Notice2022-00041
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Construction of the South Fork Offshore Wind Project
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
January 6, 2022
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Abstract
In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to South Fork Wind, LLC (South Fork Wind) to take, by Level A harassment and Level B harassment, marine mammals during construction of a commercial wind energy project offshore New York, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 4 (Thursday, January 6, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 4 (Thursday, January 6, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 806-866]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00041]
[[Page 805]]
Vol. 87
Thursday,
No. 4
January 6, 2022
Part II
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking
Marine Mammals Incidental to Construction of the South Fork Offshore
Wind Project; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2022 /
Notices
[[Page 806]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[RTID 0648-XB435]
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Construction of the South Fork
Offshore Wind Project
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given
that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to
South Fork Wind, LLC (South Fork Wind) to take, by Level A harassment
and Level B harassment, marine mammals during construction of a
commercial wind energy project offshore New York, Rhode Island, and
Massachusetts.
DATES: This IHA is valid from November 15, 2022 through November 14,
2023.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carter Esch, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8421. 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="http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act">www.fisheries.noaa.gov/permit/incidental-take-authorizations-under-marine-mammal-protection-act</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 (ITA) 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 such 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 such takings are set forth.
The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above
are included in the relevant sections below.
Summary of Request
On March 15, 2019, NMFS received a request from South Fork Wind for
an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to construction of an wind
energy project offshore of New York, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts.
Following a delay of the project, South Fork Wind submitted an updated
version of the application on June 3, 2020, and then a revised version
September 14, 2020. The application was deemed adequate and complete on
September 15, 2020. However, on December 15, 2020, South Fork Wind
submitted a subsequent application due to changes to the project scope.
NMFS deemed the application adequate and complete on December 16, 2020.
A notice of the proposed IHA was published in the Federal Register on
February 5, 2021 (86 FR 8490). In response to South Fork Wind's request
and in consideration of public comments, NMFS has authorized the taking
of 15 species of marine mammals by harassment. Neither South Fork Wind
nor NMFS expects serious injury or mortality to result from this
activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
Description of Activity
South Fork Wind plans to construct a 90-180 megawatt (MW)
commercial offshore wind energy project in the South Fork Wind Farm
(SFWF) Lease Area OCS-A 0517 (SFWF; Figure 1 here, and see Figure 1 in
the IHA application for more detail), southeast of Rhode Island within
the Rhode Island-Massachusetts Wind Energy Area (RI/MA WEA), including
an export cable corridor connecting the SFWF to one of two landing
locations on Long Island, New York. The project would consist of the
installation of up to 15 offshore wind turbine generators (WTGs) and
one offshore substation (OSS), an onshore substation, offshore and
onshore cabling, and onshore operations and maintenance facilities
(Figure 1). Each WTG would interconnect with the OSS via an inter-array
submarine cable system. The offshore export cable transmission system
would connect the OSS to an existing mainland electric grid in East
Hampton, New York. A temporary sheet pile cofferdam may be installed
where the offshore export cable conduit exits from the seabed to
contain drilling returns and prevent the excavated sediments from
silting back into the Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD) exit pit. The
final location of the cofferdam will be dependent upon the selected
cable landing site. Alternatively, a temporary casing pipe may be used
in place of the cofferdam at the same location.
Take of marine mammals may occur incidental to the construction of
the project due to in-water noise exposure resulting from (1) impact
pile-driving activities associated with installation of WTG and OSS
foundations, (2) vibratory pile driving associated with the
installation and removal of a temporary cofferdam nearshore, or impact
hammering and vibratory pile driving associated with installation of a
casing pipe, and (3) surveys, using high-resolution geophysical (HRG)
equipment, of the inter-array cable and export cable construction area
(construction surveys).
South Fork Wind plans to install the WTGs and OSS in the 55.4
square kilometer (km\2\) (13,700 acre) Lease Area (Figure 1). At its
nearest point, the SFWF would be approximately 30 kilometers (km) (19
miles (mi)) southeast of Block Island, Rhode Island, and 56 km (35 mi)
east of Montauk Point, New York. The South Fork Wind export cable
routes (SFEC) would connect SFWF to one of two landing locations on
Long Island, New York, where a temporary cofferdam or casing pipe may
be installed where the SFEC exits the seabed. Water depths in the SFWF
and SFEC range from approximately 33-90 meters (m) (108-295 feet (ft)).
