.
NMFS notes that in 2019a, Southall et al. recommended new names for
hearing groups that are widely recognized. However, this new hearing
group classification does not change the weighting functions or
acoustic thresholds (i.e., the weighting functions and thresholds in
Southall et al. (2019a) are identical to NMFS 2018 Revised Technical
Guidance). When NMFS updates our Technical Guidance, we will be
adopting the updated Southall et al. (2019a) hearing group
classification.
Potential Effects of the Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and
Their Habitat
This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that
components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and
their habitat. The Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section later in
this document includes a quantitative analysis of the number of
individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The
Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section considers the
content of this section, the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section,
and the Proposed Mitigation section, to draw conclusions regarding the
likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive success or
survivorship of individuals and how those impacts on individuals are
likely to impact marine mammal species or stocks. General background
information on marine mammal hearing was provided previously (see the
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activities
section). Here, the potential effects of sound on marine mammals are
discussed.
Park City Wind has requested, and NMFS proposes to authorize, the
take of marine mammals incidental to the construction activities
associated with the project area. In their application and Application
Update Report, Park City Wind presented their analyses of potential
impacts to marine mammals from the acoustic and explosive sources. NMFS
both carefully reviewed the information provided by Park City Wind, as
well as independently reviewed applicable scientific research and
literature and other information to evaluate the potential effects of
the Project's activities on marine mammals.
The proposed activities would result in the construction and
placement of up to 132 permanent foundations to support WTGs and ESPs
and seafloor mapping using HRG surveys. Additionally, up to 10 UXO/MEC
detonations may occur during construction if they cannot be safely
removed by other means. There are a variety of types and degrees of
effects to marine mammals, prey species, and habitat that could occur
as a result of the Project. Below we provide a brief description of the
types of sound sources that would be generated by the project, the
general impacts from these types of activities, and an analysis of the
anticipated impacts on marine mammals from the project, with
consideration of the proposed mitigation measures.
Description of Sound Sources
This section contains a brief technical background on sound, on the
characteristics of certain sound types, and on metrics used in this
proposal inasmuch as the information is relevant to the specified
activity and to a discussion of the potential effects of the specified
activity on marine mammals found later in this document. For general
information on sound and its interaction with the marine environment,
please see Au and Hastings (2008); Richardson et al. (1995); Urick
(1983) as well as the Discovery of Sound in the Sea (DOSITS) website at
https://dosits.org/. Sound is a vibration that travels as an acoustic
wave through a medium such as a gas, liquid or solid. Sound waves
alternately compress and decompress the medium as the wave travels.
These compressions and decompressions are detected as changes in
pressure by aquatic life and man-made sound receptors such as
hydrophones (underwater microphones). In water, sound waves radiate in
a manner similar to ripples on the surface of a pond and may be either
directed in a beam (narrow beam or directional sources) or sound beams
may radiate in all directions (omnidirectional sources).
Sound travels in water more efficiently than almost any other form
of energy, making the use of acoustics ideal for the aquatic
environment and its inhabitants. In seawater, sound travels at roughly
1,500 meters per second (m/s). In-air, sound waves travel much more
slowly, at about 340 m/s. However, the speed of sound can vary by a
small amount based on characteristics of the transmission medium, such
as water temperature and salinity. Sound travels in water more
efficiently than almost any other form of energy, making the use of
acoustics ideal for the aquatic environment and its inhabitants. In
seawater, sound travels at roughly 1,500 m/s. In-air, sound waves
travel much more slowly, at about 340 m/s. However, the speed of sound
can vary by a small amount based on characteristics of the transmission
medium, such as water temperature and salinity.
The basic components of a sound wave are frequency, wavelength,
velocity, and amplitude. Frequency is the number of pressure waves that
pass by a reference point per unit of time and is measured in Hz or
cycles per second. Wavelength is the distance between two peaks or
corresponding points of a
[[Page 37625]]
sound wave (length of one cycle). Higher frequency sounds have shorter
wavelengths than lower frequency sounds, and typically attenuate
(decrease) more rapidly, except in certain cases in shallower water.
The intensity (or amplitude) of sounds are measured in decibels
(dB), which are a relative unit of measurement that is used to express
the ratio of one value of a power or field to another. Decibels are
measured on a logarithmic scale, so a small change in dB corresponds to
large changes in sound pressure. For example, a 10-dB increase is a
ten-fold increase in acoustic power. A 20-dB increase is then a 100-
fold increase in power and a 30-dB increase is a 1000-fold increase in
power. However, a ten-fold increase in acoustic power does not mean
that the sound is perceived as being 10 times louder. Decibels are a
relative unit comparing two pressures, therefore, a reference pressure
must always be indicated. For underwater sound, this is 1 microPascal
([mu]Pa). For in-air sound, the reference pressure is 20 microPascal
([mu]Pa). The amplitude of a sound can be presented in various ways;
however, NMFS typically considers three metrics. In this proposed rule,
all decibel levels referenced to 1[mu]Pa.
Sound exposure level (SEL) represents the total energy in a stated
frequency band over a stated time interval or event, and considers both
amplitude and duration of exposure (represented as dB re 1 [mu]Pa\2\-
s). SEL is a cumulative metric; it can be accumulated over a single
pulse (for pile driving this is often referred to as single-strike SEL;
SELss), or calculated over periods containing multiple
pulses (SELcum). Cumulative SEL represents the total energy
accumulated by a receiver over a defined time window or during an
event. The SEL metric is useful because it allows sound exposures of
different durations to be related to one another in terms of total
acoustic energy. The duration of a sound event and the number of
pulses, however, should be specified as there is no accepted standard
duration over which the summation of energy is measured.
Root mean square (rms) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over
the duration of an impulse. Root mean square is calculated by squaring
all of the sound amplitudes, averaging the squares, and then taking the
square root of the average (Urick, 1983). Root mean square accounts for
both positive and negative values; squaring the pressures makes all
values positive so that they may be accounted for in the summation of
pressure levels (Hastings and Popper, 2005). This measurement is often
used in the context of discussing behavioral effects, in part because
behavioral effects, which often result from auditory cues, may be
better expressed through averaged units than by peak pressures.
Peak sound pressure (also referred to as zero-to-peak sound
pressure or 0-pk) is the maximum instantaneous sound pressure
measurable in the water at a specified distance from the source, and is
represented in the same units as the rms sound pressure. Along with
SEL, this metric is used in evaluating the potential for PTS (permanent
threshold shift) and TTS (temporary threshold shift). Peak sound
pressure is also used to evaluate the potential for gastro-intestinal
tract injury (Level A harassment) from explosives.
For explosives, an impulse metric (Pa-s), which is the integral of
a transient sound pressure over the duration of the pulse, is used to
evaluate the potential for mortality (i.e., severe lung injury) and
slight lung injury. These impulse metric thresholds account for animal
mass and depth.
Sounds can be either impulsive or non-impulsive. The distinction
between these two sound types is important because they have differing
potential to cause physical effects, particularly with regard to
hearing (e.g., Ward, 1997 in Southall et al., 2007). Please see NMFS et
al. (2018) and Southall et al. (2007, 2019a) for an in-depth discussion
of these concepts. Impulsive sound sources (e.g., airguns, explosions,
gunshots, sonic booms, impact pile driving) produce signals that are
brief (typically considered to be less than one second), broadband,
atonal transients (American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 1986,
2005; Harris, 1998; National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH), 1998; International Organization for Standardization
(ISO), 2003) and occur either as isolated events or repeated in some
succession. Impulsive sounds are all characterized by a relatively
rapid rise from ambient pressure to a maximal pressure value followed
by a rapid decay period that may include a period of diminishing,
oscillating maximal and minimal pressures, and generally have an
increased capacity to induce physical injury as compared with sounds
that lack these features. Impulsive sounds are typically intermittent
in nature.
Non-impulsive sounds can be tonal, narrowband, or broadband, brief
or prolonged, and may be either continuous or intermittent (ANSI, 1995;
NIOSH, 1998). Some of these non-impulsive sounds can be transient
signals of short duration but without the essential properties of
pulses (e.g., rapid rise time). Examples of non-impulsive sounds
include those produced by vessels, aircraft, machinery operations such
as drilling or dredging, vibratory pile driving, and active sonar
systems. Sounds are also characterized by their temporal component.
Continuous sounds are those whose sound pressure level remains above
that of the ambient sound with negligibly small fluctuations in level
(NIOSH, 1998; ANSI, 2005) while intermittent sounds are defined as
sounds with interrupted levels of low or no sound (NIOSH, 1998). NMFS
identifies Level B harassment thresholds based on if a sound is
continuous or intermittent.
Even in the absence of sound from the specified activity, the
underwater environment is typically loud due to ambient sound, which is
defined as environmental background sound levels lacking a single
source or point (Richardson et al., 1995). The sound level of a region
is defined by the total acoustical energy being generated by known and
unknown sources. These sources may include physical (e.g., wind and
waves, earthquakes, ice, atmospheric sound), biological (e.g., sounds
produced by marine mammals, fish, and invertebrates), and anthropogenic
(e.g., vessels, dredging, construction) sound. A number of sources
contribute to ambient sound, including wind and waves, which are a main
source of naturally occurring ambient sound for frequencies between 200
Hz and 50 kHz (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea
(ICES), 1995). In general, ambient sound levels tend to increase with
increasing wind speed and wave height. Precipitation can become an
important component of total sound at frequencies above 500 Hz and
possibly down to 100 Hz during quiet times. Marine mammals can
contribute significantly to ambient sound levels as can some fish and
snapping shrimp. The frequency band for biological contributions is
from approximately 12 Hz to over 100 kHz. Sources of ambient sound
related to human activity include transportation (surface vessels),
dredging and construction, oil and gas drilling and production,
geophysical surveys, sonar, and explosions. Vessel noise typically
dominates the total ambient sound for frequencies between 20 and 300
Hz. In general, the frequencies of anthropogenic sounds are below 1
kHz, and if higher frequency sound levels are created, they attenuate
rapidly.
The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources that
comprise ambient sound at any given location and time depends not only
on the source levels (as determined by current weather conditions and
levels of
[[Page 37626]]
biological and human activity) but also on the ability of sound to
propagate through the environment. In turn, sound propagation is
dependent on the spatially and temporally varying properties of the
water column and sea floor, and is frequency-dependent. As a result of
the dependence on a large number of varying factors, ambient sound
levels can be expected to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial
and temporal scales. Sound levels at a given frequency and location can
vary by 10-20 dB from day to day (Richardson et al., 1995). The result
is that, depending on the source type and its intensity, sound from the
specified activity may be a negligible addition to the local
environment or could form a distinctive signal that may affect marine
mammals. Human-generated sound is a significant contributor to the
acoustic environment in the project location.
Potential Effects of Underwater Sound on Marine Mammals
Anthropogenic sounds cover a broad range of frequencies and sound
levels and can have a range of highly variable impacts on marine life
from none or minor to potentially severe responses depending on
received levels, duration of exposure, behavioral context, and various
other factors. Broadly, underwater sound from active acoustic sources,
such as those in the Project, can potentially result in one or more of
the following: temporary or permanent hearing impairment, non-auditory
physical or physiological effects, behavioral disturbance, stress, and
masking (Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon et al., 2003; Nowacek et al.,
2007; Southall et al., 2007; G[ouml]tz et al., 2009). Non-auditory
physiological effects or injuries that theoretically might occur in
marine mammals exposed to high level underwater sound or as a secondary
effect of extreme behavioral reactions (e.g., change in dive profile as
a result of an avoidance reaction) caused by exposure to sound include
neurological effects, bubble formation, resonance effects, and other
types of organ or tissue damage (Cox et al., 2006; Southall et al.,
2007; Zimmer and Tyack, 2007; Tal et al., 2015).
In general, the degree of effect of an acoustic exposure is
intrinsically related to the signal characteristics, received level,
distance from the source, and duration of the sound exposure, in
addition to the contextual factors of the receiver (e.g., behavioral
state at time of exposure, age class, etc.). In general, sudden, high
level sounds can cause hearing loss as can longer exposures to lower
level sounds. Moreover, any temporary or permanent loss of hearing will
occur almost exclusively for noise within an animal's hearing range. We
describe below the specific manifestations of acoustic effects that may
occur based on the activities proposed by Park City Wind.
Richardson et al. (1995) described zones of increasing intensity of
effect that might be expected to occur in relation to distance from a
source and assuming that the signal is within an animal's hearing
range. First (at the greatest distance) is the area within which the
acoustic signal would be audible (potentially perceived) to the animal
but not strong enough to elicit any overt behavioral or physiological
response. The next zone (closer to the receiving animal) corresponds
with the area where the signal is audible to the animal and of
sufficient intensity to elicit behavioral or physiological
responsiveness. The third is a zone within which, for signals of high
intensity, the received level is sufficient to potentially cause
discomfort or tissue damage to auditory or other systems. Overlaying
these zones to a certain extent is the area within which masking (i.e.,
when a sound interferes with or masks the ability of an animal to
detect a signal of interest that is above the absolute hearing
threshold) may occur; the masking zone may be highly variable in size.
Below, we provide additional detail regarding potential impacts on
marine mammals and their habitat from noise in general, starting with
hearing impairment, as well as from the specific activities Park City
Wind plans to conduct, to the degree it is available (noting that there
is limited information regarding the impacts of offshore wind
construction on marine mammals).
Hearing Threshold Shift
Marine mammals exposed to high-intensity sound or to lower-
intensity sound for prolonged periods can experience hearing threshold
shift (TS), which NMFS defines as a change, usually an increase, in the
threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an
individual's hearing range above a previously established reference
level expressed in decibels (NMFS, 2018). Threshold shifts can be
permanent, in which case there is an irreversible increase in the
threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an
individual's hearing range or temporary, in which there is reversible
increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or
portion of an individual's hearing range and the animal's hearing
threshold would fully recover over time (Southall et al., 2019a).
Repeated sound exposure that leads to TTS could cause PTS.
When PTS occurs, there can be physical damage to the sound
receptors in the ear (i.e., tissue damage) whereas TTS represents
primarily tissue fatigue and is reversible (Henderson et al., 2008). 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; Southall et al., 2019a).
Therefore, NMFS does not consider TTS to constitute auditory injury.
Relationships between TTS and PTS thresholds have not been studied
in marine mammals, and there is no PTS data for cetaceans. However,
such relationships are assumed to be similar to those in humans and
other terrestrial mammals. Noise exposure can result in either a
permanent shift in hearing thresholds from baseline (PTS; a 40 dB
threshold shift approximates a PTS onset; e.g., Kryter et al., 1966;
Miller, 1974; Henderson et al., 2008) or a temporary, recoverable shift
in hearing that returns to baseline (a 6 dB threshold shift
approximates a TTS onset; e.g., Southall et al., 2019a). Based on data
from terrestrial mammals, a precautionary assumption is that the PTS
thresholds, expressed in the unweighted peak sound pressure level
metric (PK), for impulsive sounds (such as impact pile driving pulses)
are at least 6 dB higher than the TTS thresholds and the weighted PTS
cumulative sound exposure level thresholds are 15 (impulsive sound) to
20 (non-impulsive sounds) dB higher than TTS cumulative sound exposure
level thresholds (Southall et al., 2019a). Given the higher level of
sound or longer exposure duration necessary to cause PTS as compared
with TTS, PTS is less likely to occur as a result of these activities,
but it is possible and a small amount has been proposed for
authorization for several species.
TTS is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during
exposure to sound, with a TTS of 6 dB considered the minimum threshold
shift clearly larger than any day-to-day or session-to-session
variation in a subject's normal hearing ability (Schlundt et al., 2000;
Finneran et al., 2000; Finneran et al., 2002). 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.
There is data on sound levels and durations
[[Page 37627]]
necessary to elicit mild TTS for marine mammals, but recovery is
complicated to predict and dependent on multiple factors.
Marine mammal hearing plays a critical role in communication with
conspecifics, and interpretation of environmental cues for purposes
such as predator avoidance and prey capture. Depending on the degree
(elevation of threshold in dB), duration (i.e., recovery time), and
frequency range of TTS, and the context in which it is experienced, TTS
can have effects on marine mammals ranging from discountable to serious
depending on the degree of interference of marine mammals hearing. For
example, a marine mammal may be able to readily compensate for a brief,
relatively small amount of TTS in a non-critical frequency range that
occurs during a time where ambient noise is lower and there are not as
many competing sounds present. Alternatively, a larger amount and
longer duration of TTS sustained during time when communication is
critical (e.g., for successful mother/calf interactions, consistent
detection of prey) could have more serious impacts.
Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans
(bottlenose dolphin, beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas), harbor
porpoise, and Yangtze finless porpoise (Neophocaena asiaeorientalis))
and six species of pinnipeds (northern elephant seal (Mirounga
angustirostris), harbor seal, ring seal, spotted seal, bearded seal,
and California sea lion (Zalophus californianus)) that were exposed to
a limited number of sound sources (i.e., mostly tones and octave-band
noise with limited number of exposure to impulsive sources such as
seismic airguns or impact pile driving) in laboratory settings
(Southall et al., 2019a). There is currently no data available on
noise-induced hearing loss for mysticetes. For summaries of data on TTS
or PTS in marine mammals or for further discussion of TTS or PTS onset
thresholds, please see Southall et al. (2019a) and NMFS (2018).
