Notice2021-11823
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Marine Site Characterization Surveys Off of Massachusetts and Rhode Island
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
June 7, 2021
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Abstract
NMFS has received a request from Vineyard Wind 1, LLC (Vineyard Wind 1) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to marine site characterization surveys off of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to incidentally take marine mammals during the specified activities. NMFS is also requesting comments on a possible one-time, one-year renewal that could be issued under certain circumstances and if all requirements are met, as described in Request for Public Comments at the end of this notice. NMFS will consider public comments prior to making any final decision on the issuance of the requested MMPA authorizations and agency responses will be summarized in the final notice of our decision.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 107 (Monday, June 7, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 107 (Monday, June 7, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30266-30286]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11823]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[RTID 0648-XB006]
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Marine Site Characterization
Surveys Off of Massachusetts and Rhode Island
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request
for comments on proposed authorization and possible renewal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from Vineyard Wind 1, LLC
(Vineyard Wind 1) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental
to marine site characterization surveys off of Massachusetts and Rhode
Island. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is
[[Page 30267]]
requesting comments on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment
authorization (IHA) to incidentally take marine mammals during the
specified activities. NMFS is also requesting comments on a possible
one-time, one-year renewal that could be issued under certain
circumstances and if all requirements are met, as described in Request
for Public Comments at the end of this notice. NMFS will consider
public comments prior to making any final decision on the issuance of
the requested MMPA authorizations and agency responses will be
summarized in the final notice of our decision.
DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than July 7,
2021.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief,
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service. Written comments should be submitted
via email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#83cad7d3adc7e2f5eaf0c3edece2e2ade4ecf5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5d14090d73193c2b342e1d33323c3c733a322b">[email protected]</span></a>.
Instructions: NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the
end of the comment period. Comments, including all attachments, must
not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. All comments received are a part of
the public record and will generally be posted online at <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-other-energy-activities-renewable">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-other-energy-activities-renewable</a> without change.
All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily
submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit
confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or protected
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leah Davis, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application
and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in
this document, may be obtained online at: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-other-energy-activities-renewable">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-other-energy-activities-renewable</a>. In case of
problems accessing these documents, please call the contact listed
above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The MMPA prohibits the ``take'' of marine mammals, with certain
exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to
allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of
small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a
specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations
are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a
proposed incidental take authorization may be provided to the public
for review.
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses
(where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods
of taking and other ``means of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact'' on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying
particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for
taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as
``mitigation''); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation,
monitoring and reporting of the takings are set forth.
The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above
are included in the relevant sections below.
National Environmental Policy Act
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA;
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A,
NMFS must review our proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an IHA)
with respect to potential impacts on the human environment. This action
is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical
Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of
the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not
individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts
on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not
identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this
categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined
that the issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies to be categorically
excluded from further NEPA review.
We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice
prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the
IHA request.
Summary of Request
On January 29, 2021, NMFS received a request from Vineyard Wind 1
for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to marine site
characterization surveys off of Massachusetts and Rhode Island for the
501 North wind energy project. The application was deemed adequate and
complete on May 19, 2021. Vineyard Wind 1's request is for take of a
small number of 14 species of marine mammals by Level B harassment
only. Neither Vineyard Wind 1 nor NMFS expects serious injury or
mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is
appropriate.
NMFS previously issued an IHA to Vineyard Wind LLC (Vineyard Wind)
for similar marine site characterization surveys (85 FR 42357; July 14,
2020), and NMFS has received a request from Vineyard Wind for a renewal
of that IHA.
Since issuance of Vineyard Wind's previous IHA (85 FR 42357; July
14, 2020), Vineyard Wind has split into separate corporate entities,
Vineyard Wind (to which the previous IHA was issued), and Vineyard Wind
1, which holds assets associated with the 501 North wind energy
project. Therefore, although the surveys analyzed in this proposed IHA
to Vineyard Wind 1 would occur in an area that overlaps with a portion
of the project area included in the previous Vineyard Wind IHA (and
potentially a renewal, if appropriate), this proposed IHA would be
issued to a separate corporate entity (Vineyard Wind 1).
Description of Proposed Activity
Overview
As part of its overall marine site characterization survey
operations, Vineyard Wind 1 proposes to conduct high-resolution
geophysical (HRG) surveys in the Lease Area and along the Offshore
Export Cable Corridor (OECC) off of Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
The purpose of the marine site characterization surveys is to
obtain a baseline assessment of seabed/sub-surface soil conditions in
the Lease Area and cable route corridors to support the siting of
potential future offshore wind projects. Underwater sound resulting
from Vineyard Wind 1's proposed site characterization survey
activities, specifically HRG surveys, has the potential to result in
incidental take of marine mammals in the form of behavioral harassment.
Dates and Duration
The total duration of HRG survey activities would be approximately
170 survey days. Each day that a survey vessel is operating counts as a
single survey day, e.g., two survey vessels operating on the same day
count as two
[[Page 30268]]
survey days. This schedule is based on assumed 24-hour operations.
Vineyard Wind 1 proposes to begin survey activities in summer 2021,
upon receipt of an IHA, and continue for up to one year (though the
actual duration will likely be shorter, particularly given the use of
multiple vessels). The IHA would be effective for one year from the
date of issuance.
Specific Geographic Region
Vineyard Wind 1's proposed survey activities would occur in the
Lease Area, located approximately 24 kilometers (km) (13 nautical miles
(nmi)) from the southeast corner of Martha's Vineyard, and along the
OECC route (landfall) in both Federal and State waters of Massachusetts
(see Figure 1). The OECC routes will extend from the lease areas to
shallow water areas near potential landfall locations. Water depths in
the Lease Area range from about 35 to 60 meters (m) (115 to 197 feet
(ft)). Water depths along the potential OECC route range from 2.5 to
approximately 35 m (8 to approximately 115 ft). For the purpose of this
IHA, the Lease Area and OECC are collectively referred to as the
project area. The project area for this proposed IHA overlaps with the
project area for Vineyard Wind's previous IHA (85 FR 42357; July 14,
2020) for which Vineyard Wind has submitted a renewal request.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07JN21.000
Detailed Description of Specific Activity
Vineyard Wind 1 proposes to conduct HRG survey operations,
including single and multibeam depth sounding, magnetic intensity
measurements, seafloor imaging, and shallow and medium penetration sub
bottom profiling. The HRG surveys may be conducted using any or all of
the following equipment types: Side scan sonar, single and multibeam
echosounders, magnetometers and gradiometers, parametric sub-bottom
profiler (SBP), CHIRP SBP, boomers, or sparkers. HRG survey activities
are anticipated to include multiple survey vessels (up to eight,
depending on the season), which may operate concurrently, though
surveys will be spaced to avoid geophysical interference with one
another. Vineyard Wind 1 assumes that HRG survey activities would be
conducted continuously 24 hours per day, with an assumed daily survey
distance of 80 km (43 nmi). Survey vessels would maintain a speed of
approximately 4 knots (2.1 m/second) while surveying, which equates to
181 km per 24-hour period. However, based on past survey experience
(i.e., knowledge of typical daily downtime due to weather, system
malfunctions, etc.), Vineyard Wind 1 assumes 80 km as the average daily
distance.
Acoustic sources planned for use during HRG survey activities
proposed by Vineyard Wind 1 include the following:
<bullet> Shallow Penetration Sub-bottom Profilers (SBP; Chirps) to
map the near-
[[Page 30269]]
surface stratigraphy (top 0 to 5 m (0 to 16 ft)) of sediment below
seabed). A chirp system emits sonar pulses that increase in frequency
from about 2 to 20 kHz over time. The pulse length frequency range can
be adjusted to meet project variables. These sources are typically
mounted on the hull of the vessel or from a side pole;
<bullet> Medium Penetration SBPs (Boomers and Sparkers) to map
deeper subsurface stratigraphy as needed. A boomer is a broadband sound
source operating in the 3.5 Hz to 10 kHz frequency range. Sparkers
create acoustic pulses from 50 Hz to 4 kHz omnidirectionally from the
source that can penetrate several hundred meters into the seafloor.
These sources are typically towed behind the vessel.
Operation of the following survey equipment types is not reasonably
expected to present risk of marine mammal take, and will not be
discussed further beyond the brief summaries provided below;
<bullet> Parametric SBPs, also called sediment echosounders, for
providing high data density in sub-bottom profiles that are typically
required for cable routes, very shallow water, and archaeological
surveys. These sources generate short, very narrow-beam (1[deg] to
3.5[deg]) signals at high frequencies (generally around 85-100 kHz).
The narrow beamwidth significantly reduces the potential that a marine
mammal could be exposed to the signal, while the high frequency of
operation means that the signal is rapidly attenuated in seawater.
These sources are typically mounted on the hull of the vessel or from a
side pole rather than towed behind the vessel;
<bullet> Ultra-Short Baseline (USBL) positioning systems are used
to provide high accuracy ranges by measuring the time between the
acoustic pulses transmitted by the vessel transceiver and the equipment
transponder (or beacon) necessary to produce the acoustic profile. It
is a two-component system with a hull or pole mounted transceiver and
one or several transponders either on the seabed or on the equipment.
USBLs are expected to produce extremely small acoustic propagation
distances in their typical operating configuration;
<bullet> Single beam and Multibeam Echosounders (MBESs) to
determine water depths and general bottom topography. The proposed
single beam and MBES all have operating frequencies >180 kHz and are
therefore outside the general hearing range of marine mammals;
<bullet> Side-scan Sonar (SSS) is used for seabed sediment
classification purposes and to identify natural and man-made acoustic
targets on the seafloor. The proposed SSSs all have operating
frequencies >180 kHz and are therefore outside the general hearing
range of marine mammals; and
<bullet> Magnetometer/Gradiometer has an operating frequency >180
kHz and is therefore outside the general hearing range of marine
mammals.
Table 1 identifies the representative survey equipment with the
expected potential to result in exposure of marine mammals and
potentially result in take. The make and model of the listed
geophysical equipment may vary depending on availability and the final
equipment choices will vary depending on the final survey design,
vessel availability, and survey contractor selection.
HRG surveys are expected to use several equipment types
concurrently in order to collect multiple aspects of geophysical data
along one transect. Selection of equipment combinations is based on
specific survey objectives.
Table 1--Summary of Representative HRG Equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In-beam source level (dB)
System Frequency Beam width Pulse duration Repetition -------------------------------
(kHz) ([deg]) (ms) rate (Hz) RMS Pk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shallow subbottom profiler (non-impulsive)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EdgeTech Chirp 216...................................... 2-16 65 2 3.75 178 182
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deep seismic profiler (impulsive)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Acoustics AA251 Boomer.......................... 0.2-15 180 0.8 2 205 212
GeoMarine Geo Spark 2000................................ 0.05-3 180 3.4 1 203 213
(400 tip)...............................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: While many of these sources overlap with Vineyard Wind's previous IHA (85 FR 42357; July 14, 2020), the operating parameters used as proxies in
modeling some sources were changed as a result of HRG modeling recommendations from NMFS. For data source information, please see Table A-3 in
Vineyard Wind 1's application.
Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are
described in detail later in this document (see Proposed Mitigation and
Proposed Monitoring and Reporting).
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities
Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information
regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and
behavior and life history, of the potentially affected species.
Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be
found in NMFS's Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments</a>) and more general information about these species
(e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS's
website (<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species</a>).
Table 2 lists all species or 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), where known. For taxonomy, we follow the Committee on
Taxonomy (2020). PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of
animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a
marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its
optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS's SARs). While no
mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious
injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as
gross indicators of the status of the species and other threats.