[[Page 807]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06JA22.002
Since publication of the proposed IHA, South Fork Wind communicated
to NMFS that construction of the project, beginning with the nearshore
cofferdam or casing pipe, is now planned to commence in November 2022,
rather than between April and May 2022 (as indicated in the proposed
IHA). Either the temporary cofferdam or casing pile and support piles
may be installed for the sea-to-shore cable connection and, if
required, would likely be installed between November 2022 and May 2023
(removal could occur anytime through the expiration of the IHA). If
used, installation and removal of the cofferdam are each expected to
take 18 hours of vibratory pile driving. Alternatively, installation
and removal of the casing pipe and support piles are each expected to
take approximately four hours.
Up to 16 days of impact pile driving to install the WTGs and OSS
may occur on any day between May 1, 2023 and November 14, 2023. The
monopiles supporting the WTGs and OSS (the maximum number would be 16
to correspond to 1 OSS and the maximum of 15 WTGs) will be installed
between May 1, 2023, and November 14, 2023. For monopile installation,
a typical pile-driving operation is expected to take approximately 2-4
hours to achieve the target penetration depth. No more than one
monopile could potentially be driven into the seabed per day.
Accordingly, concurrent driving (i.e., the driving of more than one
pile at the same time) would not occur. Up to 60 days of construction
surveys may be conducted throughout the 12-month period of
effectiveness of the IHA.
Cable Laying
Cable burial operations will occur both in the SFWF for the inter-
array cables connecting the WTGs to the OSS and in the SFEC for the
cables carrying power from the OSS to land. Inter-array cables will
connect the 15 WTGs to the OSS. A single offshore export cable will
connect the OSS to the shore. The offshore export and inter-array
cables will be buried in the seabed at a target depth of up to 1.2-2.8
m (4-6 ft). Installation of the offshore export cable is anticipated to
take approximately 2 months. The estimated installation time for the
inter-array cables is approximately 4 months. All cable burial
operations will follow installation of the monopile foundations, as the
foundations must be in place to provide connection points for the
export cable and inter-array cables. Installation days are not
continuous and do not include equipment preparation or downtime that
may result from weather or maintenance. Equipment preparation is not
considered a source of marine mammal disturbance or harassment.
Some dredging may be required prior to cable laying due to the
presence of sand waves. The upper portions of sand waves may be removed
via mechanical or hydraulic means in order to achieve the proper burial
depth below the stable sea bottom. The majority of the export and
inter-array cable is expected to be installed using simultaneous lay
and bury via jet plowing. Jet plowing entails the use of an adjustable
blade, or plow, which rests on the seafloor and is towed by a surface
vessel. The plow creates a narrow trench at the desired depth, while
water jets fluidize the sediment within the trench. The cable is then
fed through the plow and is laid into the trench as it moves forward.
The fluidized sediments then settle back down into the trench and bury
the cable. The majority of the inter-array
[[Page 808]]
cable is also expected to be installed via jet plowing. Other methods,
such as mechanical plowing or trenching, may be needed in areas of
coarser or more consolidated sediment, rocky bottom, or other difficult
conditions in order to ensure a proper burial depth. The jet plowing
tool may be based from a seafloor tractor or a sled deployed from a
vessel. A mechanical plow may also deployed from a vessel. More
information on cable laying associated with the project is provided in
South Fork Wind's Construction and Operations Plan (SFWF COP; South
Fork Wind, 2020). As the only potential impacts from these activities
are sediment suspension and very low noise emissions, the potential for
take of marine mammals to result from these activities is so low as to
be discountable and South Fork Wind did not request, and NMFS does not
authorize, any take associated with cable laying. Therefore, cable
laying activities are not discussed further in this document.
Construction-Related Vessel Activity
During construction of the project, South Fork Wind anticipates
that an average of approximately 5-10 vessels will operate during a
typical work day in the SFWF and along the SFEC. Many of these vessels
will remain in the SFWF or SFEC for days or weeks at a time,
potentially making only infrequent trips to port for bunkering and
provisioning, as needed. Although South Fork Wind estimates that 20
one-way transits between the SFWF and port(s) will be required per
month, the actual number of vessels involved in the project at one time
will be highly dependent on the project's final schedule, the final
design of the project's components, and the logistics needed to ensure
compliance with the Jones Act, a Federal law that regulates maritime
commerce in the United States.