Recent studies with captive odontocete species (bottlenose dolphin,
harbor porpoise, beluga, and false killer whale) have observed
increases in hearing threshold levels when individuals received a
warning sound prior to exposure to a relatively loud sound (Nachtigall
and Supin, 2013, 2015; Nachtigall et al., 2016a, 2016b, 2016c;
Finneran, 2018; Nachtigall et al., 2018). These studies suggest that
captive animals have a mechanism to reduce hearing sensitivity prior to
impending loud sounds. Hearing change was observed to be frequency
dependent and Finneran (2018) suggests hearing attenuation occurs
within the cochlea or auditory nerve. Based on these observations on
captive odontocetes, the authors suggest that wild animals may have a
mechanism to self-mitigate the impacts of noise exposure by dampening
their hearing during prolonged exposures of loud sound or if
conditioned to anticipate intense sounds (Finneran, 2018; Nachtigall et
al., 2018).
Behavioral Effects
Exposure of marine mammals to sound sources can result in, but is
not limited to, no response or any of the following observable
responses: increased alertness; orientation or attraction to a sound
source; vocal modifications; cessation of feeding; cessation of social
interaction; alteration of movement or diving behavior; habitat
abandonment (temporary or permanent); and in severe cases, panic,
flight, stampede, or stranding, potentially resulting in death
(Southall et al., 2007). A review of marine mammal responses to
anthropogenic sound was first conducted by Richardson (1995). More
recent reviews address studies conducted since 1995 and focused on
observations where the received sound level of the exposed marine
mammal(s) was known or could be estimated (Nowacek et al., 2007;
DeRuiter et al., 2012 and 2013; Ellison et al., 2012; Gomez et al.,
2016). Gomez et al. (2016) conducted a review of the literature
considering the contextual information of exposure in addition to
received level and found that higher received levels were not always
associated with more severe behavioral responses and vice versa.
Southall et al. (2021) states that results demonstrate that some
individuals of different species display clear yet varied responses,
some of which have negative implications while others appear to
tolerate high levels and that responses may not be fully predictable
with simple acoustic exposure metrics (e.g., received sound level).
Rather, the authors state that differences among species and
individuals along with contextual aspects of exposure (e.g., behavioral
state) appear to affect response probability.
Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-
specific. Many different variables can influence an animal's perception
of and response to (nature and magnitude) an acoustic event. An
animal's prior experience with a sound or sound source affects whether
it is less likely (habituation) or more likely (sensitization) to
respond to certain sounds in the future (animals can also be innately
predisposed to respond to certain sounds in certain ways) (Southall et
al., 2019a). Related to the sound itself, the perceived nearness of the
sound, bearing of the sound (approaching vs. retreating), the
similarity of a sound to biologically relevant sounds in the animal's
environment (i.e., calls of predators, prey, or conspecifics), and
familiarity of the sound may affect the way an animal responds to the
sound (Southall et al., 2007, DeRuiter et al., 2013). Individuals (of
different age, gender, reproductive status, etc.) among most
populations will have variable hearing capabilities, and differing
behavioral sensitivities to sounds that will be affected by prior
conditioning, experience, and current activities of those individuals.
Often, specific acoustic features of the sound and contextual variables
(i.e., proximity, duration, or recurrence of the sound or the current
behavior that the marine mammal is engaged in or its prior experience),
as well as entirely separate factors, such as the physical presence of
a nearby vessel, may be more relevant to the animal's response than the
received level alone.
Overall, the variability of responses to acoustic stimuli depends
on the species receiving the sound, the sound source, and the social,
behavioral, or environmental contexts of exposure (e.g., DeRuiter et
al., 2012). For example, Goldbogen et al. (2013a) demonstrated that
individual behavioral state was critically important in determining
response of blue whales to sonar, noting that some individuals engaged
in deep (greater than 50 m) feeding behavior had greater dive responses
than those in shallow feeding or non-feeding conditions. Some blue
whales in the Goldbogen et al. (2013a) study that were engaged in
shallow feeding behavior demonstrated no clear changes in diving or
movement even when received levels were high (~160 dB re 1[micro]Pa)
for exposures to 3-4 kHz sonar signals, while deep feeding and non-
feeding whales showed a clear response at exposures at lower received
levels of sonar and pseudorandom noise. Southall et al. (2011) found
that blue whales had a different response to sonar exposure depending
on behavioral state, more pronounced when deep feeding/travel modes
than when engaged in surface feeding.
With respect to distance influencing disturbance, DeRuiter et al.
(2013) examined behavioral responses of Cuvier's beaked whales to mid-
frequency sonar and found that whales responded strongly at low
received levels (89-127 dB re 1[micro]Pa) by ceasing normal fluking and
echolocation,
[[Page 37628]]
swimming rapidly away, and extending both dive duration and subsequent
non-foraging intervals when the sound source was 3.4-9.5 km away.
Importantly, this study also showed that whales exposed to a similar
range of received levels (78-106 dB re 1[micro]Pa) from distant sonar
exercises (118 km away) did not elicit such responses, suggesting that
context may moderate reactions. Thus, distance from the source is an
important variable in influencing the type and degree of behavioral
response and this variable is independent of the effect of received
levels (e.g., DeRuiter et al., 2013; Dunlop et al., 2017a, 2017b;
Falcone et al., 2017; Dunlop et al., 2018; Southall et al., 2019a).
Ellison et al. (2012) outlined an approach to assessing the effects
of sound on marine mammals that incorporates contextual-based factors.
The authors recommend considering not just the received level of sound
but also the activity the animal is engaged in at the time the sound is
received, the nature and novelty of the sound (i.e., is this a new
sound from the animal's perspective), and the distance between the
sound source and the animal. They submit that this ``exposure
context,'' as described, greatly influences the type of behavioral
response exhibited by the animal. Forney et al. (2017) also point out
that an apparent lack of response (e.g., no displacement or avoidance
of a sound source) may not necessarily mean there is no cost to the
individual or population, as some resources or habitats may be of such
high value that animals may choose to stay, even when experiencing
stress or hearing loss. Forney et al. (2017) recommend considering both
the costs of remaining in an area of noise exposure such as TTS, PTS,
or masking, which could lead to an increased risk of predation or other
threats or a decreased capability to forage, and the costs of
displacement, including potential increased risk of vessel strike,
increased risks of predation or competition for resources, or decreased
habitat suitable for foraging, resting, or socializing. This sort of
contextual information is challenging to predict with accuracy for
ongoing activities that occur over large spatial and temporal expanses.
However, distance is one contextual factor for which data exist to
quantitatively inform a take estimate, and the method for predicting
Level B harassment in this rule does consider distance to the source.
Other factors are often considered qualitatively in the analysis of the
likely consequences of sound exposure where supporting information is
available.
Behavioral change, such as disturbance manifesting in lost foraging
time, in response to anthropogenic activities is often assumed to
indicate a biologically significant effect on a population of concern.
However, individuals may be able to compensate for some types and
degrees of shifts in behavior, preserving their health and thus their
vital rates and population dynamics. For example, New et al. (2013)
developed a model simulating the complex social, spatial, behavioral
and motivational interactions of coastal bottlenose dolphins in the
Moray Firth, Scotland, to assess the biological significance of
increased rate of behavioral disruptions caused by vessel traffic.
Despite a modeled scenario in which vessel traffic increased from 70 to
470 vessels a year (a six-fold increase in vessel traffic) in response
to the construction of a proposed offshore renewables' facility, the
dolphins' behavioral time budget, spatial distribution, motivations and
social structure remained unchanged. Similarly, two bottlenose dolphin
populations in Australia were also modeled over 5 years against a
number of disturbances (Reed et al., 2020) and results indicate that
habitat/noise disturbance had little overall impact on population
abundances in either location, even in the most extreme impact
scenarios modeled.
Friedlaender et al. (2016) provided the first integration of direct
measures of prey distribution and density variables incorporated into
across-individual analyses of behavior responses of blue whales to
sonar and demonstrated a fivefold increase in the ability to quantify
variability in blue whale diving behavior. These results illustrate
that responses evaluated without such measurements for foraging animals
may be misleading, which again illustrates the context-dependent nature
of the probability of response.
The following subsections provide examples of behavioral responses
that give an idea of the variability in behavioral responses that would
be expected given the differential sensitivities of marine mammal
species to sound, contextual factors, 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.
Avoidance and Displacement
Avoidance is the displacement of an individual from an area or
migration path as a result of the presence of a sound or other
stressors and is one of the most obvious manifestations of disturbance
in marine mammals (Richardson et al., 1995). For example, gray whales
(Eschrichtius robustus) and humpback whales are known to change
direction--deflecting from customary migratory paths--in order to avoid
noise from airgun surveys (Malme et al., 1984; Dunlop et al., 2018).
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 may be short-term with animals returning to
the area once the noise has ceased (e.g., Malme et al., 1984; Bowles et
al., 1994; Goold, 1996; Stone et al., 2000; Morton and Symonds, 2002;
Gailey et al., 2007; D[auml]hne et al., 2013; Russel et al., 2016).
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; Forney et al., 2017). Avoidance of marine mammals during
the construction of offshore wind facilities (specifically, impact pile
driving) has been documented in the literature with some significant
variation in the temporal and spatial degree of avoidance and with most
studies focused on harbor porpoises as one of the most common marine
mammals in European waters (e.g., Tougaard et al., 2009; D[auml]hne et
al., 2013; Thompson et al., 2013; Russell et al., 2016; Brandt et al.,
2018).
Available information on impacts to marine mammals from pile
driving associated with offshore wind is limited to information on
harbor porpoises and seals, as the vast majority of this research has
occurred at European offshore wind projects where large whales and
other odontocete species are uncommon. Harbor porpoises and harbor
seals are considered to be behaviorally sensitive species (e.g.,
Southall et al., 2007) and the effects of wind farm construction in
Europe on these species has been well documented. These species have
received particular attention in European waters due to their abundance
in the North Sea (Hammond et al., 2002; Nachtsheim et al., 2021). A
summary of the literature on documented effects of wind farm
construction on harbor
[[Page 37629]]
porpoise and harbor seals is described below.
Brandt et al. (2016) summarized the effects of the construction of
eight offshore wind projects within the German North Sea (i.e., Alpha
Ventus, BARD Offshore I, Borkum West II, DanTysk, Global Tech I,
Meerwind S[uuml]d/Ost, Nordsee Ost, and Riffgat) between 2009 and 2013
on harbor porpoises, combining PAM data from 2010-2013 and aerial
surveys from 2009-2013 with data on noise levels associated with pile
driving. Results of the analysis revealed significant declines in
porpoise detections during pile driving when compared to 25-48 hours
before pile driving began, with the magnitude of decline during pile
driving clearly decreasing with increasing distances to the
construction site. During the majority of projects, significant
declines in detections (by at least 20 percent) were found within at
least 5-10 km of the pile driving site, with declines at up to 20-30 km
of the pile driving site documented in some cases. Similar results
demonstrating the long-distance displacement of harbor porpoises (18-25
km) and harbor seals (up to 40 km) during impact pile driving have also
been observed during the construction at multiple other European wind
farms (Tougaard et al., 2009; Bailey et al., 2010; D[auml]hne et al.,
2013; Lucke et al., 2012; Haelters et al., 2015).
While harbor porpoises and seals tend to move several kilometers
away from wind farm construction activities, the duration of
displacement has been documented to be relatively temporary. In two
studies at Horns Rev II using impact pile driving, harbor porpoise
returned within 1-2 days following cessation of pile driving (Tougaard
et al., 2009; Brandt et al., 2011). Similar recovery periods have been
noted for harbor seals off England during the construction of four wind
farms (Brasseur et al., 2012; Carroll et al., 2010; Hamre et al., 2011;
Hastie et al., 2015; Russell et al., 2016). In some cases, an increase
in harbor porpoise activity has been documented inside wind farm areas
following construction (e.g., Lindeboom et al., 2011). Other studies
have noted longer term impacts after impact pile driving. Near Dogger
Bank in Germany, harbor porpoises continued to avoid the area for over
2 years after construction began (Gilles et al., 2009). Approximately
10 years after construction of the Nysted wind farm, harbor porpoise
abundance had not recovered to the original levels previously seen,
although the echolocation activity was noted to have been increasing
when compared to the previous monitoring period (Teilmann and
Carstensen, 2012). However, overall, there are no indications for a
population decline of harbor porpoises in European waters (e.g., Brandt
et al., 2016). Notably, where significant differences in displacement
and return rates have been identified for these species, the occurrence
of secondary project-specific influences such as use of mitigation
measures (e.g., bubble curtains, acoustic deterrent devices (ADDs)) or
the manner in which species use the habitat in the project area are
likely the driving factors of this variation.
NMFS notes the aforementioned studies from Europe involve
installing much smaller piles than Park City Wind proposes to install
and, therefore, we anticipate noise levels from impact pile driving to
be louder. For this reason, we anticipate that the greater distances of
displacement observed in harbor porpoise and harbor seals documented in
Europe are likely to occur off Massachusetts. However, we do not
anticipate any greater severity of response due to harbor porpoise and
harbor seal habitat use off Massachusetts or population-level
consequences similar to European findings. In many cases, harbor
porpoises and harbor seals are resident to the areas where European
wind farms have been constructed. However, off Massachusetts, harbor
porpoises are primarily transient (with higher abundances in winter
when foundation installation and UXO/MEC detonations would not occur)
and a very small percentage of the large harbor seal population are
only seasonally present with no rookeries established. In summary, we
anticipate that harbor porpoise and harbor seals will likely respond to
pile driving by moving several kilometers away from the source but
return to typical habitat use patterns when pile driving ceases.
Some avoidance behavior of other marine mammal species has been
documented to be dependent on distance from the source. As described
above, DeRuiter et al. (2013) noted that distance from a sound source
may moderate marine mammal reactions in their study of Cuvier's beaked
whales (an acoustically sensitive species), which showed the whales
swimming rapidly and silently away when a sonar signal was 3.4-9.5 km
away while showing no such reaction to the same signal when the signal
was 118 km away even though the received levels were similar. Tyack et
al. (1983) conducted playback studies of Surveillance Towed Array
Sensor System (SURTASS) low frequency active (LFA) sonar in a gray
whale migratory corridor off California. Similar to North Atlantic
right whales, gray whales migrate close to shore (approximately +2 kms)
and are low frequency hearing specialists. The LFA sonar source was
placed within the gray whale migratory corridor (approximately 2 km
offshore) and offshore of most, but not all, migrating whales
(approximately 4 km offshore). These locations influenced received
levels and distance to the source. For the inshore playbacks, not
unexpectedly, the louder the source level of the playback (i.e., the
louder the received level), whale avoided the source at greater
distances. Specifically, when the source level was 170 dB rms and 178
dB rms, whales avoided the inshore source at ranges of several hundred
meters, similar to avoidance responses reported by Malme et al. (1983,
1984). Whales exposed to source levels of 185 dB rms demonstrated
avoidance levels at ranges of +1 km. Responses to the offshore source
broadcasting at source levels of 185 and 200 dB, avoidance responses
were greatly reduced. While there was observed deflection from course,
in no case did a whale abandon its migratory behavior.
The signal context of the noise exposure has been shown to play an
important role in avoidance responses. In a 2007-2008 Bahamas study,
playback sounds of a potential predator--a killer whale--resulted in a
similar but more pronounced reaction in beaked whales (an acoustically
sensitive species), which included longer inter-dive intervals and a
sustained straight-line departure of more than 20 km from the area
(Boyd et al., 2008; Southall et al., 2009; Tyack et al., 2011). Park
City Wind does not anticipate, and NMFS is not proposing to authorize
take of beaked whales and, moreover, the sounds produced by Park City
Wind do not have signal characteristics similar to predators. Therefore
we would not expect such extreme reactions to occur. Southall et al.
(2011) found that blue whales had a different response to sonar
exposure depending on behavioral state, more pronounced when deep
feeding/travel modes than when engaged in surface feeding.
One potential consequence of behavioral avoidance is the altered
energetic expenditure of marine mammals because energy is required to
move and avoid surface vessels or the sound field associated with
active sonar (Frid and Dill, 2002). Most animals can avoid that
energetic cost by swimming away at slow speeds or speeds that minimize
the cost of transport (Miksis-Olds, 2006), as has been demonstrated in
Florida manatees (Miksis-Olds, 2006).
[[Page 37630]]
Those energetic costs increase, however, when animals shift from a
resting state, which is designed to conserve an animal's energy, to an
active state that consumes energy the animal would have conserved had
it not been disturbed. Marine mammals that have been disturbed by
anthropogenic noise and vessel approaches are commonly reported to
shift from resting to active behavioral states, which would imply that
they incur an energy cost.
Forney et al. (2017) detailed the potential effects of noise on
marine mammal populations with high site fidelity, including
displacement and auditory masking, noting that a lack of observed
response does not imply absence of fitness costs and that apparent
tolerance of disturbance may have population-level impacts that are
less obvious and difficult to document. Avoidance of overlap between
disturbing noise and areas and/or times of particular importance for
sensitive species may be critical to avoiding population-level impacts
because (particularly for animals with high site fidelity) there may be
a strong motivation to remain in the area despite negative impacts.
Forney et al. (2017) stated that, for these animals, remaining in a
disturbed area may reflect a lack of alternatives rather than a lack of
effects.
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; Frid and Dill, 2002). 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, beaked
whale strandings (Cox et al., 2006; D'Amico et al., 2009). 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.
Flight responses of marine mammals have been documented in response to
mobile high intensity active sonar (e.g., Tyack et al., 2011; DeRuiter
et al., 2013; Wensveen et al., 2019), and more severe responses have
been documented when sources are moving towards an animal or when they
are surprised by unpredictable exposures (Watkins, 1986; Falcone et
al., 2017). Generally speaking, however, marine mammals would be
expected to be less likely to respond with a flight response to either
stationery pile driving (which they can sense is stationery and
predictable) or significantly lower-level HRG surveys, unless they are
within the area ensonified above behavioral harassment thresholds at
the moment the source is turned on (Watkins, 1986; Falcone et al.,
2017).