[[Page 30270]]
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 species, 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 2 are the most recent available at the time of publication and,
except for North Atlantic right whale, are available in the 2019 SARs
(Hayes et al., 2020) and draft 2020 SARs (available online at: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports</a>). The most recent North Atlantic right
whale stock abundance estimate is presented in NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-NE-269 (Pace 2021).
Table 2--Marine Mammals Likely To Occur in the Project Area That May Be Affected by Vineyard Wind 1's Proposed Activity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESA/MMPA status; Stock abundance (CV,
Common name Scientific name Stock strategic (Y/N) Nmin, most recent PBR Annual M/SI
\1\ abundance survey) \2\ \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Balaenidae:
North Atlantic right whale \4\. Eubalaena glacialis... Western North Atlantic E/D; Y 368 (NA; 356; 2018)... 0.8 18.6
Family Balaenopteridae (rorquals):
Humpback whale................. Megaptera novaeangliae Gulf of Maine......... -/-; Y 1,393 (0.15; 1,375; 22 58
2016).
Fin whale...................... Balaenoptera physalus. Western North Atlantic E/D; Y 6,802 (0.24; 5,573; 11 2.35
2016).
Sei whale...................... Balaenoptera borealis. Nova Scotia........... E/D; Y 6,292 (1.02; 3,098; 6.2 1.2
2016).
Minke whale.................... Balaenoptera Canadian Eastern -/-; N 21,968 (0.31; 17,002; 170 10.6
acutorostrata. Coastal. 2016).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Physeteridae:
Sperm whale.................... Physeter macrocephalus North Atlantic........ E; Y 4,349 (0.28; 3,451; 3.9 0
2016).
Family Delphinidae:
Long-finned pilot whale........ Globicephala melas.... Western North Atlantic -/-; N 39,215 (0.3; 30,627; 306 21
2016).
Bottlenose dolphin............. Tursiops spp.......... Western North Atlantic -/-; N 62,851 (0.213; 51,914; 519 28
Offshore. 2016).
Common dolphin................. Delphinus delphis..... Western North Atlantic -/-; N 172,974 (0.21; 1,452 399
145,216; 2016).
Atlantic white-sided dolphin... Lagenorhynchus acutus. Western North Atlantic -/-; N 92,233 (0.71; 54,433; 544 26
2016).
Risso's dolphin................ Grampus griseus....... Western North Atlantic -/-; N 35,493 (0.19; 30,289; 303 54.3
2016).
Family Phocoenidae (porpoises):
Harbor porpoise................ Phocoena phocoena..... Gulf of Maine/Bay of -/-; N 95,543 (0.31; 74,034; 851 217
Fundy. 2016).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Phocidae (earless seals):
Gray seal \5\.................. Halichoerus grypus.... Western North Atlantic -/-; N 27,131 (0.19; 23,158, 1,389 4,729
2016).
Harbor seal.................... Phoca vitulina........ Western North Atlantic -/-; N 75,834 (0.15; 66,884, 2,006 350
2012).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Endangered Species Act (ESA) status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed
under the ESA or designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality
exceeds PBR or which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed
under the ESA is automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\2\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments</a> assessments. CV is coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable (NA).
\3\ These values, found in NMFS's SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g.,
commercial fisheries, ship strike).
\4\ This is the latest stock abundance estimate and Nmin as presented in Pace (2021).
\5\ NMFS stock abundance estimate (and associated PBR value) applies to U.S. population only. Total stock abundance (including animals in Canada) is
approximately 451,431. The annual M/SI value is given for the total stock.
As indicated above, all 14 species (with 14 managed stocks) in
Table 2 temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the
degree that take is reasonably likely to occur. All species that could
potentially occur in the proposed survey areas are included in Table 2
of the IHA application. However, the temporal and/or spatial occurrence
of several species listed in Table 2 in Vineyard Wind 1's IHA
application is such that take of these species is not expected to
occur. Killer whale (Orcinus orca) Northern bottlenose whale
(Hyperoodon ampullatus), pygmy killer whale (Feresa attenuata), false
killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens), melon-headed whale (Peponocephala
electra), pantropical spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuata), Fraser's
dolphin (Lagenodelphis hosei), rough-toothed dolphin (Steno
bredanensis), Clymene dolphin (Stenella clymene), spinner dolphin
(Stenella longirostris), and hooded seal (Cystophora cristata), are not
expected to occur within the project area based on a lack of sightings
in the area and their known habitat preferences and distributions. The
blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), Cuvier's beaked whale (Ziphius
cavirostris), four species of Mesoplodont beaked whale (Mesoplodon
spp.), dwarf and pygmy sperm whale (Kogia sima and Kogia breviceps),
and striped dolphin
[[Page 30271]]
(Stenella coeruleoalba), typically occur further offshore than the
project area, while short-finned pilot whales (Globicephala
macrorhynchus) and Atlantic spotted dolphins (Stenella frontalis) are
typically found further south than the project area (Hayes et al.,
2020). There are stranding records of harp seals (Pagophilus
groenlandicus) in Massachusetts, but the species typically occurs north
of the project area and appearances in Massachusetts usually occur
between January and May (Hayes et al., 2020), outside of the months
that Vineyard Wind 1 is most likely to conduct the majority of the
survey activities.
Vineyard Wind observed two white beaked dolphins during surveys
authorized under a previous IHA (85 FR 42357; July 14, 2020). Please
see <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-vineyard-wind-llc-marine-site-characterization-surveys">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/incidental-take-authorization-vineyard-wind-llc-marine-site-characterization-surveys</a>
for additional information on this sighting. Except for the single
observation of white beaked dolphins referenced here, no sightings of
white beaked dolphins have been reported in monitoring reports from
issued IHAs in the same region in recent years, and encounters with the
species in the survey area remain unlikely. Given the low likelihood of
occurrence of white beaked dolphins, NMFS does not propose to include
take of white beaked dolphins in this IHA. As take of these species is
not anticipated as a result of the proposed activities, these species
are not discussed further.
In addition to what is included in Sections 3 and 4 of Vineyard
Wind 1's application, the SARs, and NMFS's website, further detail
informing the baseline for select species (i.e., information regarding
current Unusual Mortality Events (UME) and important habitat areas) is
provided below.
North Atlantic Right Whale
The North Atlantic right whale ranges from the calving grounds in
the southeastern United States to feeding grounds in New England waters
and into Canadian waters (Waring et al., 2017). Surveys indicate that
there are seven areas where NARWs congregate seasonally, including
Georges Basin along the northeastern edge of Georges Bank, Cape Cod and
Massachusetts Bay (Hayes et al. 2018). Aerial surveys indicated that
right whales were consistently detected in or near the Lease Area and
surrounding survey areas during the winter and spring seasons. Acoustic
detections of right whales occurred during all months of the year, with
the highest number of detections typically between December and late
May. Data indicate that right whales occur at elevated densities in the
project area south and southwest of Martha's Vineyard in the spring
(March-May) and south of Nantucket during winter (December-February;
Roberts et al. 2018; Leiter et al. 2017; Kraus et al. 2016). Consistent
aggregations of right whales feeding and possibly mating within or
close to these specific areas is such that they have been considered
right whale ``hotspots'' (Leiter et al. 2017; Kraus et al. 2016).
Although there is variability in right whale distribution patterns
among years, and some aggregations appear to be ephemeral, an analysis
of hot spots suggests that there is some regularity in right whale use
of the project area (Kraus et al. 2016).
Additionally, numerous Dynamic Management Areas (DMAs) have been
established in these areas in recent years. NMFS may establish DMAs
when and where NARWs are sighted outside Seasonal Management Areas
(SMAs). DMAs are generally in effect for two weeks. During this time,
vessels are encouraged to avoid these areas or reduce speeds to 10
knots (5.1 m/s) or less while transiting through these areas.
NMFS's regulations at 50 CFR part 224.105 designated nearshore
waters of the Mid-Atlantic Bight as Mid-Atlantic U.S. SMAs for right
whales in 2008. SMAs were developed to reduce the threat of collisions
between ships and right whales around their migratory route and calving
grounds. All vessels greater than 19.8 m (65 ft) in overall length must
operate at speeds of 10 knots (5.1 m/s) or less within these areas
during specific time periods. The Block Island Sound SMA overlaps with
the south/east portion of Lease Area OCS-A 0501 and is active between
November 1 and April 30 each year.
The project area overlaps with a right whale Biologically Important
Area (BIA) for migration from March to April and from November to
December (LaBrecque et al. 2015). Identified right whale feeding BIAs
occur outside of the project area (map showing designated BIAs is
available at: <a href="https://cetsound.noaa.gov/biologically-important-area-map">https://cetsound.noaa.gov/biologically-important-area-map</a>); however, Oleson et al. (2020) identified an area south of
Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket, referred to as ``South of the
Islands,'' as a newer, year-round, core North Atlantic right whale
foraging habitat. The South of the Islands area overlaps with most of
Vineyard Wind 1's project area.
The western North Atlantic population demonstrated overall growth
of 2.8 percent per year from 1990 to 2010, despite a decline in 1993
and no growth between 1997 and 2000 (Pace et al. 2017). However, since
2010 the population has been in decline, with a 99.99 percent
probability of a decline of just under 1 percent per year (Pace et al.
2017). Between 1990 and 2015, calving rates varied substantially, with
low calving rates coinciding with all three periods of decline or no
growth (Pace et al. 2017). In 2018, no new North Atlantic right whale
calves were documented in their calving grounds; this represented the
first time since annual NOAA aerial surveys began in 1989 that no new
right whale calves were observed. However, in 2019 seven right whale
calves were identified, 10 in 2020, and to date 17 live calves have
been identified in 2021. Data indicates that the number of adult
females fell from 200 in 2010 to 186 in 2015 while males fell from 283
to 272 in the same time frame (Pace et al., 2017).
Elevated North Atlantic right whale mortalities have occurred since
June 7, 2017. A total of 34 confirmed dead stranded whales (21 in
Canada; 13 in the United States), have been documented to date. This
event has been declared an Unusual Mortality Event (UME), with human
interactions (i.e., entanglements and vessel strikes) identified as the
most likely cause. More information is available online at: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2017-2021-north-atlantic-right-whale-unusual-mortality-event">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2017-2021-north-atlantic-right-whale-unusual-mortality-event</a> (accessed May 7, 2020).
Humpback Whale
Prior to 2016, humpback whales were listed under the ESA as an
endangered species worldwide. Following a 2015 global status review
(Bettridge et al., 2015), NMFS delineated 14 distinct population
segments (DPS) with different listing statuses (81 FR 62259; September
8, 2016) pursuant to the ESA. The West Indies DPS, which is not listed
under the ESA, is the only DPS of humpback whale that is expected to
occur in the survey area. Bettridge et al. (2015) estimated the size of
this population at 12,312 (95 percent CI 8,688-15,954) whales in 2004-
05, which is consistent with previous population estimates of
approximately 10,000-11,000 whales (Stevick et al., 2003; Smith et al.,
1999) and the increasing trend for the West Indies DPS (Bettridge et
al., 2015). Whales occurring in the survey area are considered to be
from the West Indies DPS, but are not necessarily from the Gulf of
Maine feeding population managed as a stock by NMFS.
Kraus et al. (2016) observed humpback whales in the Rhode Island/
Massachusetts and Massachusetts Wind
[[Page 30272]]
Energy Areas (RI/MA & MA WEAs) and surrounding areas during all
seasons. Humpback whales were observed most often during spring and
summer months, with a peak from April to June. Calves were observed 10
times and feeding was observed 10 times during the Kraus et al. (2016)
study. That study also observed one instance of courtship behavior.