Existing vessel traffic in the vicinity of the project area
southeast of Rhode Island is relatively high and marine mammals in the
area are expected to be somewhat habituated to vessel noise. In
addition, construction vessels would be stationary on site for
significant periods and the large vessels would travel to and from the
site at relatively low speeds. Project-related vessels would be
required to adhere to several mitigation measures designed to reduce
the potential for marine mammals to be struck by vessels associated
with the project; these measures are described further below (see
Mitigation). As part of various construction-related activities,
including cable laying and construction material delivery, dynamic
positioning thrusters may be utilized to hold vessels in position or
move slowly. Sound produced through use of dynamic positioning
thrusters is similar to that produced by transiting vessels, and
dynamic positioning thrusters are typically operated either in a
similarly predictable manner or used for short durations around
stationary activities. Sound produced by dynamic positioning thrusters
would be preceded by, and associated with, sound from ongoing vessel
noise and would be similar in nature; thus, any marine mammals in the
vicinity of the activity would be aware of the vessel's presence,
further reducing the potential for startle or flight responses on the
part of marine mammals. Construction-related vessel activity, including
the use of dynamic positioning thrusters, is not expected to result in
take of marine mammals and South Fork Wind did not request, and NMFS
does not authorize, any takes associated with construction-related
vessel activity. Accordingly, these activities are not discussed
further in this document.
Installation of WTGs and OSS
A monopile, the only type of foundation that will be installed, is
a single, hollow cylinder fabricated from steel that is secured in the
seabed. The monopiles installed would support up to 15 WTGs and single
OSS, and would be 11 m (36 ft) in diameter, up to 95 m (312 ft) in
length and driven to a maximum penetration depth of 50 m (164 ft). A
schematic diagram showing potential heights and dimensions of the
various components of a monopile foundation are shown in Figure 3.1-2
of the SFWF COP (South Fork Wind, 2020), available online at: <a href="https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/south-fork">https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/south-fork</a>.
All monopiles would be installed with a hydraulic impact hammer.
Impact pile driving entails the use of a hammer that utilizes a rising
and falling piston to repeatedly strike a pile and drive it into the
ground. Using a crane, the installation vessel would upend the
monopile, place it in the gripper frame, and then lower the monopile to
the seafloor. The gripper frame would stabilize the monopile's vertical
alignment before and during piling. Once the monopile is lowered to the
seafloor, the crane hook would be released and the hydraulic hammer
would be picked up and placed on top of the monopile. A temporary steel
cap called a helmet would be placed on top of the pile to minimize
damage to the head during impact driving. The largest hammer South Fork
Wind expects to use for driving monopiles produces up to 4,000
kilojoules (kJ) of energy (however, required energy may ultimately be
far less than 4,000 kJ). As described in the Mitigation section below,
South Fork Wind would utilize a single big bubble curtain (BBC) paired
with an additional noise mitigation device, or a double big bubble
curtain (dBBC) during all impact pile driving of monopiles.
The intensity (i.e., hammer energy level) of impact pile driving of
monopiles would be gradually increased based on the resistance from the
sediments that is experienced. The strike rate for the monopile
foundations is estimated to be 36 strikes per minute. Two impact pile-
driving scenarios for monopile installation were considered for SFWF
(Table 1). The standard impact pile-driving scenario would require an
estimated 4,500 strikes for the pile to reach the target penetration
depth, with an average installation time of 140 minutes for one pile.
In the event that a pile location presents denser substrate conditions
and requires more strikes to reach the target penetration depth, a
difficult-to-drive pile scenario was considered, for which 8,000
strikes and approximately 250 minutes would be required to install one
pile.
Installation and Removal of Temporary Cofferdam
Before cable-laying HDD begins, a temporary cofferdam could be
installed at the endpoint of the HDD starting point, where the SFEC
conduit exits from the seabed. The cofferdam would be less than 600 m
(1,969 ft) offshore from the mean high water line (MHWL), in 7.6 to
12.2 m (25 to 40 ft) water depth, depending on the final siting point.
The cofferdam, up to 22.9 m (75 ft) by 7.7 m (25 ft), would serve as
containment for the drilling returns during the HDD installation to
keep the excavation free of debris and silt. The cofferdam may be
installed as either a sheet pile structure driven into the seabed or a
gravity cell structure placed on the seafloor using ballast weight.