Diving and Foraging
Changes in dive behavior in response to noise exposure can vary
widely. They 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., 2013a;
Goldbogen et al., 2013b). Variations in dive behavior may reflect
interruptions in biologically significant activities (e.g., foraging)
or they may be of little biological significance. Variations in dive
behavior may also expose an animal to potentially harmful conditions
(e.g., increasing the chance of ship-strike) or may serve as an
avoidance response that enhances survivorship. The impact of a
variation in diving resulting from an acoustic exposure depends on what
the animal is doing at the time of the exposure, the type and magnitude
of the response, and the context within which the response occurs
(e.g., the surrounding environmental and anthropogenic circumstances).
Nowacek et al. (2004) reported disruptions of dive behaviors in
foraging North Atlantic right whales when exposed to an alerting
stimulus, an action, they noted, that could lead to an increased
likelihood of ship strike. The alerting stimulus was in the form of an
18 minute exposure that included three 2-minute signals played three
times sequentially. This stimulus was designed with the purpose of
providing signals distinct to background noise that serve as
localization cues. However, the whales did not respond to playbacks of
either right whale social sounds or vessel noise, highlighting the
importance of the sound characteristics in producing a behavioral
reaction. Although source levels for the proposed pile driving
activities may exceed the received level of the alerting stimulus
described by Nowacek et al. (2004), proposed mitigation strategies
(further described in the Proposed Mitigation section) will reduce the
severity of response to proposed pile driving activities. Converse to
the behavior of North Atlantic right whales, Indo-Pacific humpback
dolphins have been observed to dive for longer periods of time in areas
where vessels were present and/or approaching (Ng and Leung, 2003). In
both of these studies, the influence of the sound exposure cannot be
decoupled from the physical presence of a surface vessel, thus
complicating interpretations of the relative contribution of each
stimulus to the response. Indeed, the presence of surface vessels,
their approach, and speed of approach, seemed to be significant factors
in the response of the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins (Ng and Leung,
2003). Low frequency signals of the Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean
Climate (ATOC) sound source were not found to affect dive times of
humpback whales in Hawaiian waters (Frankel and Clark, 2000) or to
overtly affect elephant seal dives (Costa et al., 2003). They did,
however, produce subtle effects that varied in direction and degree
among the individual seals, illustrating the equivocal nature of
behavioral effects and consequent difficulty in defining and predicting
them.
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 cessation of secondary
indicators of foraging (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., 2006a;
Yazvenko et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2019b). An understanding 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 can facilitate the assessment of whether
foraging disruptions are likely to incur fitness consequences
(Goldbogen et al., 2013b; Farmer et al., 2018; Pirotta et al., 2018;
Southall et al., 2019a; Pirotta et al., 2021).
Impacts on marine mammal foraging rates from noise exposure have
been documented, though there is little data regarding the impacts of
offshore turbine construction specifically. Several broader examples
follow, and it is reasonable to expect that exposure to noise produced
during the 5-years the proposed rule would be effective could have
similar impacts.
Visual tracking, passive acoustic monitoring, and movement
recording tags were used to quantify sperm whale
[[Page 37631]]
behavior prior to, during, and following exposure to airgun arrays at
received levels in the range 140-160 dB at distances of 7-13 km,
following a phase-in of sound intensity and full array exposures at 1-
13 km (Madsen et al., 2006a; Miller et al., 2009). Sperm whales did not
exhibit horizontal avoidance behavior at the surface. However, foraging
behavior may have been affected. The sperm whales exhibited 19 percent
less vocal (buzz) rate during full exposure relative to post exposure,
and the whale that was approached most closely had an extended resting
period and did not resume foraging until the airguns had ceased firing.
The remaining whales continued to execute foraging dives throughout
exposure; however, swimming movements during foraging dives were 6
percent lower during exposure than control periods (Miller et al.,
2009). Miller et al. (2009) noted that more data are required to
understand whether the differences were due to exposure or natural
variation in sperm whale behavior.
Balaenopterid whales exposed to moderate low-frequency signals
similar to the ATOC sound source demonstrated no variation in foraging
activity (Croll et al., 2001), whereas five out of six North Atlantic
right whales exposed to an acoustic alarm interrupted their foraging
dives (Nowacek et al., 2004). Although the received SPLs were similar
in the latter two studies, the frequency, duration, and temporal
pattern of signal presentation were different. These factors, as well
as differences in species sensitivity, are likely contributing factors
to the differential response. The source levels of both the proposed
construction and HRG activities exceed the source levels of the signals
described by Nowacek et al. (2004) and Croll et al. (2001), and noise
generated by Park City Wind's activities at least partially overlap in
frequency with the described signals. Blue whales exposed to mid-
frequency sonar in the Southern California Bight were less likely to
produce low frequency calls usually associated with feeding behavior
(Melc[oacute]n et al., 2012). However, Melc[oacute]n et al. (2012) were
unable to determine if suppression of low frequency calls reflected a
change in their feeding performance or abandonment of foraging behavior
and indicated that implications of the documented responses are
unknown. Further, it is not known whether the lower rates of calling
actually indicated a reduction in feeding behavior or social contact
since the study used data from remotely deployed, passive acoustic
monitoring buoys. Results from the 2010-2011 field season of a
behavioral response study in Southern California waters indicated that,
in some cases and at low received levels, tagged blue whales responded
to mid-frequency sonar but that those responses were mild and there was
a quick return to their baseline activity (Southall et al., 2011;
Southall et al., 2012b, Southall et al., 2019).
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. Foraging strategies may impact foraging
efficiency, such as by reducing foraging effort and increasing success
in prey detection and capture, in turn promoting fitness and allowing
individuals to better compensate for foraging disruptions. Surface
feeding blue whales did not show a change in behavior in response to
mid-frequency simulated and real sonar sources with received levels
between 90 and 179 dB re 1 [micro]Pa, but deep feeding and non-feeding
whales showed temporary reactions including cessation of feeding,
reduced initiation of deep foraging dives, generalized avoidance
responses, and changes to dive behavior (DeRuiter et al., 2017;
Goldbogen et al., 2013b; Sivle et al., 2015). Goldbogen et al. (2013b)
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 whale 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 that individual
fitness and health would be impacted, particularly since unconsumed
prey would likely still be available in the environment in most cases
following the cessation of acoustic exposure.
Similarly, while the rates of foraging lunges decrease in humpback
whales due to sonar exposure, there was variability in the response
across individuals, with one animal ceasing to forage completely and
another animal starting to forage during the exposure (Sivle et al.,
2016). In addition, almost half of the animals that demonstrated
avoidance were foraging before the exposure but the others were not;
the animals that avoided while not feeding responded at a slightly
lower received level and greater distance than those that were feeding
(Wensveen et al., 2017). These findings indicate the behavioral state
of the animal and foraging strategies play a role in the type and
severity of a behavioral response. For example, when the prey field was
mapped and used as a covariate in examining how behavioral state of
blue whales is influenced by mid-frequency sound, the response in blue
whale deep-feeding behavior was even more apparent, reinforcing the
need for contextual variables to be included when assessing behavioral
responses (Friedlaender et al., 2016).
Vocalizations and Auditory Masking
Marine mammals vocalize for different purposes and across multiple
modes, such as whistling, production of echolocation clicks, calling,
and singing. Changes in vocalization behavior in response to
anthropogenic noise can occur for any of these modes and may result
directly from increased vigilance or a startle response, or from a need
to compete with an increase in background noise (see Erbe et al., 2016
review on communication masking), the latter of which is described more
below.
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) and blue whales increased song production (Di Iorio
and Clark, 2009), while North Atlantic right whales have been observed
to shift the frequency content of their calls upward while reducing the
rate of calling in areas of increased anthropogenic noise (Parks et
al., 2007). In some cases, animals may cease or reduce sound production
during production of aversive signals (Bowles et al., 1994; Thode et
al., 2020; Cerchio et al., 2014; McDonald et al., 1995). Blackwell et
al. (2015) showed that whales increased calling rates as soon as airgun
signals were detectable before ultimately decreasing calling rates at
higher received levels.
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, or
navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995; Erbe and Farmer, 2000; Tyack,
2000; Erbe et al., 2016). Masking occurs when the receipt of a sound is
interfered with by another coincident sound at similar frequencies and
at similar or higher intensity, and may occur whether the sound is
natural (e.g., snapping shrimp, wind, waves, precipitation) or
anthropogenic (e.g., shipping, sonar,
[[Page 37632]]
seismic exploration) in origin. The ability of a noise source to mask
biologically important sounds depends on the characteristics of both
the noise source and the signal of interest (e.g., signal-to-noise
ratio, temporal variability, direction), in relation to each other and
to an animal's hearing abilities (e.g., sensitivity, frequency range,
critical ratios, frequency discrimination, directional discrimination,
age, or TTS hearing loss), and existing ambient noise and propagation
conditions.
Masking these acoustic signals can disturb the behavior of
individual animals, groups of animals, or entire populations. Masking
can lead to behavioral changes including vocal changes (e.g., Lombard
effect, increasing amplitude, or changing frequency), cessation of
foraging or lost foraging opportunities, and leaving an area, to both
signalers and receivers, in an attempt to compensate for noise levels
(Erbe et al., 2016) or because sounds that would typically have
triggered a behavior were not detected. In humans, significant masking
of tonal signals occurs as a result of exposure to noise in a narrow
band of similar frequencies. As the sound level increases, though, the
detection of frequencies above those of the masking stimulus decreases
also. This principle is expected to apply to marine mammals as well
because of common biomechanical cochlear properties across taxa.
Therefore, when the coincident (masking) sound is man-made, it may
be considered harassment when disrupting behavioral patterns. It is
important to distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist after the sound
exposure, from masking, which only occurs during the sound exposure.
Because masking (without resulting in threshold shift) is not
associated with abnormal physiological function, it is not considered a
physiological effect, but rather a potential behavioral effect.
The frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important
in determining any potential behavioral impacts. For example, low-
frequency signals may have less effect on high-frequency echolocation
sounds produced by odontocetes but are more likely to affect detection
of mysticete communication calls and other potentially important
natural sounds such as those produced by surf and some prey species.
The masking of communication signals by anthropogenic noise may be
considered as a reduction in the communication space of animals (e.g.,
Clark et al., 2009; Matthews et al., 2017) and may result in energetic
or other costs as animals change their vocalization behavior (e.g.,
Miller et al., 2000; Foote et al., 2004; Parks et al., 2007; Di Iorio
and Clark, 2009; Holt et al., 2009). Masking can be reduced in
situations where the signal and noise come from different directions
(Richardson et al., 1995), through amplitude modulation of the signal,
or through other compensatory behaviors (Houser and Moore, 2014).
Masking can be tested directly in captive species (e.g., Erbe, 2008),
but in wild populations it must be either modeled or inferred from
evidence of masking compensation. There are few studies addressing
real-world masking sounds likely to be experienced by marine mammals in
the wild (e.g., Branstetter et al., 2013; Cholewiak et al., 2018).
The echolocation calls of toothed whales are subject to masking by
high-frequency sound. Human data indicate low-frequency sound can mask
high-frequency sounds (i.e., upward masking). Studies on captive
odontocetes by Au et al. (1974, 1985, 1993) indicate that some species
may use various processes to reduce masking effects (e.g., adjustments
in echolocation call intensity or frequency as a function of background
noise conditions). There is also evidence that the directional hearing
abilities of odontocetes are useful in reducing masking at the high-
frequencies these cetaceans use to echolocate, but not at the low-to-
moderate frequencies they use to communicate (Zaitseva et al., 1980). A
study by Nachtigall and Supin (2008) showed that false killer whales
adjust their hearing to compensate for ambient sounds and the intensity
of returning echolocation signals.
Impacts on signal detection, measured by masked detection
thresholds, are not the only important factors to address when
considering the potential effects of masking. As marine mammals use
sound to recognize conspecifics, prey, predators, or other biologically
significant sources (Branstetter et al., 2016), it is also important to
understand the impacts of masked recognition thresholds (often called
``informational masking''). Branstetter et al. (2016) measured masked
recognition thresholds for whistle-like sounds of bottlenose dolphins
and observed that they are approximately 4 dB above detection
thresholds (energetic masking) for the same signals. Reduced ability to
recognize a conspecific call or the acoustic signature of a predator
could have severe negative impacts. Branstetter et al. (2016) observed
that if ``quality communication'' is set at 90 percent recognition the
output of communication space models (which are based on 50 percent
detection) would likely result in a significant decrease in
communication range.
As marine mammals use sound to recognize predators (Allen et al.,
2014; Cummings and Thompson, 1971; Cur[eacute] et al., 2015; Fish and
Vania, 1971), the presence of masking noise may also prevent marine
mammals from responding to acoustic cues produced by their predators,
particularly if it occurs in the same frequency band. For example,
harbor seals that reside in the coastal waters off British Columbia are
frequently targeted by mammal-eating killer whales. The seals
acoustically discriminate between the calls of mammal-eating and fish-
eating killer whales (Deecke et al., 2002), a capability that should
increase survivorship while reducing the energy required to attend to
all killer whale calls. Similarly, sperm whales (Cur[eacute] et al.,
2016; Isojunno et al., 2016), long-finned pilot whales (Visser et al.,
2016), and humpback whales (Cur[eacute] et al., 2015) changed their
behavior in response to killer whale vocalization playbacks; these
findings indicate that some recognition of predator cues could be
missed if the killer whale vocalizations were masked. The potential
effects of masked predator acoustic cues depends on the duration of the
masking noise and the likelihood of a marine mammal encountering a
predator during the time that detection and recognition of predator
cues are impeded.
Redundancy and context can also facilitate detection of weak
signals. These phenomena may help marine mammals detect weak sounds in
the presence of natural or manmade noise. Most masking studies in
marine mammals present the test signal and the masking noise from the
same direction. The dominant background noise may be highly directional
if it comes from a particular anthropogenic source such as a ship or
industrial site. Directional hearing may significantly reduce the
masking effects of these sounds by improving the effective signal-to-
noise ratio.
Masking affects both senders and receivers of acoustic signals and,
at higher levels and longer duration, can potentially have long-term
chronic effects on marine mammals at the population level as well as at
the individual level. Low-frequency ambient sound levels have increased
by as much as 20 dB (more than three times in terms of SPL) in the
world's ocean from pre-industrial periods, with most of the increase
from distant commercial shipping (Hildebrand, 2009; Cholewiak et al.,
2018). All anthropogenic sound sources, but especially chronic and
[[Page 37633]]
lower-frequency signals (e.g., from commercial vessel traffic),
contribute to elevated ambient sound levels, thus intensifying masking.
In addition to making it more difficult for animals to perceive and
recognize acoustic cues in their environment, anthropogenic sound
presents separate challenges for animals that are vocalizing. When they
vocalize, animals are aware of environmental conditions that affect the
``active space'' (or communication space) of their vocalizations, which
is the maximum area within which their vocalizations can be detected
before it drops to the level of ambient noise (Brenowitz, 2004; Brumm
et al., 2004; Lohr et al., 2003). Animals are also aware of
environmental conditions that affect whether listeners can discriminate
and recognize their vocalizations from other sounds, which is more
important than simply detecting that a vocalization is occurring
(Brenowitz, 1982; Brumm et al., 2004; Dooling, 2004; Marten and Marler,
1977; Patricelli and Blickley, 2006). Most species that vocalize have
evolved with an ability to make adjustments to their vocalizations to
increase the signal-to-noise ratio, active space, and recognizability/
distinguishability of their vocalizations in the face of temporary
changes in background noise (Brumm et al., 2004; Patricelli and
Blickley, 2006). Vocalizing animals can make adjustments to
vocalization characteristics such as the frequency structure,
amplitude, temporal structure, and temporal delivery (repetition rate),
or ceasing to vocalize.
Many animals will combine several of these strategies to compensate
for high levels of background noise. Anthropogenic sounds that reduce
the signal-to-noise ratio of animal vocalizations, increase the masked
auditory thresholds of animals listening for such vocalizations, or
reduce the active space of an animal's vocalizations impair
communication between animals. Most animals that vocalize have evolved
strategies to compensate for the effects of short-term or temporary
increases in background or ambient noise on their songs or calls.
Although the fitness consequences of these vocal adjustments are not
directly known in all instances, like most other trade-offs animals
must make, some of these strategies likely come at a cost (Patricelli
and Blickley, 2006; Noren et al., 2017; Noren et al., 2020). Shifting
songs and calls to higher frequencies may also impose energetic costs
(Lambrechts, 1996).
Marine mammals are also known to make vocal changes in response to
anthropogenic noise. In cetaceans, vocalization changes have been
reported from exposure to anthropogenic noise sources such as sonar,
vessel noise, and seismic surveying (see the following for examples:
Gordon et al., 2003; Di Iorio and Clark, 2009; Hatch et al., 2012; Holt
et al., 2009; Holt et al., 2011; Lesage et al., 1999; McDonald et al.,
2009; Parks et al., 2007; Risch et al., 2012; Rolland et al., 2012), as
well as changes in the natural acoustic environment (Dunlop et al.,
2014). Vocal changes can be temporary, or can be persistent. For
example, model simulation suggests that the increase in starting
frequency for the North Atlantic right whale upcall over the last 50
years resulted in increased detection ranges between right whales. The
frequency shift, coupled with an increase in call intensity by 20 dB,
led to a call detectability range of less than 3 km to over 9 km
(Tennessen and Parks, 2016). Holt et al. (2009) measured killer whale
call source levels and background noise levels in the 1 to 40 kHz band
and reported that the whales increased their call source levels by 1 dB
SPL for every one dB SPL increase in background noise level. Similarly,
another study on St. Lawrence River belugas reported a similar rate of
increase in vocalization activity in response to passing vessels
(Scheifele et al., 2005). Di Iorio and Clark (2009) showed that blue
whale calling rates vary in association with seismic sparker survey
activity, with whales calling more on days with surveys than on days
without surveys. They suggested that the whales called more during
seismic survey periods as a way to compensate for the elevated noise
conditions.