Although humpback whales were rarely seen during fall and winter
surveys, acoustic data indicate that this species may be present within
the MA WEA year-round, with the highest rates of acoustic detections in
winter and spring (Kraus et al. 2016).
Since January 2016, elevated humpback whale mortalities have
occurred along the Atlantic coast from Maine through Florida. The event
has been declared a UME. Partial or full necropsy examinations have
been conducted on approximately half of the 149 known cases (as of
April 28, 2021). A portion of the whales have shown evidence of pre-
mortem vessel strike; however, this finding is not consistent across
all of the whales examined so more research is needed. NOAA is
consulting with researchers that are conducting studies on the humpback
whale populations, and these efforts may provide information on changes
in whale distribution and habitat use that could provide additional
insight into how these vessel interactions occurred. More detailed
information is available at: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2016-2021-humpback-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-atlantic-coast">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2016-2021-humpback-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-atlantic-coast</a> (accessed April 28, 2021). No BIAs have been
identified for humpback whales in the project area.
Fin Whale
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.
2018). 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. 2019).
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
indicated that this species was present in the RI/MA & MA WEAs during
all months of the year.
New England waters represent a major feeding ground for fin whales.
The proposed project area would overlap spatially and temporally with a
feeding BIA for fin whales, from March to October (LaBrecque et al.
2015). The separate year-round feeding BIA to the northeast does not
overlap with the project area.
Sei Whale
The Nova Scotia stock of sei whales can be found in deeper waters
of the continental shelf edge waters of the northeastern United States
and northeastward to south of Newfoundland. NMFS considers sei whales
occurring from the U.S. East Coast to Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, and
east to 42[deg] as the Nova Scotia stock of sei whales (Waring et al.
2016; Hayes et al. 2018). In the Northwest Atlantic, it is speculated
that the whales migrate from south of Cape Cod along the eastern
Canadian coast in June and July, and return on a southward migration
again in September and October (Waring et al. 2014; 2017). Spring is
the period of greatest abundance in U.S. waters, with sightings
concentrated along the eastern margin of Georges Bank and into the
Northeast Channel area, and along the southwestern edge of Georges Bank
in the area of Hydrographer Canyon (Waring et al., 2015). A BIA for sei
whale feeding occurs east of, but near, the project area from May
through November (LaBrecque et al. 2015).
Minke Whale
Minke whales occur in temperate, tropical, and high-latitude
waters. The Canadian East Coast stock occur in the area from the
western half of the Davis Strait (45[deg] W) to the Gulf of Mexico
(Waring et al., 2017). This species generally occupies waters less than
100 m deep on the continental shelf. There appears to be a strong
seasonal component to minke whale distribution in which spring to fall
are times of relatively widespread and common occurrence, and when the
whales are most abundant in New England waters, while during winter the
species appears to be largely absent (Waring et al., 2017).
Kraus et al. (2016) observed minke whales in the RI/MA & MA WEAs
and surrounding areas primarily from May to June. This species
demonstrated a distinct seasonal habitat usage pattern that was
consistent throughout the study. Though minke whales were observed in
spring and summer months in the MA WEA, they were only observed in the
lease areas in the spring. Minke whales were not observed between
October and February, but acoustic data indicate the presence of this
species in the offshore proposed project area in winter months. A BIA
for minke whale feeding occurs east of, but near, the project area from
March to November.
Since 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. Partial or full
necropsy examinations have been conducted on more than 60 percent of
the 105 known cases (as of April 28, 2021). Preliminary findings in
several of the whales have shown evidence of human interactions or
infectious disease. These findings are not consistent across all of the
whales examined, so more research is needed. More information is
available at: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2017-2021-minke-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-atlantic-coast">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2017-2021-minke-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-atlantic-coast</a> (accessed April 28, 2021).
Sperm Whale
The distribution of the sperm whale in the U.S. Exclusive Economic
Zone (EEZ) occurs on the continental shelf edge, over the continental
slope, and into mid-ocean regions (Waring et al. 2015). Sperm whales
are somewhat migratory; however, their migrations are not as specific
as seen in most of the baleen whale species. In the North Atlantic,
there appears to be a general shift northward during the summer, but
there is no clear migration in some temperate areas (Rice 1989). In
summer, the distribution of sperm whales includes the area east and
north of Georges Bank and into the Northeast Channel region, as well as
the continental shelf (inshore of the 100-m isobath) south of New
England. In the fall, sperm whale occurrence south of New England on
the continental shelf is at its highest level, and there remains a
continental shelf edge occurrence in the mid-Atlantic bight. In winter,
sperm
[[Page 30273]]
whales are concentrated east and northeast of Cape Hatteras. Their
distribution is typically associated with waters over the continental
shelf break and the continental slope and into deeper waters (Whitehead
et al. 1991). Sperm whale concentrations near drop-offs and areas with
strong currents and steep topography are correlated with high
productivity. These whales occur almost exclusively at the shelf break,
regardless of season.
Kraus et al. (2016) observed sperm whales four times in the RI/MA &
MA WEAs during the summer and fall from 2011 to 2015. Sperm whales,
traveling singly or in groups of three or four, were observed three
times in August and September of 2012, and once in June of 2015.
Long-Finned Pilot Whale
Long-finned pilot whales occur from North Carolina north to
Iceland, Greenland and the Barents Sea (Waring et al., 2016). They
generally occur along the edge of the continental shelf (a depth of 330
to 3,300 feet (100 to 1,000 meters)), choosing areas of high relief or
submerged banks in cold or temperate shoreline waters. In the western
North Atlantic, long-finned pilot whales are pelagic, occurring in
especially high densities in winter and spring over the continental
slope, then moving inshore and onto the shelf in summer and autumn
following squid and mackerel populations (Reeves et al. 2002). They
frequently travel into the central and northern Georges Bank, Great
South Channel, and Gulf of Maine areas during the late spring and
remain through early fall (May and October) (Payne and Heinemann 1993).
Note that long-finned and short-finned pilot whales overlap
spatially along the mid-Atlantic shelf break between New Jersey and the
southern flank of Georges Bank (Payne and Heinemann 1993, Hayes et al.
2017) Long-finned pilot whales have occasionally been observed stranded
as far south as South Carolina, and short-finned pilot whale have
stranded as far north as Massachusetts (Hayes et al. 2017). The
latitudinal ranges of the two species therefore remain uncertain.
However, north of approximately 42[deg] N (slightly north of the
project area), most pilot whale sightings are expected to be long-
finned pilot whales (Hayes et al. 2017). Based on the distributions
described in Hayes et al. (2017), pilot whale sightings in the project
area would are expected to be long-finned pilot whales.
Kraus et al. (2016) observed pilot whales infrequently in the RI/MA
& MA WEAs and surrounding areas. No pilot whales were observed during
the fall or winter, and these species were only observed 11 times in
the spring and three times in the summer.
Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin
White-sided dolphins occur in temperate and sub-polar waters of the
North Atlantic, primarily in continental shelf waters to the 100-m
depth contour from central West Greenland to North Carolina (Waring et
al., 2017). The Gulf of Maine stock is most common in continental shelf
waters from Hudson Canyon to Georges Bank, and in the Gulf of Maine and
lower Bay of Fundy. Sighting data indicate seasonal shifts in
distribution (Northridge et al., 1997). During January to May, low
numbers of white-sided dolphins are found from Georges Bank to Jeffreys
Ledge (off New Hampshire), with even lower numbers south of Georges
Bank, as documented by a few strandings collected on beaches of
Virginia to South Carolina. From June through September, large numbers
of white-sided dolphins are found from Georges Bank to the lower Bay of
Fundy. From October to December, white-sided dolphins occur at
intermediate densities from southern Georges Bank to southern Gulf of
Maine (Payne and Heinemann 1990). Sightings south of Georges Bank,
particularly around Hudson Canyon, occur year round but at low
densities.
Kraus et al. (2016) suggest that Atlantic white-sided dolphins
occur infrequently in the RI/MA & MA WEAs and surrounding areas.
Effort-weighted average sighting rates for Atlantic white-sided
dolphins could not be calculated, because this species was only
observed on eight occasions throughout the duration of the study
(October 2011 to June 2015). No Atlantic white-sided dolphins were
observed during the winter months, and this species was only sighted
twice in the fall and three times in the spring and summer.
Common Dolphin
The common dolphin occurs world-wide in temperate to subtropical
seas. In the North Atlantic, common dolphins commonly occur over the
continental shelf between the 100-m and 2,000-m isobaths and over
prominent underwater topography and east to the mid-Atlantic Ridge
(Waring et al., 2016). This species is found between Cape Hatteras and
Georges Bank from mid-January to May, although they migrate onto the
northeast edge of Georges Bank in the fall where large aggregations
occur (Kenney and Vigness-Raposa 2009), where large aggregations occur
on Georges Bank in fall (Waring et al. 2007). Kraus et al. (2016)
suggested that common dolphins occur year-round in the RI/MA & MA WEAs
and surrounding areas. Common dolphins were the most frequently
observed small cetacean species within the Kraus et al. (2016) study
area. Common dolphins were observed in the RI/MA & MA WEAs in all
seasons and observed in the Lease Area OCS-A 0501 in spring, summer,
and fall.
Bottlenose Dolphin
Bottlenose dolphins encountered in the survey area would likely
belong to the Western North Atlantic Offshore Stock (Hayes et al.
2020). While, it is possible that a few animals encountered during the
surveys could be from the North Atlantic Northern Migratory Coastal
Stock, they generally do not range farther north than New Jersey, and
therefore, such an occurrence would be unlikely, and take of the North
Atlantic Northern Migratory Coastal Stock is not considered further.
Kraus et al. (2016) observed common bottlenose dolphins during all
seasons within the RI/MA & MA WEAs. Common bottlenose dolphins were the
second most commonly observed small cetacean species and exhibited
little seasonal variability in abundance. They were observed in the MA
WEA in all seasons and observed in Lease Area OCS-A 0501 in the fall
and winter.
Risso's Dolphins
Off the northeastern U.S. coast, Risso's dolphins are distributed
along the continental shelf edge from Cape Hatteras northward to
Georges Bank during spring, summer, and autumn (CETAP 1982; Payne et
al. 1984). In winter, the range is in the mid-Atlantic Bight and
extends outward into oceanic waters (Payne et al. 1984). Kraus et al.
(2016) results suggest that Risso's dolphins occur infrequently in the
RI/MA & MA WEAs and surrounding areas.
Harbor Porpoise
The Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy stock of harbor porpoise may occur
in the project area. This stock occurs in U.S. and Canadian Atlantic
waters and is concentrated in the northern Gulf of Maine and southern
Bay of Fundy region, generally in waters less than 150 m deep (Waring
et al., 2017). During fall (October-December) and spring (April-June)
harbor porpoises are widely dispersed from New Jersey to Maine. During
winter (January to March), intermediate densities of harbor porpoises
occur in waters off New Jersey to North Carolina, and lower densities
are found in waters off New York to New Brunswick, Canada. They occur
from the coastline to deep waters
[[Page 30274]]
(>1,800 m; Westgate et al. 1998), although the majority of the
population is found over the continental shelf (Waring et al., 2017).
Kraus et al. (2016) indicate that harbor porpoises occur within the
RI/MA & MA WEAs in fall, winter, and spring. Harbor porpoises were
observed in groups ranging in size from three to 15 individuals and
were primarily observed in the Kraus et al. (2016) study area from
November through May, with very few sightings during June through
September.
Harbor Seal
Harbor seals occur year-round in the coastal waters of eastern
Canada and Maine (Katona et al. 1993), and occur seasonally along the
coasts from southern New England to New Jersey from September through
late May. While harbor seals occur year-round north of Cape Cod, they
only occur during winter migration, typically September through May,
south of Cape Cod (Southern New England to New Jersey; Waring et al.