In some cases, these vocal changes may have fitness consequences,
such as an increase in metabolic rates and oxygen consumption, as
observed in bottlenose dolphins when increasing their call amplitude
(Holt et al., 2015). A switch from vocal communication to physical,
surface-generated sounds such as pectoral fin slapping or breaching was
observed for humpback whales in the presence of increasing natural
background noise levels, indicating that adaptations to masking may
also move beyond vocal modifications (Dunlop et al., 2010).
While these changes all represent possible tactics by the sound-
producing animal to reduce the impact of masking, the receiving animal
can also reduce masking by using active listening strategies such as
orienting to the sound source, moving to a quieter location, or
reducing self-noise from hydrodynamic flow by remaining still. The
temporal structure of noise (e.g., amplitude modulation) may also
provide a considerable release from masking through comodulation
masking release (a reduction of masking that occurs when broadband
noise, with a frequency spectrum wider than an animal's auditory filter
bandwidth at the frequency of interest, is amplitude modulated)
(Branstetter and Finneran, 2008; Branstetter et al., 2013). Signal type
(e.g., whistles, burst-pulse, sonar clicks) and spectral
characteristics (e.g., frequency modulated with harmonics) may further
influence masked detection thresholds (Branstetter et al., 2016;
Cunningham et al., 2014).
Masking is more likely to occur in the presence of broadband,
relatively continuous noise sources, such as vessels. Several studies
have shown decreases in marine mammal communication space and changes
in behavior as a result of the presence of vessel noise. For example,
right whales were 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) as well as increasing the
amplitude (intensity) of their calls (Parks, 2009; Parks et al., 2011).
Clark et al. (2009) observed that right whales' communication space
decreased by up to 84 percent in the presence of vessels. Cholewiak et
al. (2018) also observed loss in communication space in Stellwagen
National Marine Sanctuary for North Atlantic right whales, fin whales,
and humpback whales with increased ambient noise and shipping noise.
Although humpback whales off Australia did not change the frequency or
duration of their vocalizations in the presence of ship noise, their
source levels were lower than expected based on source level changes to
wind noise, potentially indicating some signal masking (Dunlop, 2016).
Multiple delphinid species have also been shown to increase the minimum
or maximum frequencies of their whistles in the presence of
anthropogenic noise and reduced communication space (for examples see:
Holt et al., 2009; Holt et al., 2011; Gervaise et al., 2012; Williams
et al., 2013; Hermannsen et al., 2014; Papale et al., 2015; Liu et al.,
2017). While masking impacts are not a concern from lower intensity,
higher frequency HRG surveys, some degree of masking would be expected
in the vicinity of turbine pile driving and concentrated support vessel
operation. However, pile driving is an intermittent sound and would not
be continuous throughout a day.
Habituation and Sensitization
Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes
[[Page 37634]]
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 having a neutral or positive outcome (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.
Both habituation and sensitization require an ongoing learning
process. 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; National Research Council (NRC), 2003; Wartzok et al., 2003;
Southall et al., 2019b). Controlled experiments with captive marine
mammals have shown pronounced behavioral reactions, including avoidance
of loud sound sources (e.g., Ridgway et al., 1997; Finneran et al.,
2003; Houser et al., 2013a; Houser et al., 2013b; Kastelein et al.,
2018). Observed responses of wild marine mammals to loud impulsive
sound sources (typically 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; Tougaard et al., 2009;
Brandt et al., 2011; Brandt et al., 2012; D[auml]hne et al., 2013;
Brandt et al., 2014; Russell et al., 2016; Brandt et al., 2018).
Stone (2015) reported data from at-sea observations during 1,196
airgun surveys from 1994 to 2010. When large arrays of airguns
(considered to be 500 in 3 or more) were firing, lateral displacement,
more localized avoidance, or other changes in behavior were evident for
most odontocetes. However, significant responses to large arrays were
found only for the minke whale and fin whale. Behavioral responses
observed included changes in swimming or surfacing behavior with
indications that cetaceans remained near the water surface at these
times. Behavioral observations of gray whales during an airgun survey
monitored whale movements and respirations pre-, during-, and post-
seismic survey (Gailey et al., 2016). Behavioral state and water depth
were the best `natural' predictors of whale movements and respiration
and after considering natural variation, none of the response variables
were significantly associated with survey or vessel sounds. Many
delphinids approach low-frequency airgun source vessels with no
apparent discomfort or obvious behavioral change (e.g., Barkaszi et
al., 2012), indicating the importance of frequency output in relation
to the species' hearing sensitivity.
Physiological Responses
An animal's perception of a threat may be sufficient to trigger
stress responses consisting of some combination of behavioral
responses, autonomic nervous system responses, neuroendocrine
responses, or immune responses (e.g., Seyle, 1950; Moberg, 2000). In
many cases, an animal's first and sometimes most economical (in terms
of energetic costs) response is behavioral avoidance of the potential
stressor. Autonomic nervous system responses to stress typically
involve changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and gastrointestinal
activity. These responses have a relatively short duration and may or
may not have a significant long-term effect on an animal's fitness.
Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-
pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that
are affected by stress--including immune competence, reproduction,
metabolism, and behavior--are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-
induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been
implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism, reduced immune
competence, and behavioral disturbance (e.g., Moberg, 1987; Blecha,
2000). Increases in the circulation of glucocorticoids are also equated
with stress (Romano et al., 2004).
The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does
not normally place an animal at risk) and ``distress'' is the cost of
the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores
that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such
circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose serious
fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have sufficient
energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response,
energy resources must be diverted from other functions. This state of
distress will last until the animal replenishes its energetic reserves
sufficiently to restore normal function.
Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal
behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well studied through
controlled experiments and for both laboratory and free-ranging animals
(e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 1998; Jessop et al., 2003;
Krausman et al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005). Stress responses due to
exposure to anthropogenic sounds or other stressors and their effects
on marine mammals have also been reviewed (Fair and Becker, 2000;
Romano et al., 2002b) and, more rarely, studied in wild populations
(e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Romano et al., 2002a; Rolland et al.,
2012). For example, Rolland et al. (2012) found that noise reduction
from reduced ship traffic in the Bay of Fundy was associated with
decreased stress in North Atlantic right whales.
These and other studies lead to a reasonable expectation that some
marine mammals will experience physiological stress responses upon
exposure to acoustic stressors and that it is possible that some of
these would be classified as ``distress.'' In addition, any animal
experiencing TTS would likely also experience stress responses (NRC,
2003, 2017).
Respiration naturally varies with different behaviors and
variations in respiration rate as a function of acoustic exposure can
be expected to co-occur with other behavioral reactions, such as a
flight response or an alteration in diving. However, respiration rates
in and of themselves may be representative of annoyance or an acute
stress response. Mean exhalation rates of gray whales at rest and while
diving were found to be unaffected by seismic surveys conducted
adjacent to the whale feeding grounds (Gailey et al., 2007). Studies
with captive harbor porpoises show increased respiration rates upon
introduction of acoustic alarms (Kastelein et al., 2001; Kastelein et
al., 2006a) and emissions for underwater data transmission (Kastelein
et al., 2005). However, exposure of the same acoustic alarm to a
striped dolphin under the same conditions did not elicit a response
(Kastelein et al., 2006a), again highlighting the importance in
understanding species differences in the tolerance of underwater noise
when determining the potential for impacts resulting from anthropogenic
sound exposure.
Stranding
The definition for a stranding under title IV of the MMPA is that
(A) a marine mammal is dead and is (i) on a beach or shore of the
United States; or (ii) in waters under the jurisdiction of the
[[Page 37635]]
United States (including any navigable waters); or (B) a marine mammal
is alive and is (i) on a beach or shore of the United States and is
unable to return to the water; (ii) on a beach or shore of the United
States and, although able to return to the water, is in need of
apparent medical attention; or (iii) in the waters under the
jurisdiction of the United States (including any navigable waters), but
is unable to return to its natural habitat under its own power or
without assistance (16 U.S.C. 1421h).
Marine mammal strandings have been linked to a variety of causes,
such as illness from exposure to infectious agents, biotoxins, or
parasites; starvation; unusual oceanographic or weather events; or
anthropogenic causes including fishery interaction, ship strike,
entrainment, entrapment, sound exposure, or combinations of these
stressors sustained concurrently or in series. There have been multiple
events worldwide in which marine mammals (primarily beaked whales, or
other deep divers) have stranded coincident with relatively nearby
activities utilizing loud sound sources (primarily military training
events), and five in which mid-frequency active sonar has been more
definitively determined to have been a contributing factor.
There are multiple theories regarding the specific mechanisms
responsible for marine mammal strandings caused by exposure to loud
sounds. One primary theme is the behaviorally mediated responses of
deep-diving species (odontocetes), in which their startled response to
an acoustic disturbance (1) affects ascent or descent rates, the time
they stay at depth or the surface, or other regular dive patterns that
are used to physiologically manage gas formation and absorption within
their bodies, such that the formation or growth of gas bubbles damages
tissues or causes other injury, or (2) results in their flight to
shallow areas, enclosed bays, or other areas considered ``out of
habitat,'' in which they become disoriented and physiologically
compromised. For more information on marine mammal stranding events and
potential causes, please see the Mortality and Stranding section of
NMFS Proposed Incidental Take Regulations for the Navy's Training and
Testing Activities in the Hawaii-Southern California Training and
Testing Study Area (50 CFR part 218, Volume 83, No. 123, June 26,
2018).
The construction activities proposed by Park City Wind (i.e., pile
driving, drilling, UXO/MEC detonation) do not inherently have the
potential to result in marine mammal strandings. While vessel strikes
and UXO/MEC detonation could kill or injure a marine mammals (which may
eventually strand), the required mitigation measures would reduce the
potential for take from these activities to de minimus levels (see
Proposed Mitigation section for more details). As described above, no
mortality or serious injury is anticipated or proposed to be authorized
from any Project activities.
Of the strandings documented to date worldwide, NMFS is not aware
of any being attributed to pile driving, a single UXO/MEC detonation of
the charge weights proposed here, or the types of HRG equipment
proposed for use during the Project. Recently, there has been
heightened interest in HRG surveys and their potential role in recent
marine mammals strandings along the U.S. east coast. HRG surveys
involve the use of certain sources to image the ocean bottom, which are
very different from seismic airguns used in oil and gas surveys or
tactical military sonar, in that they produce much smaller impact
zones. Marine mammals may respond to exposure to these sources by, for
example, avoiding the immediate area, which is why offshore wind
developers have authorization to allow for Level B (behavioral)
harassment, including Park City Wind. However, because of the
combination of lower source levels, higher frequency, narrower beam-
width (for some sources), and other factors, the area within which a
marine mammal might be expected to be behaviorally disturbed by HRG
sources is much smaller (by orders of magnitude) than the impact areas
for seismic airguns or the military sonar with which a small number of
marine mammal have been causally associated. Specifically, estimated
harassment zones for HRG surveys are typically less than 200m (such as
those associated with the Project), while zones for military mid-
frequency active sonar or seismic airgun surveys typically extend for
several kms ranging up to 10s of km. Further, because of this much
smaller ensonified area, any marine mammal exposure to HRG sources is
reasonably expected to be at significantly lower levels and shorter
duration (associated with less severe responses), and there is no
evidence suggesting, or reason to speculate, that marine mammals
exposed to HRG survey noise are likely to be injured, much less strand,
as a result. Last, all but one of the small number of marine mammal
stranding events that have been causally associated with exposure to
loud sound sources have been deep-diving toothed whale species (not
mysticetes), which are known to respond differently to loud sounds.
Potential Effects of Disturbance on Marine Mammal Fitness
The different ways that marine mammals respond to sound are
sometimes indicators of the ultimate effect that exposure to a given
stimulus will have on the well-being (survival, reproduction, etc.) of
an animal. There are numerous data relating the exposure of terrestrial
mammals from sound to effects on reproduction or survival, and data for
marine mammals continues to grow. Several authors have reported that
disturbance stimuli may cause animals to abandon nesting and foraging
sites (Sutherland and Crockford, 1993); may cause animals to increase
their activity levels and suffer premature deaths or reduced
reproductive success when their energy expenditures exceed their energy
budgets (Daan et al., 1996; Feare, 1976; Mullner et al., 2004); or may
cause animals to experience higher predation rates when they adopt
risk-prone foraging or migratory strategies (Frid and Dill, 2002). Each
of these studies addressed the consequences of animals shifting from
one behavioral state (e.g., resting or foraging) to another behavioral
state (e.g., avoidance or escape behavior) because of human disturbance
or disturbance stimuli.
Attention is the cognitive process of selectively concentrating on
one aspect of an animal's environment while ignoring other things
(Posner, 1994). Because animals (including humans) have limited
cognitive resources, there is a limit to how much sensory information
they can process at any time. The phenomenon called ``attentional
capture'' occurs when a stimulus (usually a stimulus that an animal is
not concentrating on or attending to) ``captures'' an animal's
attention. This shift in attention can occur consciously or
subconsciously (for example, when an animal hears sounds that it
associates with the approach of a predator) and the shift in attention
can be sudden (Dukas, 2002; van Rij, 2007). Once a stimulus has
captured an animal's attention, the animal can respond by ignoring the
stimulus, assuming a ``watch and wait'' posture, or treat the stimulus
as a disturbance and respond accordingly, which includes scanning for
the source of the stimulus or ``vigilance'' (Cowlishaw et al., 2004).
Vigilance is an adaptive behavior that helps animals determine the
presence or absence of predators, assess their distance from
conspecifics, or to attend cues from prey (Bednekoff and Lima, 1998;
Treves, 2000). Despite those
[[Page 37636]]
benefits, however, vigilance has a cost of time; when animals focus
their attention on specific environmental cues, they are not attending
to other activities such as foraging or resting. These effects have
generally not been demonstrated for marine mammals, but studies
involving fish and terrestrial animals have shown that increased
vigilance may substantially reduce feeding rates (Saino, 1994;
Beauchamp and Livoreil, 1997; Fritz et al., 2002; Purser and Radford,
2011). Animals will spend more time being vigilant, which may translate
to less time foraging or resting, when disturbance stimuli approach
them more directly, remain at closer distances, have a greater group
size (e.g., multiple surface vessels), or when they co-occur with times
that an animal perceives increased risk (e.g., when they are giving
birth or accompanied by a calf).
The primary mechanism by which increased vigilance and disturbance
appear to affect the fitness of individual animals is by disrupting an
animal's time budget and, as a result, reducing the time they might
spend foraging and resting (which increases an animal's activity rate
and energy demand while decreasing their caloric intake/energy). In a
study of northern resident killer whales off Vancouver Island, exposure
to boat traffic was shown to reduce foraging opportunities and increase
traveling time (Holt et al., 2021). A simple bioenergetics model was
applied to show that the reduced foraging opportunities equated to a
decreased energy intake of 18 percent while the increased traveling
incurred an increased energy output of 3-4 percent, which suggests that
a management action based on avoiding interference with foraging might
be particularly effective.
On a related note, many animals perform vital functions, such as
feeding, resting, traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hr
cycle). Behavioral reactions to noise exposure (such as disruption of
critical life functions, displacement, or avoidance of important
habitat) are more likely to be significant for fitness if they last
more than one diel cycle or recur on subsequent days (Southall et al.,
2007). Consequently, a behavioral response lasting less than 1 day and
not recurring on subsequent days is not considered particularly severe
unless it could directly affect reproduction or survival (Southall et
al., 2007). It is important to note the difference between behavioral
reactions lasting or recurring over multiple days and anthropogenic
activities lasting or recurring over multiple days. For example, just
because certain activities last for multiple days does not necessarily
mean that individual animals will be either exposed to those activity-
related stressors (i.e., sonar) for multiple days or further exposed in
a manner that would result in sustained multi-day substantive
behavioral responses. However, special attention is warranted where
longer-duration activities overlay areas in which animals are known to
congregate for longer durations for biologically important behaviors.
There are few studies that directly illustrate the impacts of
disturbance on marine mammal populations. Lusseau and Bejder (2007)
present data from three long-term studies illustrating the connections
between disturbance from whale-watching boats and population-level
effects in cetaceans. In Shark Bay, Australia, the abundance of
bottlenose dolphins was compared within adjacent control and tourism
sites over three consecutive 4.5-year periods of increasing tourism
levels. Between the second and third time periods, in which tourism
doubled, dolphin abundance decreased by 15 percent in the tourism area
and did not change significantly in the control area. In Fiordland, New
Zealand, two populations (Milford and Doubtful Sounds) of bottlenose
dolphins with tourism levels that differed by a factor of seven were
observed and significant increases in traveling time and decreases in
resting time were documented for both. Consistent short-term avoidance
strategies were observed in response to tour boats until a threshold of
disturbance was reached (average 68 minutes between interactions),
after which the response switched to a longer-term habitat displacement
strategy. For one population, tourism only occurred in a part of the
home range. However, tourism occurred throughout the home range of the
Doubtful Sound population and once boat traffic increased beyond the
68-minute threshold (resulting in abandonment of their home range/
preferred habitat), reproductive success drastically decreased
(increased stillbirths) and abundance decreased significantly (from 67
to 56 individuals in a short period).