2015; Kenney and Vigness-Raposa 2009).
Gray Seal
The western North Atlantic stock of gray seal occurs in the project
area. The range for this stock is thought to be from New Jersey to
Labrador. Current population trends show that gray seal abundance is
likely increasing in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ (Waring et al., 2017). Gray
seals are expected to occur year-round in at least some potential OECC
routes, with seasonal occurrence in the offshore areas from September
to May (Hayes et al. 2018).
Since July 2018, elevated numbers of harbor seal and gray seal
mortalities have occurred across Maine, New Hampshire and
Massachusetts. This event has been declared a UME. Additionally, seals
showing clinical signs of stranding have occurred as far south as
Virginia, although not in elevated numbers. Therefore the UME
investigation now encompasses all seal strandings from Maine to
Virginia (including harp and hooded seals, though no take of either
species is proposed for authorization). Between July 1, 2018 and April
28, 2021, a total of 3,152 seal strandings have been recorded as part
of this designated Northeast Pinniped UME. Based on tests conducted so
far, the main pathogen found in the seals is phocine distemper virus.
Additional testing to identify other factors that may be involved in
this UME are underway. Please see <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-england-mid-atlantic/marine-life-distress/2018-2020-pinniped-unusual-mortality-event-along">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-england-mid-atlantic/marine-life-distress/2018-2020-pinniped-unusual-mortality-event-along</a> for additional information.
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 3.
Table 3--Marine Mammal Hearing Groups (NMFS, 2018)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing group Generalized hearing range *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans 7 Hz to 35 kHz.
(baleen whales).
Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans 150 Hz to 160 kHz.
(dolphins, toothed whales, beaked
whales, bottlenose whales).
High-frequency (HF) cetaceans 275 Hz to 160 kHz.
(true porpoises, Kogia, river
dolphins, cephalorhynchid,
Lagenorhynchus cruciger & L.
australis).
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) 50 Hz to 86 kHz.
(true seals).
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) 60 Hz to 39 kHz.
(underwater) (sea lions and fur
seals).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a
composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual
species' hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized
hearing range chosen based on ~65 dB threshold from normalized
composite audiogram, with the exception for lower limits for LF
cetaceans (Southall et al. 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation).
The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et
al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have
consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing
compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range
(Hemil[auml] et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth and Holt,
2013).
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency
ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information.
14 marine mammal species (12 cetacean and two phocids pinnipeds) have
the reasonable potential to co-occur with the proposed survey
activities. Please refer to Table 2. Of the cetacean species that may
be present, five are classified as low-frequency cetaceans (i.e., all
mysticete species), six are classified as mid-frequency cetaceans
(i.e., all delphinid species and the sperm whale), and one is
classified as high-frequency cetaceans (i.e., harbor porpoise).
Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
This section includes a summary of the ways that Vineyard Wind 1's
specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat.
Detailed descriptions of the potential effects of similar specified
activities have been provided in other recent Federal Register notices,
including for survey activities using the same methodology, over a
similar amount of time, and occurring within the same specified
geographical region (e.g., 82 FR 20563, May 3, 2017; 85 FR 36537, June
17, 2020; 85 FR 37848, June 24, 2020; 85 FR 48179, August 10, 2020). No
significant new information is available, and we refer the reader to
these documents
[[Page 30275]]
rather than repeating the details here. The Estimated Take section
includes a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are
expected to be taken by Vineyard Wind 1's activity. The Negligible
Impact Analysis and Determination section considers the potential
effects of the specified activity, the Estimated Take section, and the
Proposed Mitigation section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely
impacts of these activities on the reproductive success or survivorship
of individuals and how those impacts on individuals are likely to
impact marine mammal species or stocks.
Background on Active Acoustic Sound Sources and Acoustic Terminology
This subsection 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 the summary of the potential effects of the specified
activity on marine mammals. For general information on sound and its
interaction with the marine environment, please see, e.g., Au and
Hastings (2008); Richardson et al. (1995); Urick (1983).
Sound travels in waves, the basic components of which are
frequency, wavelength, velocity, and amplitude. Frequency is the number
of pressure waves that pass by a reference point per unit of time and
is measured in hertz or cycles per second. Wavelength is the distance
between two peaks or corresponding points of a sound wave (length of
one cycle). Higher frequency sounds have shorter wavelengths than lower
frequency sounds, and typically attenuate (decrease) more rapidly,
except in certain cases in shallower water. Amplitude is the height of
the sound pressure wave or the ``loudness'' of a sound and is typically
described using the relative unit of the decibel. A sound pressure
level (SPL) in dB is described as the ratio between a measured pressure
and a reference pressure (for underwater sound, this is 1 microPascal
([mu]Pa)), and is a logarithmic unit that accounts for large variations
in amplitude. Therefore, a relatively small change in dB corresponds to
large changes in sound pressure. The source level (SL) represents the
SPL referenced at a distance of 1 m from the source (referenced to 1
[mu]Pa), while the received level is the SPL at the listener's position
(referenced to 1 [mu]Pa).
Root mean square (rms) is the quadratic mean sound pressure over
the duration of an impulse. 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.
Sound exposure level (SEL; represented as dB re 1 [mu]Pa\2\-s)
represents the total energy in a stated frequency band over a stated
time interval or event and considers both intensity and duration of
exposure. The per-pulse SEL is calculated over the time window
containing the entire pulse (i.e., 100 percent of the acoustic energy).
SEL is a cumulative metric; it can be accumulated over a single pulse,
or calculated over periods containing multiple pulses. Cumulative SEL
represents the total energy accumulated by a receiver over a defined
time window or during an event. 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.
When underwater objects vibrate or activity occurs, sound-pressure
waves are created. These waves alternately compress and decompress the
water as the sound wave travels. Underwater sound waves radiate in a
manner similar to ripples on the surface of a pond and may be either
directed in a beam or beams or may radiate in all directions
(omnidirectional sources), as is the case for sound produced by the
pile driving activity considered here. The compressions and
decompressions associated with sound waves are detected as changes in
pressure by aquatic life and man-made sound receptors such as
hydrophones.
Even in the absence of sound from the specified activity, the
underwater environment is typically loud due to ambient sound, 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 (Mitson, 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 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. Details of source types are described in the following text.
Sounds are often considered to fall into one of two general types:
Pulsed and non-pulsed (defined in the following). The distinction
between these two sound types is important because they have differing
potential to cause physical effects, particularly with regard to
hearing (e.g., Ward, 1997 in Southall et al., 2007). Please see
Southall et al. (2007) for an in-depth
[[Page 30276]]
discussion of these concepts. The distinction between these two sound
types is not always obvious, as certain signals share properties of
both pulsed and non-pulsed sounds. A signal near a source could be
categorized as a pulse, but due to propagation effects as it moves
farther from the source, the signal duration becomes longer (e.g.,
Greene and Richardson, 1988).
Pulsed sound sources (e.g., airguns, explosions, gunshots, sonic
booms, impact pile driving) produce signals that are brief (typically
considered to be less than one second), broadband, atonal transients
(ANSI, 1986, 2005; Harris, 1998; NIOSH, 1998; ISO, 2003) and occur
either as isolated events or repeated in some succession. Pulsed sounds
are all characterized by a relatively rapid rise from ambient pressure
to a maximal pressure value followed by a rapid decay period that may
include a period of diminishing, oscillating maximal and minimal
pressures, and generally have an increased capacity to induce physical
injury as compared with sounds that lack these features.
Non-pulsed sounds can be tonal, narrowband, or broadband, brief or
prolonged, and may be either continuous or intermittent (ANSI, 1995;
NIOSH, 1998). Some of these non-pulsed sounds can be transient signals
of short duration but without the essential properties of pulses (e.g.,
rapid rise time). Examples of non-pulsed sounds include those produced
by vessels, aircraft, machinery operations such as drilling or
dredging, vibratory pile driving, and active sonar systems. The
duration of such sounds, as received at a distance, can be greatly
extended in a highly reverberant environment.
Sparkers and boomers produce pulsed signals with energy in the
frequency ranges specified in Table 1. The amplitude of the acoustic
wave emitted from sparker sources is equal in all directions (i.e.,
omnidirectional), while other sources planned for use during the
proposed surveys have some degree of directionality to the beam, as
specified in Table 1. Other sources planned for use during the proposed
survey activity (e.g., CHIRP SBPs) should be considered non-pulsed,
intermittent sources.
Summary on Specific Potential Effects of Acoustic Sound Sources
Underwater sound from active acoustic sources can include one or
more of the following: Temporary or permanent hearing impairment, non-
auditory physical or physiological effects, behavioral disturbance,
stress, and masking. The degree of effect is intrinsically related to
the signal characteristics, received level, distance from the source,
and duration of the sound exposure. Marine mammals exposed to high-
intensity sound, or to lower-intensity sound for prolonged periods, can
experience hearing threshold shift (TS), which is the loss of hearing
sensitivity at certain frequency ranges (Finneran, 2015). TS can be
permanent (PTS), in which case the loss of hearing sensitivity is not
fully recoverable, or temporary (TTS), in which case the animal's
hearing threshold would recover over time (Southall et al., 2007).
Animals in the vicinity of Vineyard Wind 1's proposed HRG survey
activity are unlikely to incur even TTS due to the characteristics of
the sound sources, which include relatively low source levels (176 to
205 dB re 1 [micro]Pa-m) and generally very short pulses and potential
duration of exposure. These characteristics mean that instantaneous
exposure is unlikely to cause TTS, as it is unlikely that exposure
would occur close enough to the vessel for received levels to exceed
peak pressure TTS criteria, and that the cumulative duration of
exposure would be insufficient to exceed cumulative sound exposure
level (SEL) criteria. Even for high-frequency cetacean species (e.g.,
harbor porpoises), which have the greatest sensitivity to potential
TTS, individuals would have to make a very close approach and also
remain very close to vessels operating these sources in order to
receive multiple exposures at relatively high levels, as would be
necessary to cause TTS. Intermittent exposures--as would occur due to
the brief, transient signals produced by these sources--require a
higher cumulative SEL to induce TTS than would continuous exposures of
the same duration (i.e., intermittent exposure results in lower levels
of TTS). Moreover, most marine mammals would more likely avoid a loud
sound source rather than swim in such close proximity as to result in
TTS. Kremser et al. (2005) noted that the probability of a cetacean
swimming through the area of exposure when a sub-bottom profiler emits
a pulse is small--because if the animal was in the area, it would have
to pass the transducer at close range in order to be subjected to sound
levels that could cause TTS and would likely exhibit avoidance behavior
to the area near the transducer rather than swim through at such a
close range. Further, the restricted beam shape of many of HRG survey
devices planned for use (Table 1) makes it unlikely that an animal
would be exposed more than briefly during the passage of the vessel.
Behavioral disturbance may include a variety of effects, including
subtle changes in behavior (e.g., minor or brief avoidance of an area
or changes in vocalizations), more conspicuous changes in similar
behavioral activities, and more sustained and/or potentially severe
reactions, such as displacement from or abandonment of high-quality
habitat. Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-
specific and any reactions depend on numerous intrinsic and extrinsic
factors (e.g., species, state of maturity, experience, current
activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity, time of day), as
well as the interplay between factors. Available studies show wide
variation in response to underwater sound; therefore, it is difficult
to predict specifically how any given sound in a particular instance
might affect marine mammals perceiving the signal.