In order to understand how the effects of activities may or may not
impact species and stocks of marine mammals, it is necessary to
understand not only what the likely disturbances are going to be but
how those disturbances may affect the reproductive success and
survivorship of individuals and then how those impacts to individuals
translate to population-level effects. Following on the earlier work of
a committee of the U.S. National Research Council (NRC, 2005), New et
al. (2014), in an effort termed the Potential Consequences of
Disturbance (PCoD), outline an updated conceptual model of the
relationships linking disturbance to changes in behavior and
physiology, health, vital rates, and population dynamics. This
framework is a four-step process progressing from changes in individual
behavior and/or physiology, to changes in individual health, then vital
rates, and finally to population-level effects. In this framework,
behavioral and physiological changes can have direct (acute) effects on
vital rates, such as when changes in habitat use or increased stress
levels raise the probability of mother-calf separation or predation;
indirect and long-term (chronic) effects on vital rates, such as when
changes in time/energy budgets or increased disease susceptibility
affect health, which then affects vital rates; or no effect to vital
rates (New et al., 2014).
Since the PCoD general framework was outlined and the relevant
supporting literature compiled, multiple studies developing state-space
energetic models for species with extensive long-term monitoring (e.g.,
southern elephant seals, North Atlantic right whales, Ziphiidae beaked
whales, and bottlenose dolphins) have been conducted and can be used to
effectively forecast longer-term, population-level impacts from
behavioral changes. While these are very specific models with very
specific data requirements that cannot yet be applied broadly to
project-specific risk assessments for the majority of species, they are
a critical first step towards being able to quantify the likelihood of
a population level effect. Since New et al. (2014), several
publications have described models developed to examine the long-term
effects of environmental or anthropogenic disturbance of foraging on
various life stages of selected species (e.g., sperm whale, Farmer et
al. (2018); California sea lion, McHuron et al. (2018); blue whale,
Pirotta et al. (2018a); humpback whale, Dunlop et al. (2021)). These
models continue to add to refinement of the approaches to the PCoD
framework. Such models also help identify what data inputs require
further investigation. Pirotta et al. (2018b) provides a review of the
PCoD framework with details on each step of the process and approaches
to applying real data or simulations to achieve each step.
Despite its simplicity, there are few complete PCoD models
available for any marine mammal species due to a lack of data available
to parameterize many of the steps. To date, no PCoD model has been
fully parameterized with empirical
[[Page 37637]]
data (Pirotta et al., 2018a) due to the fact they are data intensive
and logistically challenging to complete. Therefore, most complete PCoD
models include simulations, theoretical modeling, and expert opinion to
move through the steps. For example, PCoD models have been developed to
evaluate the effect of wind farm construction on the North Sea harbor
porpoise populations (e.g., King et al., 2015; Nabe-Nielsen et al.,
2018). These models include a mix of empirical data, expert elicitation
(King et al., 2015) and simulations of animals' movements, energetics,
and/or survival (New et al., 2014; Nabe-Nielsen et al., 2018).
PCoD models may also be approached in different manners. Dunlop et
al. (2021) modeled migrating humpback whale mother-calf pairs in
response to seismic surveys using both a forwards and backwards
approach. While a typical forwards approach can determine if a stressor
would have population-level consequences, Dunlop et al. demonstrated
that working backwards through a PCoD model can be used to assess the
``worst case'' scenario for an interaction of a target species and
stressor. This method may be useful for future management goals when
appropriate data becomes available to fully support the model. In
another example, harbor porpoise PCoD model investigating the impact of
seismic surveys on harbor porpoise included an investigation on
underlying drivers of vulnerability. Harbor porpoise movement and
foraging were modeled for baseline periods and then for periods with
seismic surveys as well; the models demonstrated that temporal (i.e.,
seasonal) variation in individual energetics and their link to costs
associated with disturbances was key in predicting population impacts
(Gallagher et al., 2021).
Behavioral change, such as disturbance manifesting in lost foraging
time, in response to anthropogenic activities is often assumed to
indicate a biologically significant effect on a population of concern.
However, as described above, individuals may be able to compensate for
some types and degrees of shifts in behavior, preserving their health
and thus their vital rates and population dynamics. For example, New et
al. (2013) developed a model simulating the complex social, spatial,
behavioral and motivational interactions of coastal bottlenose dolphins
in the Moray Firth, Scotland, to assess the biological significance of
increased rate of behavioral disruptions caused by vessel traffic.
Despite a modeled scenario in which vessel traffic increased from 70 to
470 vessels a year (a six-fold increase in vessel traffic) in response
to the construction of a proposed offshore renewables' facility, the
dolphins' behavioral time budget, spatial distribution, motivations,
and social structure remain unchanged. Similarly, two bottlenose
dolphin populations in Australia were also modeled over 5 years against
a number of disturbances (Reed et al., 2020), and results indicated
that habitat/noise disturbance had little overall impact on population
abundances in either location, even in the most extreme impact
scenarios modeled.
By integrating different sources of data (e.g., controlled exposure
data, activity monitoring, telemetry tracking, and prey sampling) into
a theoretical model to predict effects from sonar on a blue whale's
daily energy intake, Pirotta et al. (2021) found that tagged blue
whales' activity budgets, lunging rates, and ranging patterns caused
variability in their predicted cost of disturbance. This method may be
useful for future management goals when appropriate data becomes
available to fully support the model. Harbor porpoise movement and
foraging were modeled for baseline periods and then for periods with
seismic surveys as well; the models demonstrated that the seasonality
of the seismic activity was an important predictor of impact (Gallagher
et al., 2021).
In their Table 1, Keen et al. (2021) summarize the emerging themes
in PCoD models that should be considered when assessing the likelihood
and duration of exposure and the sensitivity of a population to
disturbance (see Table 1 from Keen et al., 2021, below). The themes are
categorized by life history traits (movement ecology, life history
strategy, body size, and pace of life), disturbance source
characteristics (overlap with biologically important areas, duration
and frequency, and nature and context), and environmental conditions
(natural variability in prey availability and climate change). Keen et
al. (2021) then summarize how each of these features influence an
assessment, noting, for example, that individual animals with small
home ranges have a higher likelihood of prolonged or year-round
exposure, that the effect of disturbance is strongly influenced by
whether it overlaps with biologically important habitats when
individuals are present, and that continuous disruption will have a
greater impact than intermittent disruption.
Nearly all PCoD studies and experts agree that infrequent exposures
of a single day or less are unlikely to impact individual fitness, let
alone lead to population level effects (Booth et al., 2016; Booth et
al., 2017; Christiansen and Lusseau 2015; Farmer et al., 2018; Wilson
et al., 2020; Harwood and Booth 2016; King et al., 2015; McHuron et
al., 2018; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
(NAS), 2017; New et al., 2014; Pirotta et al., 2018a; Southall et al.,
2007; Villegas-Amtmann et al., 2015). As described through this
proposed rule, NMFS expects that any behavioral disturbance that would
occur due to animals being exposed to construction activity would be of
a relatively short duration, with behavior returning to a baseline
state shortly after the acoustic stimuli ceases or the animal moves far
enough away from the source. Given this, and NMFS' evaluation of the
available PCoD studies, and the required mitigation discussed later,
any such behavioral disturbance resulting from Park City Wind's
activities is not expected to impact individual animals' health or have
effects on individual animals' survival or reproduction, thus no
detrimental impacts at the population level are anticipated. Marine
mammals may temporarily avoid the immediate area but are not expected
to permanently abandon the area or their migratory or foraging
behavior. Impacts to breeding, feeding, sheltering, resting, or
migration are not expected nor are shifts in habitat use, distribution,
or foraging success.
Potential Effects From Explosive Sources
With respect to the noise from underwater explosives, the same
acoustic-related impacts described above apply and are not repeated
here. Noise from explosives can cause hearing impairment if an animal
is close enough to the sources; however, because noise from an
explosion is discrete, lasting less than approximately 1 second, no
behavioral impacts below the TTS threshold are anticipated considering
that Park City Wind would not detonate more than 1 UXO/MEC per day and
only 10 during the life of the proposed rule. This section focuses on
the pressure-related impacts of underwater explosives, including
physiological injury and mortality.
Underwater explosive detonations send a shock wave and sound energy
through the water and can release gaseous by-products, create an
oscillating bubble, or cause a plume of water to shoot up from the
water surface. The shock wave and accompanying noise are of most
concern to marine animals. Depending on the intensity of the shock wave
and size, location, and depth of the animal, an animal can be injured,
killed, suffer non-lethal physical effects, experience
[[Page 37638]]
hearing related effects with or without behavioral responses, or
exhibit temporary behavioral responses or tolerance from hearing the
blast sound. Generally, exposures to higher levels of impulse and
pressure levels would result in greater impacts to an individual
animal.
Injuries resulting from a shock wave take place at boundaries
between tissues of different densities. Different velocities are
imparted to tissues of different densities, and this can lead to their
physical disruption. Blast effects are greatest at the gas-liquid
interface (Landsberg, 2000). Gas-containing organs, particularly the
lungs and gastrointestinal tract, are especially susceptible (Goertner,
1982; Hill, 1978; Yelverton et al., 1973). Intestinal walls can bruise
or rupture, with subsequent hemorrhage and escape of gut contents into
the body cavity. Less severe gastrointestinal tract injuries include
contusions, petechiae (small red or purple spots caused by bleeding in
the skin), and slight hemorrhaging (Yelverton et al., 1973).
Because the ears are the most sensitive to pressure, they are the
organs most sensitive to injury (Ketten, 2000). Sound-related damage
associated with sound energy from detonations can be theoretically
distinct from injury from the shock wave, particularly farther from the
explosion. If a noise is audible to an animal, it has the potential to
damage the animal's hearing by causing decreased sensitivity (Ketten,
1995). Lethal impacts are those that result in immediate death or
serious debilitation in or near an intense source and are not,
technically, pure acoustic trauma (Ketten, 1995). Sublethal impacts
include hearing loss, which is caused by exposures to perceptible
sounds. Severe damage (from the shock wave) to the ears includes
tympanic membrane rupture, fracture of the ossicles, and damage to the
cochlea, hemorrhage, and cerebrospinal fluid leakage into the middle
ear. Moderate injury implies partial hearing loss due to tympanic
membrane rupture and blood in the middle ear. Permanent hearing loss
also can occur when the hair cells are damaged by one very loud event
as well as by prolonged exposure to a loud noise or chronic exposure to
noise. The level of impact from blasts depends on both an animal's
location and, at outer zones, its sensitivity to the residual noise
(Ketten, 1995).
Given the mitigation measures proposed, it is unlikely that any of
the more serious injuries or mortality discussed above are likely to
result from any UXO/MEC detonation that Park City Wind might need to
undertake. PTS, TTS, and brief startle reactions are the most likely
impacts to result from this activity, if it occurs (noting detonation
is the last method to be chosen for removal).
Potential Effects From Vessel Strike
Vessel collisions with marine mammals, also referred to as vessel
strikes or ship strikes, can result in death or serious injury of the
animal. Wounds resulting from ship strike may include massive trauma,
hemorrhaging, broken bones, or propeller lacerations (Knowlton and
Kraus, 2001). An animal at the surface could be struck directly by a
vessel, a surfacing animal could hit the bottom of a vessel, or an
animal just below the surface could be cut by a vessel's propeller.
Superficial strikes may not kill or result in the death of the animal.
Lethal interactions are typically associated with large whales, which
are occasionally found draped across the bulbous bow of large
commercial ships upon arrival in port. Although smaller cetaceans are
more maneuverable in relation to large vessels than are large whales,
they may also be susceptible to strike. The severity of injuries
typically depends on the size and speed of the vessel (Knowlton and
Kraus, 2001; Laist et al., 2001; Vanderlaan and Taggart, 2007; Conn and
Silber, 2013). Impact forces increase with speed, as does the
probability of a strike at a given distance (Silber et al., 2010; Gende
et al., 2011).
The most vulnerable marine mammals are those that spend extended
periods of time at the surface in order to restore oxygen levels within
their tissues after deep dives (e.g., the sperm whale). In addition,
some baleen whales seem generally unresponsive to vessel sound, making
them more susceptible to vessel collisions (Nowacek et al., 2004).
These species are primarily large, slow moving whales. Marine mammal
responses to vessels may include avoidance and changes in dive pattern
(NRC, 2003).
An examination of all known ship strikes from all shipping sources
(civilian and military) indicates vessel speed is a principal factor in
whether a vessel strike occurs and, if so, whether it results in
injury, serious injury, or mortality (Knowlton and Kraus, 2001; Laist
et al., 2001; Jensen and Silber, 2003; Pace and Silber, 2005;
Vanderlaan and Taggart, 2007; Conn and Silber, 2013). In assessing
records in which vessel speed was known, Laist et al. (2001) found a
direct relationship between the occurrence of a whale strike and the
speed of the vessel involved in the collision. The authors concluded
that most deaths occurred when a vessel was traveling in excess of 13
knots.
Jensen and Silber (2003) detailed 292 records of known or probable
ship strikes of all large whale species from 1975 to 2002. Of these,
vessel speed at the time of collision was reported for 58 cases. Of
these 58 cases, 39 (or 67 percent) resulted in serious injury or death
(19 of those resulted in serious injury as determined by blood in the
water, propeller gashes or severed tailstock, and fractured skull, jaw,
vertebrae, hemorrhaging, massive bruising or other injuries noted
during necropsy and 20 resulted in death). Operating speeds of vessels
that struck various species of large whales ranged from 2 to 51 knots.
The majority (79 percent) of these strikes occurred at speeds of 13
knots or greater. The average speed that resulted in serious injury or
death was 18.6 knots. Pace and Silber (2005) found that the probability
of death or serious injury increased rapidly with increasing vessel
speed. Specifically, the predicted probability of serious injury or
death increased from 45 to 75 percent as vessel speed increased from 10
to 14 knots, and exceeded 90 percent at 17 knots. Higher speeds during
collisions result in greater force of impact and also appear to
increase the chance of severe injuries or death. While modeling studies
have suggested that hydrodynamic forces pulling whales toward the
vessel hull increase with increasing speed (Clyne, 1999; Knowlton et
al., 1995), this is inconsistent with Silber et al. (2010), which
demonstrated that there is no such relationship (i.e., hydrodynamic
forces are independent of speed).
In a separate study, Vanderlaan and Taggart (2007) analyzed the
probability of lethal mortality of large whales at a given speed,
showing that the greatest rate of change in the probability of a lethal
injury to a large whale as a function of vessel speed occurs between
8.6 and 15 knots. The chances of a lethal injury decline from
approximately 80 percent at 15 knots to approximately 20 percent at 8.6
knots. At speeds below 11.8 knots, the chances of lethal injury drop
below 50 percent, while the probability asymptotically increases toward
100 percent above 15 knots.
The Jensen and Silber (2003) report notes that the Large Whale Ship
Strike Database represents a minimum number of collisions, because the
vast majority probably goes undetected or unreported. In contrast, the
Project's personnel are likely to detect any strike that does occur
because of the required personnel training and lookouts, along with the
inclusion of Protected Species Observers (as described in the Proposed
Mitigation section), and they are
[[Page 37639]]
required to report all ship strikes involving marine mammals.
There are no known vessel strikes of marine mammals by any offshore
wind energy vessel in the U.S. Given the extensive mitigation and
monitoring measures (see the Proposed Mitigation and Proposed
Monitoring and Reporting section) that would be required of Park City
Wind, NMFS believes that a vessel strike is not likely to occur.
Potential Effects to Marine Mammal Habitat
Park City Wind's proposed activities could potentially affect
marine mammal habitat through the introduction of impacts to the prey
species of marine mammals (through noise, oceanographic processes, or
reef effects), acoustic habitat (sound in the water column), water
quality, and biologically important habitat for marine mammals.
Effects on Prey
Sound may affect marine mammals through impacts on the abundance,
behavior, or distribution of prey species (e.g., crustaceans,
cephalopods, fish, and zooplankton). Marine mammal prey varies by
species, season, and location and, for some, is not well documented.
Here, we describe studies regarding the effects of noise on known
marine mammal prey.
Fish utilize the soundscape and components of sound in their
environment to perform important functions such as foraging, predator
avoidance, mating, and spawning (e.g., Zelick and Mann, 1999; Fay,
2009). The most likely effects on fishes exposed to loud, intermittent,
low-frequency sounds are behavioral responses (i.e., flight or
avoidance). Short duration, sharp sounds (such as pile driving or
airguns) can cause overt or subtle changes in fish behavior and local
distribution. The reaction of fish to acoustic sources depends on the
physiological state of the fish, past exposures, motivation (e.g.,
feeding, spawning, migration), and other environmental factors. Key
impacts to fishes may include behavioral responses, hearing damage,
barotrauma (pressure-related injuries), and mortality. While it is
clear that the behavioral responses of individual prey, such as
displacement or other changes in distribution, can have direct impacts
on the foraging success of marine mammals, the effects on marine
mammals of individual prey that experience hearing damage, barotrauma,
or mortality is less clear, though obviously population scale impacts
that meaningfully reduce the amount of prey available could have more
serious impacts.
Fishes, like other vertebrates, have a variety of different sensory
systems to glean information from ocean around them (Astrup and Mohl,
1993; Astrup, 1999; Braun and Grande, 2008; Carroll et al., 2017;
Hawkins and Johnstone, 1978; Ladich and Popper, 2004; Ladich and
Schulz-Mirbach, 2016; Mann, 2016; Nedwell et al., 2004; Popper et al.,
2003; Popper et al., 2005). Depending on their hearing anatomy and
peripheral sensory structures, which vary among species, fishes hear
sounds using pressure and particle motion sensitivity capabilities and
detect the motion of surrounding water (Fay et al., 2008) (terrestrial
vertebrates generally only detect pressure). Most marine fishes
primarily detect particle motion using the inner ear and lateral line
system while some fishes possess additional morphological adaptations
or specializations that can enhance their sensitivity to sound
pressure, such as a gas-filled swim bladder (Braun and Grande, 2008;
Popper and Fay, 2011).
Hearing capabilities vary considerably between different fish
species with data only available for just over 100 species out of the
34,000 marine and freshwater fish species (Eschmeyer and Fong, 2016).
In order to better understand acoustic impacts on fishes, fish hearing
groups are defined by species that possess a similar continuum of
anatomical features, which result in varying degrees of hearing
sensitivity (Popper and Hastings, 2009a). There are four hearing groups
defined for all fish species (modified from Popper et al., 2014) within
this analysis, and they include: fishes without a swim bladder (e.g.,
flatfish, sharks, rays, etc.); fishes with a swim bladder not involved
in hearing (e.g., salmon, cod, pollock, etc.); fishes with a swim
bladder involved in hearing (e.g., sardines, anchovy, herring, etc.);
and fishes with a swim bladder involved in hearing and high-frequency
hearing (e.g., shad and menhaden). Most marine mammal fish prey species
would not be likely to perceive or hear mid- or high-frequency sonars.
While hearing studies have not been done on sardines and northern
anchovies, it would not be unexpected for them to have hearing
similarities to Pacific herring (up to 2-5 kHz) (Mann et al., 2005).
Currently, less data are available to estimate the range of best
sensitivity for fishes without a swim bladder.
In terms of physiology, multiple scientific studies have documented
a lack of mortality or physiological effects to fish from exposure to
low- and mid-frequency sonar and other sounds (Halvorsen et al., 2012a;
J[oslash]rgensen et al., 2005; Juanes et al., 2017; Kane et al., 2010;
Kvadsheim and Sevaldsen, 2005; Popper et al., 2007; Popper et al.,
2016; Watwood et al., 2016). Techer et al. (2017) exposed carp in
floating cages for up to 30 days to low-power 23 and 46 kHz source
without any significant physiological response. Other studies have
documented either a lack of TTS in species whose hearing range cannot
perceive sonar (such as Navy sonar), or for those species that could
perceive sonar-like signals, any TTS experienced would be recoverable
(Halvorsen et al., 2012a; Ladich and Fay, 2013; Popper and Hastings,
2009a, 2009b; Popper et al., 2014; Smith, 2016). Only fishes that have
specializations that enable them to hear sounds above about 2,500 Hz
(2.5 kHz), such as herring (Halvorsen et al., 2012a; Mann et al., 2005;
Mann, 2016; Popper et al., 2014), would have the potential to receive
TTS or exhibit behavioral responses from exposure to mid-frequency
sonar. In addition, any sonar induced TTS to fish whose hearing range
could perceive sonar would only occur in the narrow spectrum of the
source (e.g., 3.5 kHz) compared to the fish's total hearing range
(e.g., 0.01 kHz to 5 kHz).
In terms of behavioral responses, Juanes et al. (2017) discuss the
potential for negative impacts from anthropogenic noise on fish, but
the author's focus was on broader based sounds, such as ship and boat
noise sources. Watwood et al. (2016) also documented no behavioral
responses by reef fish after exposure to mid-frequency active sonar.
Doksaeter et al. (2009; 2012) reported no behavioral responses to mid-
frequency sonar (such as naval sonar) by Atlantic herring;
specifically, no escape reactions (vertically or horizontally) were
observed in free swimming herring exposed to mid-frequency sonar
transmissions. Based on these results (Doksaeter et al., 2009;
Doksaeter et al., 2012; Sivle et al., 2012), Sivle et al. (2014)
created a model in order to report on the possible population-level
effects on Atlantic herring from active sonar. The authors concluded
that the use of sonar poses little risk to populations of herring
regardless of season, even when the herring populations are aggregated
and directly exposed to sonar. Finally, Bruintjes et al. (2016)
commented that fish exposed to any short-term noise within their
hearing range might initially startle, but would quickly return to
normal behavior.
Pile-driving noise during construction is of particular concern as
the very high sound pressure levels could potentially prevent fish from
reaching breeding or spawning sites, finding food, and acoustically
locating mates. A playback
[[Page 37640]]
study in West Scotland revealed that there was a significant movement
response to the pile-driving stimulus in both species at relatively low
received sound pressure levels (sole: 144-156 dB re 1[mu]Pa Peak; cod:
140-161 dB re 1 [mu]Pa Peak, particle motion between 6.51 x 10\3\ and
8.62 x 10\4\ m/s\2\ peak) (Mueller-Blenkle et al., 2010). The swimming
speed of sole increased significantly during the playback of
construction noise when compared to the playbacks of before and after
construction. While not statistically significant, cod also displayed a
similar behavioral response during before, during, and after
construction playbacks. However, cod demonstrated a specific and
significant freezing response at the onset and cessation of the
playback recording. In both species, indications were present
displaying directional movements away from the playback source. During
wind farm construction in the Eastern Taiwan Strait, Type 1 soniferous
fish chorusing showed a relatively lower intensity and longer duration
while Type 2 chorusing exhibited higher intensity and no changes in its
duration. Deviation from regular fish vocalization patterns may affect
fish reproductive success, cause migration, augmented predation, or
physiological alterations.
Occasional behavioral reactions to activities that produce
underwater noise sources are unlikely to cause long-term consequences
for individual fish or populations. The most likely impact to fish from
impact and vibratory pile driving activities at the project areas would
be temporary behavioral avoidance of the area. Any behavioral avoidance
by fish of the disturbed area would still leave significantly large
areas of fish and marine mammal foraging habitat in the nearby
vicinity. The duration of fish avoidance of an area after pile driving
stops is unknown, but a rapid return to normal recruitment,
distribution and behavior is anticipated. In general, impacts to marine
mammal prey species are expected to be minor and temporary due to the
expected short daily duration of individual pile driving events and the
relatively small areas being affected.
SPLs of sufficient strength have been known to cause fish auditory
impairment, injury and mortality. Popper et al. (2014) found that fish
with or without air bladders could experience TTS at 186 dB
SELcum. Mortality could occur for fish without swim bladders
at >216 dB SELcum. Those with swim bladders or at the egg or
larvae life stage, mortality was possible at >203 dB SELcum.
Other studies found that 203 dB SELcum or above caused a
physiological response in other fish species (Casper et al., 2012,
Halvorsen et al., 2012a, Halvorsen et al., 2012b, Casper et al., 2013a;
Casper et al., 2013b). However, in most fish species, hair cells in the
ear continuously regenerate and loss of auditory function likely is
restored when damaged cells are replaced with new cells. Halvorsen et
al. (2012a) showed that a TTS of 4-6 dB was recoverable within 24 hours
for one species. Impacts would be most severe when the individual fish
is close to the source and when the duration of exposure is long.
Injury caused by barotrauma can range from slight to severe and can
cause death, and is most likely for fish with swim bladders. Barotrauma
injuries have been documented during controlled exposure to impact pile
driving (Halvorsen et al., 2012b; Casper et al., 2013).
As described in the Proposed Mitigation section below, Park City
Wind would utilize a sound attenuation device which would reduce
potential for injury to marine mammal prey. Other fish that experience
hearing loss as a result of exposure to impulsive sound sources may
have a reduced ability to detect relevant sounds such as predators,
prey, or social vocalizations. However, PTS has not been known to occur
in fishes and any hearing loss in fish may be as temporary as the
timeframe required to repair or replace the sensory cells that were
damaged or destroyed (Popper et al., 2005; Popper et al., 2014; Smith
et al., 2006). It is not known if damage to auditory nerve fibers could
occur, and if so, whether fibers would recover during this process.
It is also possible for fish to be injured or killed by an
explosion from UXO/MEC detonation. Physical effects from pressure waves
generated by underwater sounds (e.g., underwater explosions) could
potentially affect fish within proximity of training or testing
activities. The shock wave from an underwater explosion is lethal to
fish at close range, causing massive organ and tissue damage and
internal bleeding (Keevin and Hempen, 1997). At greater distance from
the detonation point, the extent of mortality or injury depends on a
number of factors including fish size, body shape, orientation, and
species (Keevin and Hempen, 1997; Wright, 1982). At the same distance
from the source, larger fish are generally less susceptible to death or
injury, elongated forms that are round in cross-section are less at
risk than deep-bodied forms, and fish oriented sideways to the blast
suffer the greatest impact (Edds-Walton and Finneran, 2006; O'Keeffe,
1984; O'Keeffe and Young, 1984; Wiley et al., 1981; Yelverton et al.,
1975). Species with gas-filled organs are more susceptible to injury
and mortality than those without them (Gaspin, 1975; Gaspin et al.,
1976; Goertner et al., 1994). Barotrauma injuries have been documented
during controlled exposure to impact pile driving (an impulsive noise
source, as are explosives and airguns) (Halvorsen et al., 2012b; Casper
et al., 2013a).
Fish not killed by an explosion might change their behavior,
feeding pattern, or distribution. Changes in behavior of fish have been
observed as a result of sound produced by explosives, with effect
intensified in areas of hard substrate (Wright, 1982). Stunning from
pressure waves could also temporarily immobilize fish, making them more
susceptible to predation. The abundances of various fish (and
invertebrates) near the detonation point for explosives could be
altered for a few hours before animals from surrounding areas
repopulate the area. However, these populations would likely be
replenished as waters near the detonation point are mixed with adjacent
waters. Repeated exposure of individual fish to sounds from underwater
explosions is not likely and are expected to be short-term and
localized. Long-term consequences for fish populations would not be
expected. Several studies have demonstrated that airgun sounds might
affect the distribution and behavior of some fishes, potentially
impacting foraging opportunities or increasing energetic costs (e.g.,
Fewtrell and McCauley, 2012; Pearson et al., 1992; Skalski et al.,
1992; Santulli et al., 1999; Paxton et al., 2017).
UXO/MEC detonations would be dispersed in space and time;
therefore, repeated exposure of individual fishes are unlikely.
Mortality and injury effects to fishes from explosives would be
localized around the area of a given in-water explosion but only if
individual fish and the explosive (and immediate pressure field) were
co-located at the same time. Fishes deeper in the water column or on
the bottom would not be affected by water surface explosions. Repeated
exposure of individual fish to sound and energy from underwater
explosions is not likely given fish movement patterns, especially
schooling prey species. Most acoustic effects, if any, are expected to
be short-term and localized. Long-term consequences for fish
populations, including key prey species within the project area, would
not be expected.
Required soft-starts would allow prey and marine mammals to move
away from the source prior to any noise levels that may physically
injure prey and the
[[Page 37641]]
use of the noise attenuation devices would reduce noise levels to the
degree any mortality or injury of prey is also minimized. Use of bubble
curtains, in addition to reducing impacts to marine mammals, for
example, is a key mitigation measure in reducing injury and mortality
of ESA-listed salmon on the U.S. West Coast. However, we recognize some
mortality, physical injury and hearing impairment in marine mammal prey
may occur, but we anticipate the amount of prey impacted in this manner
is minimal compared to overall availability. Any behavioral responses
to pile driving by marine mammal prey are expected to be brief. We
expect that other impacts, such as stress or masking, would occur in
fish that serve as marine mammals prey (Popper et al., 2019); however,
those impacts would be limited to the duration of impact pile driving
and during any UXO/MEC detonations and, if prey were to move out the
area in response to noise, these impacts would be minimized.
In addition to fish, prey sources such as marine invertebrates
could potentially be impacted by noise stressors as a result of the
proposed activities. However, most marine invertebrates' ability to
sense sounds is limited. Invertebrates appear to be able to detect
sounds (Pumphrey, 1950; Frings and Frings, 1967) and are most sensitive
to low-frequency sounds (Packard et al., 1990; Budelmann and
Williamson, 1994; Lovell et al., 2005; Mooney et al., 2010). Data on
response of invertebrates such as squid, another marine mammal prey
species, to anthropogenic sound is more limited (de Soto, 2016; Sole et
al., 2017). Data suggest that cephalopods are capable of sensing the
particle motion of sounds and detect low frequencies up to 1-1.5 kHz,
depending on the species, and so are likely to detect airgun noise
(Kaifu et al., 2008; Hu et al., 2009; Mooney et al., 2010; Samson et
al., 2014). Sole et al. (2017) reported physiological injuries to
cuttlefish in cages placed at-sea when exposed during a controlled
exposure experiment to low-frequency sources (315 Hz, 139 to 142 dB re
1 [mu]Pa\2\ and 400 Hz, 139 to 141 dB re 1 [mu]Pa\2\). Fewtrell and
McCauley (2012) reported squids maintained in cages displayed startle
responses and behavioral changes when exposed to seismic airgun sonar
(136-162 re 1 [mu]Pa\2\[middot]s). Jones et al. (2020) found that when
squid (Doryteuthis pealeii) were exposed to impulse pile driving noise,
body pattern changes, inking, jetting, and startle responses were
observed and nearly all squid exhibited at least one response. However,
these responses occurred primarily during the first eight impulses and
diminished quickly, indicating potential rapid, short-term habituation.
Cephalopods have a specialized sensory organ inside the head called
a statocyst that may help an animal determine its position in space
(orientation) and maintain balance (Budelmann, 1992). Packard et al.
(1990) showed that cephalopods were sensitive to particle motion, not
sound pressure, and Mooney et al. (2010) demonstrated that squid
statocysts act as an accelerometer through which particle motion of the
sound field can be detected. Auditory injuries (lesions occurring on
the statocyst sensory hair cells) have been reported upon controlled
exposure to low-frequency sounds, suggesting that cephalopods are
particularly sensitive to low-frequency sound (Andre et al., 2011; Sole
et al., 2013). Behavioral responses, such as inking and jetting, have
also been reported upon exposure to low-frequency sound (McCauley et
al., 2000; Samson et al., 2014). Squids, like most fish species, are
likely more sensitive to low frequency sounds and may not perceive mid-
and high-frequency sonars. Cumulatively for squid as a prey species,
individual and population impacts from exposure to explosives, like
fish, are not likely to be significant, and explosive impacts would be
short-term and localized.
With regard to potential impacts on zooplankton, McCauley et al.
(2017) found that exposure to airgun noise resulted in significant
depletion for more than half the taxa present and that there were two
to three times more dead zooplankton after airgun exposure compared
with controls for all taxa, within 1 km of the airguns. However, the
authors also stated that in order to have significant impacts on r-
selected species (i.e., those with high growth rates and that produce
many offspring) such as plankton, the spatial or temporal scale of
impact must be large in comparison with the ecosystem concerned, and it
is possible that the findings reflect avoidance by zooplankton rather
than mortality (McCauley et al., 2017). In addition, the results of
this study are inconsistent with a large body of research that
generally finds limited spatial and temporal impacts to zooplankton as
a result of exposure to airgun noise (e.g., Dalen and Knutsen, 1987;
Payne, 2004; Stanley et al., 2011). Most prior research on this topic,
which has focused on relatively small spatial scales, has showed
minimal effects (e.g., Kostyuchenko, 1973; Booman et al., 1996;
S[aelig]tre and Ona, 1996; Pearson et al., 1994; Bolle et al., 2012).
A modeling exercise was conducted as a follow-up to the McCauley et
al. (2017) study (as recommended by McCauley et al.), in order to
assess the potential for impacts on ocean ecosystem dynamics and
zooplankton population dynamics (Richardson et al., 2017). Richardson
et al. (2017) found that a full-scale airgun survey would impact
copepod abundance within the survey area, but that effects at a
regional scale were minimal (2 percent decline in abundance within 150
km of the survey area and effects not discernible over the full
region). The authors also found that recovery within the survey area
would be relatively quick (3 days following survey completion), and
suggest that the quick recovery was due to the fast growth rates of
zooplankton, and the dispersal and mixing of zooplankton from both
inside and outside of the impacted region. The authors also suggest
that surveys in areas with more dynamic ocean circulation in comparison
with the study region and/or with deeper waters (i.e., typical offshore
wind locations) would have less net impact on zooplankton.
Notably, a recently described study produced results inconsistent
with those of McCauley et al. (2017). Researchers conducted a field and
laboratory study to assess if exposure to airgun noise affects
mortality, predator escape response, or gene expression of the copepod
Calanus finmarchicus (Fields et al., 2019). Immediate mortality of
copepods was significantly higher, relative to controls, at distances
of 5 m or less from the airguns. Mortality 1 week after the airgun
blast was significantly higher in the copepods placed 10 m from the
airgun but was not significantly different from the controls at a
distance of 20 m from the airgun. The increase in mortality, relative
to controls, did not exceed 30 percent at any distance from the airgun.
Moreover, the authors caution that even this higher mortality in the
immediate vicinity of the airguns may be more pronounced than what
would be observed in free-swimming animals due to increased flow speed
of fluid inside bags containing the experimental animals. There were no
sub-lethal effects on the escape performance or the sensory threshold
needed to initiate an escape response at any of the distances from the
airgun that were tested. Whereas McCauley et al. (2017) reported an SEL
of 156 dB at a range of 509-658 m, with zooplankton mortality observed
at that range, Fields et al. (2019) reported an
[[Page 37642]]
SEL of 186 dB at a range of 25 m, with no reported mortality at that
distance.