In addition, sound can disrupt behavior through masking, or
interfering with, an animal's ability to detect, recognize, or
discriminate between acoustic signals of interest (e.g., those used for
intraspecific communication and social interactions, prey detection,
predator avoidance, navigation). Masking occurs when the receipt of a
sound is interfered with by another coincident sound at similar
frequencies and at similar or higher intensity, and may occur whether
the sound is natural (e.g., snapping shrimp, wind, waves,
precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g., shipping, sonar, seismic
exploration) in origin. Marine mammal communications would not likely
be masked appreciably by the acoustic signals given the directionality
of the signals for most HRG survey equipment types planned for use
(Table 1) and the brief period when an individual mammal is likely to
be exposed.
Sound may affect marine mammals through impacts on the abundance,
behavior, or distribution of prey species (e.g., crustaceans,
cephalopods, fish, zooplankton) (i.e., effects to marine mammal
habitat). Prey species exposed to sound might move away from the sound
source, experience TTS, experience masking of biologically relevant
sounds, or show no obvious direct effects. The most likely impacts (if
any) for most prey species in a given area would be temporary avoidance
of the area. Surveys using active acoustic sound sources move through
an area relatively quickly, limiting exposure to multiple pulses. In
all cases, sound levels would return to ambient once a survey ends and
the noise source is shut down and, when exposure to sound
[[Page 30277]]
ends, behavioral and/or physiological responses are expected to end
relatively quickly. Finally, the HRG survey equipment will not have
significant impacts to the seafloor and does not represent a source of
pollution.
Vessel Strike
Vessel collisions with marine mammals, or ship strikes, can result
in death or serious injury of the animal. These interactions are
typically associated with large whales, which are less maneuverable
than are smaller cetaceans or pinnipeds in relation to large vessels.
Ship strikes generally involve commercial shipping vessels, which are
generally larger and of which there is much more traffic in the ocean
than geophysical survey vessels. Jensen and Silber (2004) summarized
ship strikes of large whales worldwide from 1975-2003 and found that
most collisions occurred in the open ocean and involved large vessels
(e.g., commercial shipping). For vessels used in geophysical survey
activities, vessel speed while towing gear is typically only 4-5 knots.
At these speeds, both the possibility of striking a marine mammal and
the possibility of a strike resulting in serious injury or mortality
are so low as to be discountable. At average transit speed for
geophysical survey vessels, the probability of serious injury or
mortality resulting from a strike is less than 50 percent. However, the
likelihood of a strike actually happening is again low given the
smaller size of these vessels and generally slower speeds. Notably in
the Jensen and Silber study, no strike incidents were reported for
geophysical survey vessels during that time period.
The potential effects of Vineyard Wind 1's specified survey
activity are expected to be limited to Level B behavioral harassment.
No permanent or temporary auditory effects, or significant impacts to
marine mammal habitat, including prey, are expected.
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes
proposed for authorization through this IHA, which will inform both
NMFS's 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 (i) has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment);
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns,
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment only, in the form
of disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals
resulting from exposure to HRG sources. Based primarily on the
characteristics of the signals produced by the acoustic sources planned
for use, Level A harassment is neither anticipated (even absent
mitigation) nor proposed to be authorized. Consideration of the
anticipated effectiveness of the mitigation measures (i.e., exclusion
zones (EZs) and shutdown measures) discussed in detail below in the
Proposed Mitigation section, further strengthens the conclusion that
Level A harassment is not a reasonably anticipated outcome of the
survey activity. As described previously, no serious injury or
mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized for this
activity. Below we describe how the take is estimated.
Generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) Acoustic
thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science
indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some
degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water
that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or
occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4)
and the number of days of activities. We note that while these basic
factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial
prediction of takes, additional information that can qualitatively
inform take estimates is also sometimes available (e.g., previous
monitoring results or average group size). Below, we describe the
factors considered here in more detail and present the proposed take
estimates.
Acoustic Thresholds
NMFS recommends the use of acoustic thresholds that identify the
received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals
would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to
Level B harassment) or to incur PTS of some degree (equated to Level A
harassment).
Level B Harassment--Though significantly driven by received level,
the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure
is also informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the
source (e.g., frequency, predictability, duty cycle), the environment
(e.g., bathymetry), and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation,
experience, demography, behavioral context) and can be difficult to
predict (Southall et al., 2007, Ellison et al., 2012). Based on what
the available science indicates and the practical need to use a
threshold based on a factor that is both predictable and measurable for
most activities, NMFS uses a generalized acoustic threshold based on
received level to estimate the onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS
predicts that marine mammals are likely to be behaviorally harassed in
a manner we consider Level B harassment when exposed to underwater
anthropogenic noise above received levels of 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (rms)
for the impulsive sources (i.e., boomers, sparkers) and non-impulsive,
intermittent sources (e.g., chirp SBPs) evaluated here for Vineyard
Wind 1's proposed activity.
Level A harassment--NMFS's Technical Guidance for Assessing the
Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0)
(Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies dual criteria to assess auditory
injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine mammal groups
(based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from
two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). For more
information, see NMFS's 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed
at <a href="http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance">www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance</a>.
Vineyard Wind 1's proposed activity includes the use of impulsive
(i.e., sparkers and boomers) and non-impulsive (e.g., CHIRP SBP)
sources. However, as discussed above, NMFS has concluded that Level A
harassment is not a reasonably likely outcome for marine mammals
exposed to noise through use of the sources proposed for use here, and
the potential for Level A harassment is not evaluated further in this
document. Please see Vineyard Wind 1's application for details of a
quantitative exposure analysis exercise, i.e., calculated Level A
harassment isopleths and estimated Level A harassment exposures.
Maximum estimated Level A harassment isopleths were less than 5 m for
all sources and hearing groups with the exception of an estimated 53 m
zone calculated for high-frequency cetaceans during use of the Applied
Acoustics AA251 Boomer, (see Table 1 for source characteristics).
Vineyard Wind 1 did not request authorization of take by Level A
harassment, and no take by Level A
[[Page 30278]]
harassment is proposed for authorization by NMFS.
Ensonified Area
NMFS has developed a user-friendly methodology for estimating the
extent of the Level B harassment isopleths associated with relevant HRG
survey equipment (NMFS, 2020). This methodology incorporates frequency
and directionality to refine estimated ensonified zones. For acoustic
sources that operate with different beamwidths, the maximum beamwidth
was used, and the lowest frequency of the source was used when
calculating the frequency-dependent absorption coefficient (Table 1).
NMFS considers the data provided by Crocker and Fratantonio (2016)
to represent the best available information on source levels associated
with HRG equipment and, therefore, recommends that source levels
provided by Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) be incorporated in the
method described above to estimate isopleth distances to harassment
thresholds. In cases when the source level for a specific type of HRG
equipment is not provided in Crocker and Fratantonio (2016), NMFS
recommends that either the source levels provided by the manufacturer
be used, or, in instances where source levels provided by the
manufacturer are unavailable or unreliable, a proxy from Crocker and
Fratantonio (2016) be used instead. Table 1 shows the HRG equipment
types that may be used during the proposed surveys and the source
levels associated with those HRG equipment types.
Results of modeling using the methodology described above indicated
that, of the HRG survey equipment planned for use by Vineyard Wind 1
that has the potential to result in Level B harassment of marine
mammals, the Applied Acoustics AA251 Boomer would produce the largest
Level B harassment isopleth (178 m; see Table 7 of Vineyard Wind 1's
application). The estimated Level B harassment isopleth associated with
the GeoMarine Geo Spark 2000 (400 tip) system planned for use is 141 m.
Although Vineyard Wind 1 does not expect to use the AA251 Boomer source
on all planned survey days, it proposes to assume, for purposes of
analysis, that the boomer would be used on all survey days. This is a
conservative approach, as the actual sources used on individual survey
days may produce smaller harassment distances.
Marine Mammal Occurrence
In this section we provide the information about the presence,
density, or group dynamics of marine mammals that will inform the take
calculations.
Density estimates for all species within the project area were
derived from habitat-based density modeling results reported by Roberts
et al. (2016, 2017, 2018, 2020). The data presented by Roberts et al.
(2016, 2017, 2018, 2020) incorporates aerial and shipboard line-
transect survey data from NMFS and other organizations and incorporates
data from 8 physiographic and 16 dynamic oceanographic and biological
covariates, and controls for the influence of sea state, group size,
availability bias, and perception bias on the probability of making a
sighting. These density models were originally developed for all
cetacean taxa in the U.S. Atlantic (Roberts et al., 2016). In
subsequent years, certain models have been updated based on additional
data as well as certain methodological improvements. More information
is available online at <a href="https://seamap.env.duke.edu/models/Duke/EC/">https://seamap.env.duke.edu/models/Duke/EC/</a> EC/.
Marine mammal density estimates in the survey area (animals/km\2\)
were obtained using the most recent model results for all taxa (Roberts
et al., 2016, 2017, 2018, 2020). We note the availability of a more
recent model version for the North Atlantic right whale. However, this
latest update resulted in changed predictions only for Cape Cod Bay
and, therefore, would not result in changes to the take estimate
presented herein. More information is available online at: <a href="https://seamap.env.duke.edu/models/Duke/EC/EC_North_Atlantic_right_whale_history.html">https://seamap.env.duke.edu/models/Duke/EC/EC_North_Atlantic_right_whale_history.html</a>. The updated models
incorporate additional sighting data, including sightings from NOAA's
Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected Species (AMAPPS)
surveys. Roberts et al. (2016, 2017, 2018, 2020) provide abundance
estimates for species or species guilds within 10 km x 10 km grid cells
(100 km\2\; except North Atlantic right whale--see discussion below) on
a monthly or annual basis, depending on the species.
For the exposure analysis, density data from Roberts et al. (2016,
2017, 2018, 2020) were mapped using a geographic information system
(GIS). Vineyard Wind 1 calculated densities within a 50 km buffer
polygon around the wind development area perimeter. The 50 km limit was
derived from studies demonstrating that received levels, distance from
the source, and behavioral context are known to influence marine
mammals' probability of behavioral response (Dunlop et al. 2017). The
monthly density was determined by calculating the mean of all grid
cells partially or fully within the buffer polygon. The average monthly
abundance for each species in each survey area was calculated as the
mean value of the grid cells within the buffer area in each month and
then converted to density (individuals/km\2\) by dividing by 100 km\2\
(Table 1). Annual mean densities were calculated from monthly densities
(Table 4).
The estimated monthly densities of North Atlantic right whales were
based on updated model results from Roberts et al. (2020). These
updated data for North Atlantic right whales are provided as densities
(individuals/1 km\2\) within 5 km x 5 km grid cells (25 km\2\) on a
monthly basis. The same GIS process described above was used to select
the appropriate grid cells from each month and the monthly North
Atlantic right whale density in each survey area was calculated as the
mean value of the grid cells as described above. Additional data
regarding average group sizes from survey effort in the region was
considered to ensure adequate take estimates are evaluated.
Take Calculation and Estimation
Here we describe how the information provided above is brought
together to produce a quantitative take estimate. In order to estimate
the number of marine mammals predicted to be exposed to sound levels
that would result in harassment, radial distances to predicted
isopleths corresponding to harassment thresholds are calculated, as
described above. Those distances are then used to calculate the area(s)
around the HRG survey equipment predicted to be ensonified to sound
levels that exceed harassment thresholds. The area estimated to be
ensonified to relevant thresholds in a single day (zone of influence
(ZOI)) is then calculated, based on areas predicted to be ensonified
around the HRG survey equipment (i.e., 178 m) and the estimated
trackline distance traveled per day by the survey vessel (i.e., 80 km).
Based on the maximum estimated distance to the Level B harassment
threshold of 178 m (Applied Acoustics AA251 Boomer) and the maximum
estimated daily track line distance of 80 km, the ZOI is estimated to
be 28.58 km\2\ during Vineyard Wind 1's planned HRG surveys. As
described above, this is a conservative estimate as it assumes the HRG
source that results in the greatest distance to the Level B harassment
isopleth would be operated at all times during all vessel days.