The presence of large numbers of turbines has been shown to impact
meso- and sub-meso-scale water column circulation, which can affect the
density, distribution, and energy content of zooplankton and thereby,
their availability as marine mammal prey. Topside, atmospheric wakes
result in wind speed reductions influencing upwelling and downwelling
in the ocean while underwater structures such as WTG and ESP
foundations may cause turbulent current wakes, which impact
circulation, stratification, mixing, and sediment resuspension (Daewel
et al., 2022). Overall, the presence and operation of structures such
as wind turbines are, in general, likely to result in local and broader
oceanographic effects in the marine environment and may disrupt marine
mammal prey, such as dense aggregations and distribution of zooplankton
through altering the strength of tidal currents and associated fronts,
changes in stratification, primary production, the degree of mixing,
and stratification in the water column (Chen et al., 2021; Johnson et
al., 2021; Christiansen et al., 2022; Dorrell et al., 2022). However,
the scale of impacts is difficult to predict and may vary from meters
to hundreds of meters for local individual turbine impacts (Schultze et
al., 2020) to large-scale dipoles of surface elevation changes
stretching hundreds of kilometers (Christiansen et al., 2022).
Park City Wind intends to install up to 130 WTG and ESP positions.
Two positions may potentially have co-located ESPs (i.e., 1 WTG and 1
ESP foundation installed at 1 grid position), resulting in 132
foundations with turbine operations commencing in 2027 and all turbines
being operational in 2028. As described above, there is scientific
uncertainty around the scale of oceanographic impacts (meters to
kilometers) associated with turbine operation. The project is located
in an area of southern New England that experiences coastal upwelling,
a consequence of the predominant wind direction and the orientation of
the coastline. Along the coast of Rhode Island and southern
Massachusetts, upwelling of deeper, nutrient-rich waters frequently
leads to late summer blooms of phytoplankton and subsequently increased
biological productivity (Gong et al., 2010; Glenn et al., 2004). The
lease area is located within a core winter foraging habitat for North
Atlantic right whales (Leiter et al., 2017; Quintano-Rizzo et al.,
2021); however, prime foraging habitat on and near Nantucket Shoals is
unlikely to be influenced.
These potential impacts on prey could impact the distribution of
marine mammals within the project area, potentially necessitating
additional energy expenditure to find and capture prey, but at the
temporal and spatial scales anticipated for this activity are not
expected to impact the reproduction or survival of any individual
marine mammals. Although studies assessing the impacts of offshore wind
development on marine mammals are limited, the repopulation of wind
energy areas by harbor porpoises (Brandt et al., 2016; Lindeboom et
al., 2011) and harbor seals (Lindeboom et al., 2011; Russell et al.,
2016) following the installation of wind turbines are promising.
Overall, any impacts to marine mammal foraging capabilities due to
effects on prey aggregation from the turbine presence and operation
during the effective period of the proposed rule is likely to be
limited. Nearby habitat that is known to support North Atlantic right
whale foraging would be unaffected by the project's operation.
In general, impacts to marine mammal prey species are expected to
be relatively minor and temporary due to the expected short daily
duration of individual pile driving events and the relatively small
areas being affected. The most likely impacts of prey fish from UXO/MEC
detonations, if determined to be necessary, are injury or mortality if
they are located within the vicinity when detonation occurs. However,
given the likely spread of any UXOs/MECs in the project area, the low
chance of detonation (as lift-and-shift and deflagration are the
primary removal approaches), and that this area is not a biologically
important foraging ground, overall effects should be minimal to marine
mammal species. NMFS does not expect HRG acoustic sources to impact
fish and most sources are likely outside the hearing range of the
primary prey species in the project area.
Overall, the combined impacts of sound exposure, explosions, water
quality, and oceanographic impacts on marine mammal habitat resulting
from the proposed activities would not be expected to have measurable
effects on populations of marine mammal prey species. 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.
Reef Effects
The presence of monopile foundations, scour protection, and cable
protection will result in a conversion of the existing sandy bottom
habitat to a hard bottom habitat with areas of vertical structural
relief. This could potentially alter the existing habitat by creating
an ``artificial reef effect'' that results in colonization by
assemblages of both sessile and mobile animals within the new hard-
bottom habitat (Wilhelmsson et al., 2006; Reubens et al., 2013;
Bergstr[ouml]m et al., 2014; Coates et al., 2014). This colonization by
marine species, especially hard-substrate preferring species, can
result in changes to the diversity, composition, and/or biomass of the
area thereby impacting the trophic composition of the site (Wilhelmsson
et al., 2010, Krone et al., 2013; Bergstr[ouml]m et al., 2014, Hooper
et al., 2017; Raoux et al., 2017; Harrison and Rousseau, 2020; Taormina
et al., 2020; Buyse et al., 2022a; ter Hofstede et al., 2022).
Artificial structures can create increased habitat heterogeneity
important for species diversity and density (Langhamer, 2012). The WTG
and ESP foundations will extend through the water column, which may
serve to increase settlement of meroplankton or planktonic larvae on
the structures in both the pelagic and benthic zones (Boehlert and
Gill, 2010). Fish and invertebrate species are also likely to aggregate
around the foundations and scour protection which could provide
increased prey availability and structural habitat (Boehlert and Gill,
2010; Bonar et al., 2015). Further, instances of species previously
unknown, rare, or nonindigenous to an area have been documented at
artificial structures, changing the composition of the food web and
possibly the attractability of the area to new or existing predators
(Adams et al., 2014; de Mesel, 2015; Bishop et al., 2017; Hooper et
al., 2017; Raoux et al., 2017; van Hal et al., 2017; Degraer et al.,
2020; Fernandez-Betelu et al., 2022). Notably, there are examples of
these sites becoming dominated by marine mammal prey species, such as
filter-feeding species and suspension-feeding crustaceans (Andersson
and [Ouml]hman, 2010; Slavik et al., 2019; Hutchison et al., 2020; Pezy
et al., 2020; Mavraki et al., 2022).
Numerous studies have documented significantly higher fish
concentrations including species like cod and pouting (Trisopterus
luscus), flounder (Platichthys flesus), eelpout (Zoarces viviparus),
and eel (Anguilla anguilla) near in-water structures than in
[[Page 37643]]
surrounding soft bottom habitat (Langhamer and Wilhelmsson, 2009;
Bergstr[ouml]m et al., 2013; Reubens et al., 2013). In the German Bight
portion of the North Sea, fish were most densely congregated near the
anchorages of jacket foundations, and the structures extending through
the water column were thought to make it more likely that juvenile or
larval fish encounter and settle on them (Rhode Island Coastal
Resources Management Council (RI-CRMC), 2010; Krone et al., 2013). In
addition, fish can take advantage of the shelter provided by these
structures while also being exposed to stronger currents created by the
structures, which generate increased feeding opportunities and
decreased potential for predation (Wilhelmsson et al., 2006). The
presence of the foundations and resulting fish aggregations around the
foundations is expected to be a long-term habitat impact, but the
increase in prey availability could potentially be beneficial for some
marine mammals.
The most likely impact to marine mammal habitat from the project is
expected to be from pile driving and UXO/MEC detonations, which may
affect marine mammal food sources such as forage fish and could also
affect acoustic habitat effects on marine mammal prey (e.g., fish).
Water Quality
Temporary and localized reduction in water quality will occur as a
result of in-water construction activities. Most of this effect will
occur during pile driving and installation of the cables, including
auxiliary work such as dredging and scour placement. These activities
will disturb bottom sediments and may cause a temporary increase in
suspended sediment in the project area. Currents should quickly
dissipate any raised total suspended sediment (TSS) levels, and levels
should return to background levels once the project activities in that
area cease. No direct impacts on marine mammals is anticipated due to
increased TSS and turbidity; however, turbidity within the water column
has the potential to reduce the level of oxygen in the water and
irritate the gills of prey fish species in the proposed project area.
However, turbidity plumes associated with the project would be
temporary and localized, and fish in the proposed project area would be
able to move away from and avoid the areas where plumes may occur.
Therefore, it is expected that the impacts on prey fish species from
turbidity, and therefore on marine mammals, would be minimal and
temporary.
Equipment used by Park City Wind within the project area, including
ships and other marine vessels, potentially aircrafts, and other
equipment, are also potential sources of by-products (e.g.,
hydrocarbons, particulate matter, heavy metals). All equipment is
properly maintained in accordance with applicable legal requirements.
All such operating equipment meets Federal water quality standards,
where applicable. Given these requirements, impacts to water quality
are expected to be minimal.
Acoustic Habitat
Acoustic habitat is the soundscape, which encompasses all of the
sound present in a particular location and time, as a whole when
considered from the perspective of the animals experiencing it. Animals
produce sound for, or listen for sounds produced by, conspecifics
(communication during feeding, mating, and other social activities),
other animals (finding prey or avoiding predators), and the physical
environment (finding suitable habitats, navigating). Together, sounds
made by animals and the geophysical environment (e.g., produced by
earthquakes, lightning, wind, rain, waves) make up the natural
contributions to the total acoustics of a place. These acoustic
conditions, termed acoustic habitat, are one attribute of an animal's
total habitat.
Soundscapes are also defined by, and acoustic habitat influenced
by, the total contribution of anthropogenic sound. This may include
incidental emissions from sources such as vessel traffic or may be
intentionally introduced to the marine environment for data acquisition
purposes (as in the use of airgun arrays) or for Navy training and
testing purposes (as in the use of sonar and explosives and other
acoustic sources). Anthropogenic noise varies widely in its frequency,
content, duration, and loudness and these characteristics greatly
influence the potential habitat-mediated effects to marine mammals
(please also see the previous discussion on Masking), which may range
from local effects for brief periods of time to chronic effects over
large areas and for long durations. Depending on the extent of effects
to habitat, animals may alter their communications signals (thereby
potentially expending additional energy) or miss acoustic cues (either
conspecific or adventitious). Problems arising from a failure to detect
cues are more likely to occur when noise stimuli are chronic and
overlap with biologically relevant cues used for communication,
orientation, and predator/prey detection (Francis and Barber, 2013).
For more detail on these concepts, see Barber et al., 2009; Pijanowski
et al., 2011; Francis and Barber, 2013; Lillis et al., 2014.
The term ``listening area'' refers to the region of ocean over
which sources of sound can be detected by an animal at the center of
the space. Loss of communication space concerns the area over which a
specific animal signal, used to communicate with conspecifics in
biologically important contexts (e.g., foraging, mating), can be heard,
in noisier relative to quieter conditions (Clark et al., 2009). Lost
listening area concerns the more generalized contraction of the range
over which animals would be able to detect a variety of signals of
biological importance, including eavesdropping on predators and prey
(Barber et al., 2009). Such metrics do not, in and of themselves,
document fitness consequences for the marine animals that live in
chronically noisy environments. Long-term population-level consequences
mediated through changes in the ultimate survival and reproductive
success of individuals are difficult to study, and particularly so
underwater. However, it is increasingly well documented that aquatic
species rely on qualities of natural acoustic habitats, with
researchers quantifying reduced detection of important ecological cues
(e.g., Francis and Barber, 2013; Slabbekoorn et al., 2010) as well as
survivorship consequences in several species (e.g., Simpson et al.,
2014; Nedelec et al., 2014).
Sound produced from construction activities in the project area
would be temporary and transitory. The sounds produced during
construction activities may be widely dispersed or concentrated in
small areas for varying periods. Any anthropogenic noise attributed to
construction activities in the project area would be temporary and the
affected area would be expected to immediately return to the original
state when these activities cease.
Although this proposed rulemaking primarily covers the noise
produced from construction activities relevant to this offshore wind
facility, operational noise was a consideration in NMFS' analysis of
the project, as all turbines would become operational within the
effective dates of the rule (if issued). It is expected that all
turbines would be operational in 2028. Once operational, offshore wind
turbines are known to produce continuous, non-impulsive underwater
noise, primarily below 1 kHz (Tougaard et al., 2020; St[ouml]ber and
Thomsen, 2021).
In both newer, quieter, direct-drive systems (such as what has been
[[Page 37644]]
proposed for use in the Project) and older generation, geared turbine
designs, recent scientific studies indicate that operational noise from
turbines is on the order of 110 to 125 dB re 1 [mu]Pa root-mean-square
sound pressure level (SPLrms) at an approximate distance of
50 m (Tougaard et al., 2020). Recent measurements of operational sound
generated from wind turbines (direct drive, 6 MW, jacket piles) at
Block Island wind farm (BIWF) indicate average broadband levels of 119
dB at 50 m from the turbine, with levels varying with wind speed (HDR,
Inc., 2019). Interestingly, measurements from BIWF turbines showed
operational sound had less tonal components compared to European
measurements of turbines with gear boxes.
Tougaard et al. (2020) further stated that the operational noise
produced by WTGs is static in nature and lower than noise produced by
passing ships. This is a noise source in this region to which marine
mammals are likely already habituated. Furthermore, operational noise
levels are likely lower than those ambient levels already present in
active shipping lanes, such that operational noise would likely only be
detected in very close proximity to the WTG (Thomsen et al., 2006;
Tougaard et al., 2020). Similarly, recent measurements from a wind farm
(3 MW turbines) in China found at above 300 Hz, turbines produced sound
that was similar to background levels (Zhang et al., 2021). Other
studies by Jansen and de Jong (2016) and Tougaard et al. (2009)
determined that, while marine mammals would be able to detect
operational noise from offshore wind farms (again, based on older 2 MW
models) for several kilometers, they expected no significant impacts on
individual survival, population viability, marine mammal distribution,
or the behavior of the animals considered in their study (harbor
porpoises and harbor seals).
More recently, St[ouml]ber and Thomsen (2021) used monitoring data
and modeling to estimate noise generated by more recently developed,
larger (10 MW) direct-drive WTGs. Their findings, similar to Tougaard
et al. (2020), demonstrate that there is a trend that operational noise
increases with turbine size. Their study predicts broadband source
levels could exceed 170 dB SPLrms for a 10 MW WTG; however,
those noise levels were generated based on geared turbines; newer
turbines operate with direct drive technology. The shift from using
gear boxes to direct drive technology is expected to reduce the levels
by 10 dB. The findings in the St[ouml]ber and Thomsen (2021) study have
not been experimentally validated, though the modeling (using largely
geared turbines) performed by Tougaard et al. (2020) yields similar
results for a hypothetical 10 MW WTG. Overall, noise from operating
turbines would raise ambient noise levels in the immediate vicinity of
the turbines; however, the spatial extent of increased noise levels
would be limited. NMFS proposes to require Park City Wind to measure
operational noise levels.
In addition, Madsen et al. (2006b) found the intensity of noise
generated by operational wind turbines to be much less than the noises
present during construction, although this observation was based on a
single turbine with a maximum power of 2 MW. Other studies by Jansen
and de Jong (2016) and Tougaard et al. (2009) determined that, while
marine mammals would be able to detect operational noise from offshore
wind farms (again, based on older 2 MW models) for several thousand
kilometer, they expected no significant impacts on individual survival,
population viability, marine mammal distribution, or the behavior of
the animals considered in their study (harbor porpoises and harbor
seals).
More recently, St[ouml]ber and Thomsen (2021) used monitoring data
and modeling to estimate noise generated by more recently developed,
larger (10 MW) direct-drive WTGs. Their findings, similar to Tougaard
et al. (2020), demonstrate that there is a trend that operational noise
increases with turbine size. Their study found noise levels could
exceed 170 (to 177 dB re 1 [mu]Pa SPLrms for a 10 MW WTG);
however, those noise levels were generated by geared turbines, but
newer turbines operate with direct drive technology. The shift from
using gear boxes to direct drive technology is expected to reduce the
sound level by 10 dB. The findings in the St[ouml]ber and Thomsen
(2021) study have not been validated. Park City Wind did not request,
and NMFS is not proposing to authorize, take incidental to operational
noise from WTGs. Therefore, the topic is not discussed or analyzed
further herein.
Estimated Take of Marine Mammals
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes
proposed for authorization through the regulations, which will inform
both NMFS' consideration of ``small numbers'' and the negligible impact
determination.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these
activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent
here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment)
or has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock
in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including,
but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding,
or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would primarily be by Level B harassment, as noise
from pile driving, drilling, HRG surveys, and UXO/MEC detonations could
result in behavioral disturbance of marine mammals that qualifies as
take. Impacts such as masking and TTS can contribute to the disruption
of behavioral patterns and are accounted for within those takes
proposed for authorization. There is also some potential for auditory
injury (Level A harassment) of all marine mammals except North Atlantic
right whales. However, the amount of Level A harassment that Park City
Wind requested, and NMFS proposes to authorize, is low. While NMFS is
proposing to authorize Level A harassment and Level B harassment, the
proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are expected to minimize
the amount and severity of such taking to the extent practicable (see
Proposed Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting).
As described previously, no serious injury or mortality is
anticipated or proposed to be authorized incidental to the specified
activities. Even without mitigation, both pile driving activities and
HRG surveys would not have the potential to directly cause marine
mammal mortality or serious injury. However, NMFS is proposing measures
to more comprehensively reduce impacts to marine mammal species. While,
in general, mortality and serious injury of marine mammals could occur
from vessel strikes or UXO/MEC detonation if an animal is close enough
to the source, the mitigation and monitoring measures contained within
this proposed rule would avoid vessel strikes and the potential for
marine mammals to be close enough to any UXO/MEC detonation to incur
mortality or non-auditory injury (see Proposed Mitigation section). No
other activities have the potential to result in mortality or serious
injury.
For acoustic impacts, we estimate take by considering: (1) acoustic
thresholds above which 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
[[Page 37645]]
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.
As described below, there are multiple methods available to predict
density or occurrence and, for each species and activity, the largest
value resulting from the three take estimation methods described below
(i.e., density-based, PSO-based, or mean group size) was carried
forward as the amount of take proposed for authorization, by Level B
harassment. The amount of take proposed for authorization, by Level A
harassment, reflects the density-based exposure estimates and, for some
species and activities, consideration of other data such as mean group
size.
Below, we describe NMFS' acoustic thresholds, acoustic and exposure
modeling methodologies, marine mammal density calculation methodology,
occurrence information, and the modeling and methodologies applied to
estimate take for each of the Project's proposed construction
activities. NMFS has carefully considered all information and analysis
presented by Park City Wind, as well as all other applicable
information and, based on the best available science, concurs that the
Project's estimates of the types and amounts of take for each species
and stock are reasonable, and is proposing to authorize the amount
requested. NMFS notes the take estimates described herein for
foundation installation can be considered conservative as the estimates
do not reflect the implementation of clearance and shutdown zones for
any marine mammal species or stock.
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 (Level B
harassment) or to incur PTS of some degree (Level A harassment). A
summary of all NMFS' thresholds can be found at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance.
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, ambient
noise, and the receiving animal's hearing, motivation, experience,
demography, behavior at time of exposure, 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 the received sound
pressure levels (SPLRMS) of 120 dB for continuous sources
(e.g., vibratory pile-driving, drilling) and above the received
SPLRMS 160 dB for non-explosive impulsive or intermittent
sources (e.g., impact pile driving, scientific sonar). Generally
speaking, Level B harassment take estimates based on these behavioral
harassment thresholds are expected to include any likely takes by TTS
as, in most cases, the likelihood of TTS occurs at distances from the
source less than those at which behavioral harassment is likely. TTS of
a sufficient degree can manifest as behavioral harassment, as reduced
hearing sensitivity and the potential reduced opportunities to detect
important signals (conspecific communication, predators, prey) may
result in changes in behavioral patterns that would not otherwise
occur.
The proposed Project's construction activities include the use of
continuous (e.g., vibratory pile driving, drilling) and impulsive or
intermittent sources (e.g., impact pile driving, some HRG acoustic
sources); therefore, the 120 and 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms) thresholds
are applicable to our analysis. Level B harassment thresholds
associated with UXO/MEC detonations are addressed in the Explosives
Source Thresholds section below.
Level A Harassment
NMFS' Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic
Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0; Technical Guidance) (NMFS,
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). As dual metrics, NMFS
considers onset of PTS (Level A harassment) to have occurred when
either one of the two metrics is exceeded (i.e., metric resulting in
the largest isopleth). As described above, Park City Wind's proposed
activities include the use of both impulsive and non-impulsive sources.
NMFS' thresholds identifying the onset of PTS are provided in Table 7.
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.
[[Page 37646]]
Table 7--Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS) Onset Thresholds *
[NMFS, 2018]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS onset thresholds * (received level)
Hearing group ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impulsive Non-Impulsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans........... Cell 1: Lp,0-pk,flat: 219 Cell 2: LE,p, LF,24h: 199 dB.
dB; LE,p, LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans........... Cell 3: Lp,0-pk,flat: 230 Cell 4: LE,p, MF,24h: 198 dB.
dB; LE,p, MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans.......... Cell 5: Lp,0-pk,flat: 202 Cell 4: LE,p, HF,24h: 198 dB.
dB; LE,p,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater)..... Cell 7: Lp,0-pk,flat: 218 Cell 8: LE,p,PW,24h: 201 dB.
dB; LE,p,PW,24h: 185 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 [micro]Pa, and weighted cumulative sound
exposure level (LE,) has a reference value of 1[micro]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 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.
Explosives Source Thresholds
Based on the best scientific information available, NMFS uses the
acoustic and pressure thresholds indicated in Table 8 to predict the
onset of PTS and TTS during UXO/MEC detonation. For a single detonation
(within a 24-hour period), NMFS relies on the TTS onset threshold to
assess the potential for Level B harassment. The proposed rule is
conditioned such that Park City Wind would limit detonations to one per
day and would be limited to daylight hours only.
Table 8--PTS Onset, TTS Onset, for Underwater Explosives
[NMFS, 2018]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS impulsive TTS impulsive
Hearing group thresholds thresholds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans.... Cell 1: Lpk,flat: Cell 2: Lpk,flat:
219 dB; 213 dB LE,LF,24h:
LE,LF,24h: 183 dB. 168 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans.... Cell 4: Lpk,flat: Cell 5: Lpk,flat:
230 dB; 224 dB;
LE,MF,24h: 185 dB. LE,MF,24h: 170
dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans... Cell 7: Lpk,flat: Cell 8: Lpk,flat:
202 dB; 196 dB;
LE,HF,24h: 155 dB. LE,HF,24h: 140
dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) Cell 10: Lpk,flat: Cell 11: Lpk,flat:
(Underwater). 218 dB; 212 dB;
LE,PW,24h: 185 dB. LE,PW,24h: 170
dB.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dual metric acoustic thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever
results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS/TTS onset.
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 [micro]Pa,
and cumulative sound exposure level (LE) has a reference value of
1[micro]Pa\2\s. In this table, thresholds are abbreviated to reflect
American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI, 2013). However,
ANSI defines peak sound pressure as incorporating frequency weighting,
which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the
subscript ``flat'' is being included to indicate peak sound pressure
should be flat weighted or unweighted within the overall marine mammal
generalized hearing range. The subscript associated with cumulative
sound exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal
auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF cetaceans, and PW
pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours.
The cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be exceeded in a
multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure levels and durations, duty
cycle). When possible, it is valuable for action proponents to
indicate the conditions under which these acoustic thresholds will be
exceeded.
Additional thresholds for non-auditory injury to lung and
gastrointestinal (GI) tracts from the blast shock wave and/or onset of
high peak pressures are also relevant (at relatively close ranges) as
UXO/MEC detonations, in general, have potential to result in mortality
and non-auditory injury (Table 9). Marine mammal lung injury criteria
have been developed by the U.S. Navy (DoN (U.S. Department of the
Navy), 2017) and are based on the mass of the animal and the depth at
which it is present in the water column due to blast pressure. This
means that specific decibel levels for each hearing group are not
provided and instead, the criteria are presented as equations that
allow for incorporation of specific mass and depth values. The GI tract
injury threshold is based on peak pressure. The modified Goertner
equations below represent the potential onset of lung injury and GI
tract injury (Table 9).
Table 9--Lung and G.I. Tract Injury Thresholds
[DoN, 2017]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mortality (severe Slight lung injury
Hearing group lung injury) * * G.I. tract injury
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Marine Mammals............... Cell 1: Modified Cell 2: Modified Cell 3: Lpk,flat: 237 dB.
Goertner model; Goertner model;
Equation 1. Equation 2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Lung injury (severe and slight) thresholds are dependent on animal mass (Recommendation: Table C.9 from DoN
(2017) based on adult and/or calf/pup mass by species).
Note: Peak sound pressure (Lpk) has a reference value of 1 [micro]Pa. In this table, thresholds are abbreviated
to reflect American National Standards Institute standards (ANSI, 2013). However, ANSI defines peak sound
pressure as incorporating frequency weighting, which is not the intent for this Technical Guidance. Hence, the
subscript ``flat'' is being included to indicate peak sound pressure should be flat weighted or unweighted
within the overall marine mammal generalized hearing range.
[[Page 37647]]
Modified Goertner Equations for severe and slight lung injury (pascal-second):
Equation 1: 103M1/3(1 + D/10.1)1/6 Pa-s.
Equation 2: 47.5M1/3(1 + D/10.1)1/6 Pa-s.
M animal (adult and/or calf/pup) mass (kg) (Table C.9 in DoN, 2017).
D animal depth (meters).
Below, we describe the assumptions and methodologies used to
estimate take, in consideration of acoustic thresholds and appropriate
marine mammals density and occurrence information, for WTG and ESP
foundation installation, UXO/MEC detonation, and HRG surveys. Resulting
distances to thresholds, densities used, activity-specific exposure
estimates (as relevant to the analysis), and activity-specific take
estimates can be found in each activity subsection below. At the end of
this section, we present the amount of annual and 5-year take that Park
City Wind requested, and NMFS proposes to authorize, from all
activities combined.
Acoustic and Exposure Modeling
The predominant underwater noise associated with the construction
of the Project results from impact and vibratory pile driving and
drilling. Park City Wind employed JASCO Applied Sciences (USA) Inc.
(JASCO) to conduct acoustic modeling to better understand sound fields
produced during these activities (K[uuml]sel et al., 2022). The basic
modeling approach is to characterize the sounds produced by the source,
and determine how the sounds propagate within the surrounding water
column. For impact pile driving, JASCO conducted sophisticated source
and propagation modeling (as described below). For vibratory pile
driving and drilling activities, JASCO applied in situ data to estimate
source levels and applied a general practical spreading loss (15logR)
assumption. To assess the potential for take from impact pile driving,
JASCO also conducted animal movement modeling to estimate take; JASCO
estimated species-specific exposure probability by considering the
range- and depth-dependent sound fields in relation to animal movement
in simulated representative construction scenarios. To assess the
potential for take from vibratory pile driving and drilling, exposure
modeling was not conducted. More details on these acoustic source
modeling, propagation modeling and exposure modeling methods are
described below.
JASCO's Pile Driving Source Model (PDSM), a physical model of pile
vibration and near-field sound radiation (MacGillivray, 2014), was used
in conjunction with the GRL, Inc. Wave Equation Analysis of Pile
Driving (GRLWEAP) 2010 wave equation model (Pile Dynamics, 2010) to
predict source levels associated with impact pile driving activities
(WTG and ESP foundation installation). The PDSM physical model computes
the underwater vibration and sound radiation of a pile by solving the
theoretical equations of motion for axial and radial vibrations of a
cylindrical shell. This model is used to estimate the energy
distribution per frequency (source spectrum) at a close distance from
the source (10 m). Piles are modeled as a vertical installation using a
finite-difference structural model of pile vibration based on thin-
shell theory. To model the sound emissions from the piles, the force of
the pile driving hammers also had to be modeled. The force at the top
of each monopile and jacket foundation pile was computed using the
GRLWEAP 2010 wave equation model (GRLWEAP; Pile Dynamics, 2010), which
includes a large database of simulated hammers. The forcing functions
from GRLWEAP were used as inputs to the finite difference model to
compute the resulting pile vibrations (see Figures 13-15 in Appendix A
of Park City Wind's ITA application for the computed forcing
functions). The sound radiating from the pile itself was simulated
using a vertical array of discrete point sources. These models account
for several parameters that describe the operation--pile type,
material, size, and length--the pile driving equipment, and approximate
pile penetration depth. The model assumed direct contact between the
representative hammers, helmets, and piles (i.e., no cushioning
material). For both jacket and monopile foundation models, the piles
are assumed to be vertical and driven to a penetration depth of 50 m
and 40 m, respectively.
Park City Wind would use at least two noise abatement systems (NAS)
during all pile driving and drilling associated with foundation
installations and UXO/MEC detonations, such as a double bubble curtain
or single bubble curtain and an encapsulated bubble or foam sleeve, to
reduce sound levels. NAS, such as bubble curtains, are sometimes used
to decrease the sound levels radiated from a source. Hence,
hypothetical broadband attenuation levels of 0 dB, 6 dB, 10 dB, and 12
dB were incorporated into the foundation source models to gauge effects
on the ranges to thresholds given these levels of attenuation (Appendix
G of the ITA application). Although four attenuation levels were
evaluated, Park City Wind and NMFS anticipate that the noise
attenuation system ultimately chosen will be capable of reliably
reducing source levels by 10 dB; therefore, this assumption was carried
forward in this analysis for monopile and jacket foundation pile
driving installation, drilling activities, and UXO/MEC detonations. See
the Proposed Mitigation section for more information regarding the
justification for the 10-dB assumption.
In addition to considering noise abatement, the amount of sound
generated during pile driving varies with the energy required to drive
piles to a desired depth and depends on the sediment resistance
encountered. Sediment types with greater resistance require hammers
that deliver higher energy strikes and/or an increased number of
strikes relative to installations in softer sediment. Maximum sound
levels usually occur during the last stage of impact pile driving where
the greatest resistance is encountered (Betke, 2008). Key modeling
assumptions for the monopiles and pin piles are listed in Table 10
(additional modeling details and input parameters can be found in
K[uuml]sel et al. (2022)). Hammer energy schedules for monopiles (12-m)
and pin piles (4-m) are provided in Table 11, respectively, and the
resulting broadband source level comparisons of the 12-m and 13-
monopiles are presented in Table 12. Decidecade spectral source levels
for each pile type, hammer energy, and modeled location for summer
sound speed profiles can be found in Appendix A of Park City Wind's ITA
application (Figures 16 to 18).
[[Page 37648]]
Table 10--Key Piling Assumptions Used in the Source Modeling
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum impact Wall Seabed
Foundation type hammer energy thickness Pile length penetration Number per
(kJ) (mm) (m) depth (m) day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12-m Monopile \1\......................... 6,000 200 95 40 1-2
4-m Jacket Pin Pile 2 3................... 3,500 100 100 50 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A 12-m monopile using 6,000 kJ was considered representative of the other monopile approaches as the 13-m is
unlikely to occur.
\2\ Jacket foundations each require the installation of three to four jacket securing piles, known as pin piles.
\3\ The bottom-frame foundation is similar to the jacket foundation, with the same maximum 4-m pile diameter,
but with shorter piles and shallower penetration and was therefore not modeled separately in the acoustic
assessment. It is assumed that the potential acoustic impact of the bottom-frame foundation installation is
equivalent to or less than that predicted for the jacket foundation.
Table 11--Hammer Energy Schedules for Monopiles and Pin Piles Used in Source Modeling
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12-m monopile 5000 kJ hammer 13-m monopile 5000 kJ hammer 12-m monopile 6000 kJ hammer 4-m pin pile 3500 kJ hammer 13-m monopile 6000 kJ hammer \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy level Energy level Energy level Energy level
Energy level (kJ) Strike count (kJ) Strike count (kJ) Strike count (kJ) Strike count (kJ) Strike count
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,000.......................... 690............. 1,000........... 745............. 1,000........... 750............. 525............. 875............. 1,000........... 850
1,000.......................... 1,930........... 1,000........... 2,095........... 2,000........... 1,250........... 525............. 1,925........... 2,000........... 1,375
2,000.......................... 1,910........... 2,000........... 2,100........... 3,000........... 1,000........... 1000............ 2,165........... 3,000........... 1,100
3,000.......................... 1,502........... 3,000........... 1,475........... 45,000.......... 1000............ 3,500........... 3,445........... 4,500........... 1,100
5,000.......................... 398............. 5,000........... 555............. 6,000........... 500............. 3,500........... 1,395........... 6,000........... 550
Total.......................... 6,430........... Total........... 6,970........... Total........... 4,500........... Total........... 9,805........... Total........... 4,975
Strike Rate.................... 30.0 bpm........ Strike Rate..... 30.0 bpm........ Strike Rate..... 25.0 bpm........ Strike Rate..... 30.0 bpm........ Strike Rate..... 27.6 bpm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Due to the unlikely event Park City Wind installs a 13-m pile with a 6,000 kJ hammer, source levels were modeled to estimate the distances to mitigation zones; however, exposure modeling
was not conducted for this scenario.
Table 12--Broadband Impact Pile Driving Source Level Comparisons Between the 12-m and 13-m Monopiles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12-m monopile 13-m monopile
-------------------------------------- Source level
Hammer energy level (kJ) Source level (dB Source level (dB difference (dB)
SPL) SPL)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,000.................................................. 221.94 222.27 0.34
2,000.................................................. 223.30 223.43 0.14
3,000.................................................. 224.55 225.52 0.96
4,500.................................................. 226.31 226.09 0.22
6,000.................................................. 227.32 228.56 1.23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For vibratory pile driving and drilling, source level modeling to
estimate sound exposure levels was conducted based on extrapolations of
source level data from smaller piles. Received SEL levels at 10 m for
smaller, round steel piles driven with vibratory hammers were plotted
as a function of pile diameter and fitted with a power function and
then extrapolated for a 13-m diameter pile. While this method was
applied to estimate SEL, the power function fit method described above
for the received SPL at 10 m is poor, so an alternative approach to
estimate SPL was derived. Noting that animals are not expected to
experience a behavioral response at distances greater than 50 km
(Dunlop et al. 2017a, 2017b), Park City Wind calculated the source
level necessary to produce a received level of 120 dB at 50 km assuming
practical spreading loss (15logR) resulting in a source level of 190.5
dB SPL. The drilling source level was estimated based on drilling data
collected in the Alaska Chukchi and Beaufort Sea (Austin et al., 2018).
Resulting source levels assuming 10-dB attenuation from use of noise
abatement (e.g., double bubble curtain) can be found in Table 13.
Table 13--Assumed Source Levels for Vibratory Pile Driving and Drilling
of Foundation Piles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source level SEL Source level SPL
Activity (dB) (dB)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vibratory driving (13-m piles).. \1\ 188 190.5
Drilling........................ N/A \2\ 183.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Extrapolation of data resulted in a source level (SEL) of 198 dB.
\2\ Source level reported in Austin et al