ZOI = (Distance/day x 2r) + [pi]r\2\
Where r is the linear distance from the source to the harassment
isopleth.
[[Page 30279]]
Potential daily Level B harassment takes are estimated by
multiplying the average annual marine mammal densities (animals/km\2\),
as described above, by the ZOI. Estimated numbers of each species taken
over the duration of the authorization are calculated by multiplying
the potential daily Level B harassment takes by the total number of
vessel days plus a 10 percent buffer (i.e., by 170 vessel days x 1.1
percent = 192.5 vessel days). The product is then rounded, to generate
an estimate of the total number of instances of harassment expected for
each species over the duration of the survey. A summary of this method
is illustrated in the following formula:
Estimated Take = D x ZOI x vessel days
Where D = average species density (animals/km\2\), ZOI = maximum
daily ensonified area to relevant threshold, and vessel days =
192.5.
Take by Level B harassment proposed for authorization is shown in
Table 4.
Table 4--Total Numbers of Potential Incidental Take of Marine Mammals Proposed for Authorization and Proposed
Takes as a Percentage of Population
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Proposed
Annual mean takes by takes by Percent of
Species of interest density Level B Level B Abundance stock
(km\2\) harassment harassment \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fin whale....................... 0.00149 8.22 8 6,802 0.13
Humpback whale.................. 0.00084 4.63 5 1,393 0.36
Minke whale..................... 0.00062 3.42 3 21,968 0.02
North Atlantic right whale...... 0.00164 9.05 9 368 2.72
Sei whale....................... 0.00005 0.28 2 6,292 0.03
Sperm whale..................... 0.00006 0.33 2 4,349 0.05
Atlantic white sided dolphin.... 0.02226 122.78 123 92,233 0.13
Bottlenose dolphin.............. 0.0403 222.29 222 62,851 0.35
Long-finned pilot whale......... 0.00459 25.32 25 39,215 0.07
Risso's dolphin................. 0.00012 0.66 8 35,493 0.02
Common dolphin.................. 0.0544 300.06 3,484 172,974 2.01
Harbor porpoise................. 0.02858 157.64 158 95,543 0.17
Gray seal \b\................... 0.09784 539.67 540 27,131 1.99
Harbor seal \b\................. .............. 539.67 540 75,834 0.71
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Increases from calculated values for sei whale, sperm whale, and Risso's dolphin are based on observed group
sizes during Vineyard Wind LLC's 2018-2020 surveys (Vineyard Wind 2018, 2020a, 2020b).
\b\ Roberts et al. (2018) only provides density estimates for seals without differentiating by species. Harbor
seals and gray seals are assumed to occur equally; therefore, density values were split evenly between the two
species, i.e., total estimated take for ``seals'' is 1,080.
The take numbers shown in Table 4 are those requested by Vineyard
Wind 1, with the exception of certain minor rounding differences.
Further, Vineyard Wind 1 requested take of the pilot whale guild,
rather than just long-finned pilot whale, but as described previously,
pilot whales in the project area are expected to be long-finned pilot
whales. Additionally, NMFS increased proposed Level B harassment take
of common dolphin to 3,484 takes. This take estimate reflects the daily
rate of approximately 18.1 common dolphin observations within the Level
B harassment zone per vessel day (3,332 dolphin observations over 184
days) during surveys under Vineyard Wind's previous IHA (85 FR 42357;
July 14, 2020), and an estimated 192.5 vessel days, as described above
(18.1 takes per day x 192.5 vessel days = 3,484 takes). Given the
overlap in project areas, NMFS expects that this estimate is more
appropriate than the density-based common dolphin take estimate
calculated by Vineyard Wind 1. For all other species, NMFS concurs with
the take numbers requested by Vineyard Wind 1 and proposes to authorize
them.
Proposed Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA,
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on
the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of the species or stock for taking for certain
subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS
regulations require applicants for 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:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat.
This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being
mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the
likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented
(probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as
planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability
implemented as planned); and
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant
implementation, which may consider such things as cost and impact on
operations.
Mitigation for Marine Mammals and Their Habitat
NMFS proposes the following mitigation measures be implemented
during Vineyard Wind 1's proposed marine site characterization surveys.
Marine Mammal Exclusion Zones and Harassment Zones
Marine mammal EZs would be established around the HRG survey
equipment and monitored by protected species observers (PSO):
<bullet> 500 m (1,640 ft) EZ for North Atlantic right whales during
use of
[[Page 30280]]
impulsive acoustic sources (e.g., boomers and/or sparkers) and certain
non-impulsive acoustic sources (nonparametric sub-bottom profilers);
and
<bullet> 100 m (328 ft) EZ for all other marine mammals, with
certain exceptions specified below, during use of impulsive acoustic
sources (e.g., boomers and/or sparkers).
If a marine mammal is detected approaching or entering the EZs
during the HRG survey, the vessel operator would adhere to the shutdown
procedures described below to minimize noise impacts on the animals.
These stated requirements will be included in the training to be
provided to the survey team.
Pre-Clearance of the Exclusion Zones
Vineyard Wind 1 would implement a 60-minute pre-clearance period of
the EZs prior to the initiation of ramp-up of HRG equipment. This pre-
clearance duration was proposed by Vineyard Wind 1. During this period,
the EZ will be monitored by the PSO(s), using the appropriate visual
technology. Ramp-up may not be initiated if any marine mammal(s) is
within its respective EZ. If a marine mammal is observed within an EZ
during the pre-clearance period, ramp-up may not begin until the
animal(s) has been observed exiting its respective EZ or until an
additional time period has elapsed with no further sighting (i.e., 15
minutes for small odontocetes and seals, 60 minutes for North Atlantic
right whale, and 30 minutes for all other species). Here and below, the
60-minute North Atlantic right whale clearance period was proposed by
Vineyard Wind 1.
Ramp-Up of Survey Equipment
When technically feasible, a ramp-up procedure would be used for
HRG survey equipment capable of adjusting energy levels at the start or
restart of survey activities. The ramp-up procedure would be used at
the beginning of HRG survey activities in order to provide additional
protection to marine mammals near the survey area by allowing them to
vacate the area prior to the commencement of survey equipment operation
at full power.
A ramp-up would begin with the powering up of the smallest acoustic
HRG equipment at its lowest practical power output appropriate for the
survey. When technically feasible, the power would then be gradually
turned up and other acoustic sources would be added.
Ramp-up activities will be delayed if a marine mammal(s) enters its
respective EZ. Ramp-up will continue if the animal has been observed
exiting its respective EZ or until an additional time period has
elapsed with no further sighting (i.e, 15 minutes for small odontocetes
and seals, 60 minutes for North Atlantic right whale, and 30 minutes
for all other species).
Activation of survey equipment through ramp-up procedures may not
occur when visual observation of the pre-clearance/exclusion zone is
not expected to be effective using the appropriate visual technology
(i.e., during inclement conditions such as heavy rain or fog).
Shutdown Procedures
An immediate shutdown of the HRG survey equipment would be required
if a marine mammal is sighted entering or within its respective EZ. The
vessel operator must comply immediately with any call for shutdown by
the PSO. Any disagreement between the PSO and vessel operator should be
discussed only after shutdown has occurred. Subsequent restart of the
survey equipment can be initiated if the animal has been observed
exiting its respective EZ or until an additional time period has
elapsed (i.e, 15 minutes for delphinid cetaceans and seals, 60 minutes
for North Atlantic Right Whale, and 30 minutes for all other species).
If a species for which authorization has not been granted, or, a
species for which authorization has been granted but the authorized
number of takes have been met, approaches or is observed within the
Level B harassment zone (178 m impulsive), shutdown would occur.
If the acoustic source is shut down for reasons other than
mitigation (e.g., mechanical difficulty) for less than 30 minutes, it
may be activated again without ramp-up if PSOs have maintained constant
observation and no detections of any marine mammal have occurred within
the respective EZs. If the acoustic source is shut down for a period
longer than 30 minutes and PSOs have maintained constant observation,
then pre-clearance and ramp-up procedures will be initiated as
described in the previous section.
The shutdown requirement would be waived for small delphinids of
the following genera: Delphinus, Lagenorhynchus (acutus only), 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 is not 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), PSOs must use best professional
judgement in making the decision to call for a shutdown. Additionally,
shutdown is required if a delphinid detected in the EZ belongs to a
genus other than those specified.
Shutdown, pre-start clearance, and ramp-up procedures are not
required during HRG survey operations using only non-impulsive sources
(e.g., USBL and parametric sub-bottom profilers) other than non-
parametric sub-bottom profilers (e.g., CHIRPs). Pre-clearance and ramp-
up, but not shutdown, are required when using non-impulsive, non-
parametric sub-bottom profilers.
Vessel Strike Avoidance
Vineyard Wind 1 will ensure that vessel operators and crew maintain
a vigilant watch for cetaceans and pinnipeds and slow down or stop
their vessels to avoid striking these species. Survey vessel crew
members responsible for navigation duties will receive site-specific
training on marine mammals sighting/reporting and vessel strike
avoidance measures. Vessel strike avoidance measures include the
following, except under circumstances when complying with these
requirements would put the safety of the vessel or crew at risk:
<bullet> Vessel operators and crews must maintain a vigilant watch
for all protected species and slow down, stop their vessel, or alter
course, as appropriate and regardless of vessel size, to avoid striking
any protected species. A visual observer aboard the vessel must monitor
a vessel strike avoidance zone based on the appropriate separation
distance around the vessel (distances stated below). Visual observers
monitoring the vessel strike avoidance zone may be third-party
observers (i.e., PSOs) or crew members, but crew members responsible
for these duties must be provided sufficient training to (1)
distinguish protected species from other phenomena and (2) broadly to
identify a marine mammal as a right whale, other whale (defined in this
context as sperm whales or baleen whales other than right whales), or
other marine mammal;
<bullet> All survey vessels, regardless of size, must observe a 10-
knot speed restriction in specific areas designated by NMFS for the
protection of North Atlantic right whales from vessel strikes including
seasonal management areas (SMAs) and dynamic management areas (DMAs)
when in effect;
<bullet> All vessels greater than or equal to 19.8 m in overall
length operating from November 1 through April 30 will
[[Page 30281]]
operate at speeds of 10 knots or less, except while transiting in
Nantucket Sound;
<bullet> All vessels must reduce their speed to 10 knots or less
when mother/calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages of cetaceans are
observed near a vessel;
<bullet> All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of
500 m from right whales. If a whale is observed but cannot be confirmed
as a species other than a right whale, the vessel operator must assume
that it is a right whale and take appropriate action;
<bullet> All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of
100 m from sperm whales and all other baleen whales;
<bullet> All vessels must, to the maximum extent practicable,
attempt to maintain a minimum separation distance of 50 m from all
other marine mammals, with an understanding that at times this may not
be possible (e.g., for animals that approach the vessel);
<bullet> When marine mammals are sighted while a vessel is
underway, the vessel shall take action as necessary to avoid violating
the relevant separation distance (e.g., attempt to remain parallel to
the animal's course, avoid excessive speed or abrupt changes in
direction until the animal has left the area). If marine mammals are
sighted within the relevant separation distance, the vessel must reduce
speed and shift the engine to neutral, not engaging the engines until
animals are clear of the area. This does not apply to any vessel towing
gear or any vessel that is navigationally constrained;
<bullet> These requirements do not apply in any case where
compliance would create an imminent and serious threat to a person or
vessel or to the extent that a vessel is restricted in its ability to
maneuver and, because of the restriction, cannot comply; and
<bullet> Members of the monitoring team will consult NMFS North
Atlantic right whale reporting system and Whale Alert, as able, for the
presence of North Atlantic right whales throughout survey operations,
and for the establishment of a DMA. If NMFS should establish a DMA in
the survey area during the survey, the vessels will abide by speed
restrictions in the DMA.
Passive Acoustic Monitoring
Vineyard Wind 1 has proposed to employ trained passive acoustic
monitoring (PAM) operators to monitor for acoustic detections of marine
mammals during nighttime HRG survey activities. PAM operators will
communicate nighttime detections to the lead PSO on duty who will
ensure the implementation of the appropriate mitigation measure. If PAM
is not used or is deemed non-functional at any time during the survey,
the survey will be shut down until PAM is restored. NMFS does not
concur that PAM is an effective technique for detecting mysticetes in
order to implement mitigation measures during HRG surveys, given
masking that would occur from vessel noise and flow noise. Therefore,
NMFS has not included it as a requirement in this proposed IHA.
Seasonal Restrictions
Vineyard Wind 1 will not operate more than three concurrent HRG
survey vessels, with HRG survey equipment operating below 200 kHz, from
January through April within the lease area or export cable corridor,
not including coastal and bay waters. Additionally, the monitoring team
will consult NMFS's North Atlantic right whale reporting systems for
any observed right whales throughout survey operations within or
adjacent to SMAs and/or DMAs, and will comply with 10 knot speed
restrictions in any DMA, as noted above.
Crew Training
Prior to initiation of survey work, all crew members will undergo
environmental training, a component of which will focus on the
procedures for sighting and protection of marine mammals.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, NMFS
has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures
provide the means effecting the least practicable impact on the
affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular
attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance.
Proposed Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the
monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for
authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the
necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased
knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on
populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present 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:
<bullet> Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution,
density).
<bullet> 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).
<bullet> Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative),
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors.
<bullet> How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1)
Long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2)
populations, species, or stocks.
<bullet> Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of
marine mammal habitat).
<bullet> Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Proposed Monitoring Measures
As described above, visual monitoring would be performed by
qualified and NMFS-approved PSOs, the resumes of whom will be provided
to NMFS for review and approval prior to the start of survey
activities. Vineyard Wind 1 would employ independent, dedicated,
trained PSOs, meaning that the PSOs must (1) be employed by a third-
party observer provider, (2) have no tasks other than to conduct
observational effort, collect data, and communicate with and instruct
relevant vessel crew with regard to the presence of marine mammals and
mitigation requirements (including brief alerts regarding maritime
hazards), and (3) have successfully completed an approved PSO training
course appropriate for their designated task.
The PSOs will be responsible for monitoring the waters surrounding
each survey vessel to the farthest extent permitted by sighting
conditions, including exclusion zones, during all HRG survey
operations. PSOs will visually monitor and identify marine mammals,
including those approaching or entering the established exclusion
[[Page 30282]]
zones during survey activities. It will be the responsibility of the
Lead PSO on duty to communicate the presence of marine mammals as well
as to communicate the action(s) that are necessary to ensure mitigation
and monitoring requirements are implemented as appropriate.
During all HRG survey operations (e.g., any day on which use of an
HRG source is planned to occur), a minimum of one PSO must be on duty
and conducting visual observations at all times on all active survey
vessels when HRG equipment operating at or below 200 kHz is operating,
including both daytime and nighttime operations. Visual monitoring
would begin no less than 60 minutes prior to initiation of HRG survey
equipment and would continue until 30 minutes after use of the acoustic
source ceases. Vineyard Wind 1 states that a requirement to employ at
least 2 PSOs during all nighttime survey operations is impracticable,
given the limited available berths on the survey vessels and additional
personnel required to conduct PAM.
Observations would take place from the highest available vantage
point on the survey vessel. In cases where more than one PSO is on duty
at a time PSOs would coordinate to ensure 360[deg] visual coverage
around the vessel from the most appropriate observation posts. PSOs may
be on watch for a maximum of four consecutive hours followed by a break
of at least two hours between watches and may conduct a maximum of 12
hours of observation per 24-hour period. In cases where multiple
vessels are surveying concurrently, any observations of marine mammals
would be communicated to PSOs on all survey vessels.
PSOs must be equipped with binoculars and have the ability to
estimate distance and bearing to detect marine mammals, particularly in
proximity to exclusion zones. Reticulated binoculars will also be
available to PSOs for use as appropriate based on conditions and
visibility to support the monitoring of marine mammals. PSOs must use
night-vision technology during nighttime surveys when the sources are
active. Position data would be recorded using hand-held or vessel GPS
units for each sighting.
During good conditions (e.g., daylight hours; Beaufort sea state
(BSS) 3 or less), to the maximum extent practicable, PSOs would conduct
observations when the acoustic source is not operating for comparison
of sighting rates and behavior with and without use of the acoustic
source. Any observations of marine mammals by crew members aboard any
vessel associated with the survey would be relayed to the PSO team.
Data on all PSO observations would be recorded based on standard PSO
collection requirements. This would include dates, times, and locations
of survey operations; dates and times of observations, location and
weather; details of marine mammal sightings (e.g., species, numbers,
behavior); and details of any observed marine mammal take that occurs
(e.g., noted behavioral disturbances).
Proposed Reporting Measures
Within 90 days after completion of survey activities, a final
technical report will be provided to NMFS that fully documents the
methods and monitoring protocols, summarizes the data recorded during
monitoring, summarizes the number of marine mammals estimated to have
been taken during survey activities (by species, when known),
summarizes the mitigation actions taken during surveys (including what
type of mitigation and the species and number of animals that prompted
the mitigation action, when known), and provides an interpretation of
the results and effectiveness of all mitigation and monitoring
measures. Any recommendations made by NMFS must be addressed in the
final report prior to acceptance by NMFS. PSO datasheets or raw
sightings data must also be provided with the draft and final
monitoring report. All draft and final monitoring reports must be
submitted to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3262601c7b66621c7f5d5c5b465d405b5c556057425d404641725c5d53531c555d44"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="edbdbfc3a4b9bdc3a082838499829f84838abf889d829f999ead83828c8cc38a829b">[email protected]</span></a> and <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d79e8387f993b6a1bea497b9b8b6b6f9b0b8a1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fdb4a9add3b99c8b948ebd93929c9cd39a928b">[email protected]</span></a>.
The report must contain at minimum, the following:
<bullet> PSO names and affiliations;
<bullet> Dates of departures and returns to port with port name;
<bullet> Dates and times (Greenwich Mean Time) of survey effort and
times corresponding with PSO effort;
<bullet> Vessel location (latitude/longitude) when survey effort
begins and ends; vessel location at beginning and end of visual PSO
duty shifts;
<bullet> Vessel heading and speed at beginning and end of visual
PSO duty shifts and upon any line change;
<bullet> Environmental conditions while on visual survey (at
beginning and end of PSO shift and whenever conditions change
significantly), including wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea state,
Beaufort wind force, swell height, weather conditions, cloud cover, sun
glare, and overall visibility to the horizon;
<bullet> Factors that may be contributing to impaired observations
during each PSO shift change or as needed as environmental conditions
change (e.g., vessel traffic, equipment malfunctions); and
<bullet> Survey activity information, such as type of survey
equipment in operation, acoustic source power output while in
operation, and any other notes of significance (i.e., pre-clearance
survey, ramp-up, shutdown, end of operations, etc.).
If a marine mammal is sighted, the following information should be
recorded:
<bullet> Watch status (sighting made by PSO on/off effort,
opportunistic, crew, alternate vessel/platform);
<bullet> PSO who sighted the animal;
<bullet> Time of sighting;
<bullet> Vessel location at time of sighting;
<bullet> Water depth;
<bullet> Direction of vessel's travel (compass direction);
<bullet> Direction of animal's travel relative to the vessel;
<bullet> Pace of the animal;
<bullet> Estimated distance to the animal and its heading relative
to vessel at initial sighting;
<bullet> Identification of the animal (e.g., genus/species, lowest
possible taxonomic level, or unidentified); also note the composition
of the group if there is a mix of species;
<bullet> Estimated number of animals (high/low/best);
<bullet> Estimated number of animals by cohort (adults, yearlings,
juveniles, calves, group composition, etc.);
<bullet> Description (as many distinguishing features as possible
of each individual seen, including length, shape, color, pattern, scars
or markings, shape and size of dorsal fin, shape of head, and blow
characteristics);
<bullet> Detailed behavior observations (e.g., number of blows,
number of surfaces, breaching, spyhopping, diving, feeding, traveling;
as explicit and detailed as possible; note any observed changes in
behavior);
<bullet> Animal's closest point of approach and/or closest distance
from the center point of the acoustic source; and
<bullet> Description of any actions implemented in response to the
sighting (e.g., delays, shutdown, ramp-up, speed or course alteration,
etc.) and time and location of the action.
If a North Atlantic right whale is observed at any time by PSOs or
personnel on any project vessels, during surveys or during vessel
transit, Vineyard Wind 1 must immediately report sighting information
to the NMFS North Atlantic Right Whale Sighting Advisory System: (866)
755-6622. North Atlantic right whale sightings in any location may also
be reported to the U.S. Coast Guard via channel 16.
In the event that personnel involved in the survey activities
covered by the
[[Page 30283]]
authorization discover an injured or dead marine mammal, Vineyard Wind
1 must report the incident to the NMFS Office of Protected Resources
(OPR) and the NMFS New England/Mid-Atlantic Stranding Coordinator as
soon as feasible. The report must include the following information:
<bullet> Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first
discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);
<bullet> Species identification (if known) or description of the
animal(s) involved;
<bullet> Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if
the animal is dead);
<bullet> Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
<bullet> If available, photographs or video footage of the
animal(s); and
<bullet> General circumstances under which the animal was
discovered.
In the event of a vessel strike of a marine mammal by any vessel
involved in the activities covered by the authorization, Vineyard Wind
1 must report the incident to the NMFS OPR and the NMFS New England/
Mid-Atlantic Stranding Coordinator as soon as feasible. The report must
include the following information:
<bullet> Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the
incident;
<bullet> Species identification (if known) or description of the
animal(s) involved;
<bullet> Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
<bullet> Vessel's course/heading and what operations were being
conducted (if applicable);
<bullet> Status of all sound sources in use;
<bullet> 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;
<bullet> Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction,
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, visibility) immediately preceding the
strike;
<bullet> Estimated size and length of animal that was struck;
<bullet> Description of the behavior of the marine mammal
immediately preceding and following the strike;
<bullet> If available, description of the presence and behavior of
any other marine mammals immediately preceding the strike;
<bullet> 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
<bullet> To the extent practicable, photographs or video footage of
the animal(s).
Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough
information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to
considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be
``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the
likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context
of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location,
migration), as well as effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness
of the mitigation. We also assess the number, intensity, and context of
estimated takes by evaluating this information relative to population
status. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's 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).
To avoid repetition, our analysis applies to all the species listed
in Table 2, given that NMFS expects the anticipated effects of the
proposed survey to be similar in nature. Where there are meaningful
differences between species or stocks--as is the case of the North
Atlantic right whale--they are included as separate subsections below.
NMFS does not anticipate that serious injury or mortality would occur
as a result from HRG surveys, even in the absence of mitigation, and no
serious injury or mortality is proposed to be authorized. As discussed
in the Potential Effects of Specified Activity on Marine Mammals and
Their Habitat section, non-auditory physical effects and vessel strike
are not expected to occur. NMFS expects that all potential takes would
be in the form of short-term Level B behavioral harassment in the form
of temporary avoidance of the area or decreased foraging (if such
activity was occurring), reactions that are considered to be of low
severity and with no lasting biological consequences (e.g., Southall et
al., 2007). Even repeated Level B harassment of some small subset of an
overall stock is unlikely to result in any significant realized
decrease in viability for the affected individuals, and thus would not
result in any adverse impact to the stock as a whole. As described
above, Level A harassment is not expected to occur given the nature of
the operations, the estimated size of the Level A harassment zones, and
the required shutdown zones for certain activities.
In addition to being temporary, the maximum expected harassment
zone around a survey vessel is 178 m. Although this distance is assumed
for all survey activity in estimating take numbers proposed for
authorization and evaluated here, in reality much of the survey
activity would involve use of acoustic sources with smaller acoustic
harassment zones, producing expected effects of particularly low
severity. Therefore, the ensonified area surrounding each vessel is
relatively small compared to the overall distribution of the animals in
the area and their use of the habitat. Feeding behavior is not likely
to be significantly impacted as prey species are mobile and are broadly
distributed throughout the survey area; therefore, marine mammals that
may be temporarily displaced during survey activities are expected to
be able to resume foraging once they have moved away from areas with
disturbing levels of underwater noise. Because of the temporary nature
of the disturbance and the availability of similar habitat and
resources in the surrounding area, the impacts to marine mammals and
the food sources that they utilize are not expected to cause
significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or
their populations.
There are no rookeries, mating or calving grounds known to be
biologically important to marine mammals within the proposed survey
area. (Biologically important areas for feeding and migration are
discussed below.) There is no designated critical habitat for any ESA-
listed marine mammals in the proposed survey area.
North Atlantic Right Whales
The status of the North Atlantic right whale population is of
heightened concern and, therefore, merits additional analysis. As noted
previously, elevated North Atlantic right whale mortalities began in
June 2017 and there is an active UME. Overall, preliminary findings
support human interactions, specifically vessel strikes
[[Page 30284]]
and entanglements, as the cause of death for the majority of right
whales.
As noted previously, the proposed project area overlaps a migratory
corridor BIA for North Atlantic right whales (March-April and November-
December). In addition to the migratory BIA, Oleson et al. (2020)
identified an area south of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket, referred
to as ``South of the Islands,'' as a newer, year-round, core North
Atlantic right whale foraging habitat. The South of the Islands area
overlaps with most of Vineyard Wind 1's project area.
As stated previously, the largest Level B harassment isopleth for
Vineyard Wind 1's survey is 178 m. Therefore, even if Vineyard Wind 1
operates multiple survey vessels concurrently in this area, the total
area ensonified above the Level B harassment threshold would be minimal
in comparison with the remaining South of the Islands feeding habitat,
and habitat within the migratory corridor BIA available to North
Atlantic right whales. Additionally, NMFS is also requiring Vineyard
Wind 1 to limit the number of survey vessels operating concurrently in
the lease area or export cable corridor (not including coastal and bay
waters) to no more than three from January through April, when North
Atlantic right whale densities are the highest. Given the factors
discussed above, and the temporary nature of the surveys, right whale
migration is not expected to be impacted by the proposed survey, and
feeding is not expected to be affected a degree that would affect North
Atlantic right whale foraging success in the South of the Islands
important feeding area.
No ship strike is expected to occur during Vineyard Wind 1's
proposed activities, and required vessel strike avoidance measures will
decrease risk of ship strike, including during migration and feeding.
HRG survey operations are required to maintain a 500 m EZ and shutdown
if a North Atlantic right whale is sighted at or within the EZ.
Regarding take by Level B harassment, the 500 m shutdown zone for right
whales is conservative, considering the Level B harassment isopleth for
the most impactful acoustic source (i.e., boomer) is estimated to be
178 m. Therefore, this EZ minimizes the potential for behavioral
harassment of this species. Additionally, as noted previously, Level A
harassment take is not expected for any species, including North
Atlantic right whales, given the small PTS zones associated with HRG
equipment types proposed for use.
The Level B harassment takes of North Atlantic right whale proposed
for authorization are not expected to exacerbate or compound upon the
ongoing UME. The limited North Atlantic right whale Level B harassment
takes proposed for authorization are expected to be of a short
duration, and given the number of estimated takes, repeated exposures
of the same individual are not expected. Therefore, the takes would not
be expected to impact individual fitness or annual rates of recruitment
or survival. Further, given the relatively small size of the ensonified
area during surveys, it is unlikely that North Atlantic right whale
prey availability would be adversely affected by HRG survey operations.
Biologically Important Area for Fin Whales
The proposed project area overlaps with a feeding BIA for fin
whales (March-October). The fin whale feeding BIA is large (2,933
km\2\), and the acoustic footprint of the proposed survey is
sufficiently small such that feeding opportunities for these whales
would not be reduced appreciably. Any fin whales temporarily displaced
from the proposed survey 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
habitat. In addition, any displacement of fin whales from the BIA or
interruption of foraging bouts would be expected to be temporary in
nature. Therefore, we do not expect fin whales feeding within the
feeding BIAs to be impacted by the proposed survey to an extent that
would affect fitness or reproduction.
Other Marine Mammal Species With Active UMEs
As noted previously, there are several active UMEs occurring in the
vicinity of Vineyard Wind 1's proposed survey area. Elevated humpback
whale mortalities have occurred along the Atlantic coast from Maine
through Florida since January 2016. Of the cases examined,
approximately half had evidence of human interaction (ship strike or
entanglement). Despite the UME, the relevant population of humpback
whales (the West Indies breeding population, or DPS) remains stable at
approximately 12,000 individuals, and the Level B harassment takes of
humpback whale proposed for authorization are not expected to
exacerbate or compound the ongoing UME.
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. The likely
population abundance is greater than 20,000 whales, and the Level B
harassment takes of minke whale proposed for authorization are not
expected to exacerbate or compound upon the ongoing UME.
Elevated numbers of harbor seal and gray seal mortalities were
first observed in July 2018 and have occurred across Maine, New
Hampshire, and Massachusetts. Based on tests conducted so far, the main
pathogen found in the seals is phocine distemper virus, although
additional testing to identify other factors that may be involved in
this UME are underway. The Level B harassment takes of harbor seal and
gray seal proposed for authorization are not expected to exacerbate or
compound upon the ongoing UME. For harbor seals, the population
abundance is over 75,000 and annual M/SI (350) is well below PBR
(2,006) (Hayes et al., 2020). The population abundance for gray seals
in the United States is over 27,000, with an estimated 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).
The required mitigation measures are expected to reduce the number
and/or severity of proposed takes for all species listed in Table 2,
including those with active UMEs, to the level of least practicable
adverse impact. In particular they would provide animals the
opportunity to move away from the sound source throughout the survey
area before HRG survey equipment reaches full energy, thus preventing
them from being exposed to sound levels that have the potential to
cause injury (Level A harassment) or more severe Level B harassment. No
Level A harassment is anticipated, even in the absence of mitigation
measures, or proposed for authorization.
NMFS expects that takes would be in the form of short-term Level B
behavioral harassment by way of brief startling reactions and/or
temporary vacating of the area, or decreased foraging (if such activity
was occurring)--reactions that (at the scale and intensity anticipated
here) are considered to be of low severity, with no lasting biological
consequences. Since both the sources and marine mammals are mobile,
animals would only be exposed briefly to a small ensonified area that
might result in take. Additionally, required mitigation measures would
further reduce exposure to sound that could result in more severe
behavioral harassment.
[[Page 30285]]
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily
support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from
this activity are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock
through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
<bullet> No mortality or serious injury is anticipated or proposed
for authorization;
<bullet> No Level A harassment (PTS) is anticipated, even in the
absence of mitigation measures, or proposed for authorization;
<bullet> Foraging success is not likely to be significantly
impacted as effects on species that serve as prey species for marine
mammals from the survey are expected to be minimal;
<bullet> The availability of alternate areas of similar habitat
value for marine mammals to temporarily vacate the survey area during
the planned survey to avoid exposure to sounds from the activity;
<bullet> Take is anticipated to be primarily Level B behavioral
harassment consisting of brief startling reactions and/or temporary
avoidance of the survey area;
<bullet> While the survey area overlaps areas noted as a migratory
BIA for North Atlantic right whales, the activities would occur in such
a comparatively small area such that any avoidance of the survey area
due to activities would not affect migration. In addition, mitigation
measures to shutdown at 500 m to minimize potential for Level B
behavioral harassment would limit any take of the species;
<bullet> Similarly, due to the relatively small footprint of the
survey activities in relation to the size of the fin whale feeding BIA
and South of the Islands North Atlantic right whale feeding area, the
survey activities would not affect foraging success of these species;
and
<bullet> The proposed mitigation measures, including visual
monitoring and shutdowns, are expected to minimize potential impacts to
marine mammals.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and
mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine
mammal take from Vineyard Wind 1's proposed HRG survey activities will
have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or
stocks.
Small Numbers
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be
authorized under sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for
specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA
does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated
numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to
the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or
stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to
small numbers of marine mammals. When the predicted number of
individuals to be taken is fewer than one third of the species or stock
abundance, the take is considered to be of small numbers. Additionally,
other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as
the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
Take of all species or stocks is below one third of the estimated
stock abundance (in fact, take of individuals is less than 3 percent of
the abundance for all affected stocks) as shown in Table 4. Based on
the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity (including the
proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take
of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small numbers of
marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size of the
affected species or stocks.
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine
mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has
determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would
not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such
species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Endangered Species Act
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any
action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated
critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs,
NMFS consults internally whenever we propose to authorize take for
endangered or threatened species, in this case with NMFS Greater
Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO).
NMFS Office of Protected Resources (OPR) is proposing to authorize
take of fin whale, North Atlantic right whale, sei whale, and sperm
whale, which are listed under the ESA. OPR will consult with GARFO for
the issuance of this IHA. NMFS will conclude the ESA consultation prior
to reaching a determination regarding the proposed issuance of the
authorization.
Proposed Authorization
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to
issue an IHA to Vineyard Wind 1 for conducting marine site
characterization surveys off of Massachusetts and Rhode Island for one
year from the date of issuance, provided the previously mentioned
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. A
draft of the proposed IHA can be found at <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-other-energy-activities-renewable">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-other-energy-activities-renewable</a>.
Request for Public Comments
We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and
any other aspect of this notice of proposed IHA for the proposed marine
site characterization surveys. We also request at this time comment on
the potential Renewal of this proposed IHA as described in the
paragraph below. Please include with your comments any supporting data
or literature citations to help inform decisions on the request for
this IHA or a subsequent Renewal IHA.
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time, one-year
Renewal IHA following notice to the public providing an additional 15
days for public comments when (1) up to another year of identical or
nearly identical, or nearly identical, activities as described in the
Description of Proposed Activities section of this notice is planned or
(2) the activities as described in the Description of Proposed
Activities section of this notice would not be completed by the time
the IHA expires and a Renewal would allow for completion of the
activities beyond that described in the Dates and Duration section of
this notice, provided all of the following conditions are met:
<bullet> A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days
prior to the needed Renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the
Renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond one year from
expiration of the initial IHA);
<bullet> The request for renewal must include the following:
(1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the
requested Renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under
the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so
minor (e.g., reduction in pile size) that the changes do not affect the
previous analyses,
[[Page 30286]]
mitigation and monitoring requirements, or take estimates (with the
exception of reducing the type or amount of take); and
(2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the
required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the
monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not
previously analyzed or authorized.
Upon review of the request for Renewal, the status of the affected
species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines
that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the
mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and
appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.
Dated: June 1, 2021.
Catherine Marzin,
Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-11823 Filed 6-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on June 7, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.