Installation of a gravity cell cofferdam would not result in incidental
take of marine mammals and is not analyzed further in this document.
Installation of the 19.5 m (64 ft) long, 0.95 centimeters (cm) (0.375
inches (in)) thick Z-type sheet pile cofferdam, and drilling support,
would be conducted from an offshore barge anchored near the cofferdam.
If the potential cofferdam is installed (using sheet piles), a
vibratory hammer would be used to drive the sidewalls and endwalls into
the seabed to a depth of approximately 1.8 m (6 ft); sections of the
shoreside endwall would be
[[Page 809]]
driven to a depth of up to 9 m (30 ft) to facilitate the HDD entering
underneath the endwall. Cofferdam removal would consist of pile removal
using a vibratory hammer, after HDD operations are complete and the
conduit is installed (see Table 1 for a summary of potential vibratory
pile-driving activity).
Vibratory hammering is accomplished by rapidly alternating (~250
Hertz (Hz)) forces to the pile. A system of counter-rotating eccentric
weights powered by hydraulic motors is designed such that horizontal
vibrations cancel out, while vertical vibrations are transmitted into
the pile. The vibrations produced cause liquefaction of the substrate
surrounding the pile, enabling the pile to be driven into the ground
using the weight of the pile plus the impact hammer. If the gravity
cell installation technique is not practicable, South Fork Wind
anticipates that any vibratory pile driving of sheet piles would occur
for a total of 36 hours (18 hours for installation, 18 hours for
removal).
The source levels and source characteristics associated with
vibratory pile driving would generally be similar to those produced
through other concurrent use of South Fork Wind's vessels and related
construction equipment. Any elevated noise levels produced through
vibratory pile driving are expected to be of relatively short duration,
and with low source level values. However, it is possible that if
marine mammals are exposed to sound from vibratory pile driving, they
may alert to the sound and potentially exhibit a behavioral response
that rises to the level of take.
Installation of Casing Pipe
The temporary casing pipe could be installed at the currently
planned exit pit location. The casing pipe would be driven into the
seabed at the approach angle of the HDD, and would extend from the
seabed up through the water column to the sea surface where a work
vessel would be able to access the open end of the pipe. The casing
pipe may require that temporary support piles be installed to ensure
pipe stability. Temporary support piles would consist of up to 8 steel
sheet piles temporarily driven into the seabed using a vibratory pile
driver. It is anticipated that the casing pipe would consist of a steel
pipe pile, approximately 48- to 60-inch diameter and approximately 300
feet in length; installation would likely be accomplished using a small
pneumatic impact hammer (e.g., Grundoram Taurus or similar), to drive
the pipe in the seabed. It is estimated that the hammer operates at up
to 18.6 kJ and that impact hammering of the casing pipe would take
approximately two hours complete. Installation of the steel sheet
support piles would take an additional two hours. Once the HDD
operation has been completed, the casing pipe and support piles would
be removed over a similar timeframe and using a similar methodology to
that used for installation. As mentioned previously, acoustic impacts
associated with installation of the casing pipe (and support piles, if
needed) are expected to be less than or equal to, and over a much
shorter duration than, impacts from installation of a cofferdam. South
Fork Wind will determine whether a cofferdam or casing pipe will be
installed, if required. However, installation of a cofferdam was
carried forward in the analyses here, given the large size of the Level
B harassment zone and the longer duration of the activity.
Table 1--Summary of Pile-driving Activities for SFWF and SFEC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Number of
Pile-driving method Pile size piles Strikes/pile Duration/pile piling days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact...................... 11 m monopile.. 16 Standard pile: Standard pile: Standard
4,500. 140 minutes. scenario: 30.
Difficult pile: Difficult pile: Maximum
8,000. 250 minutes. scenario: 20.
Vibratory \1\............... 19.5 m long/ \2\ 80 ............... 18 hours....... Installation: 1-
0.95 cm thick 18 hours....... 3.
sheet pile. Removal: 1-3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ South Fork Wind would install either the sheet pile cofferdam or casing pipe, not both. Because vibratory
pile driving associated with cofferdam installation/removal results in the largest harassment zones and
requires the most amount of time, this activity was carried forward in our analysis (see Estimated Take
section).
\2\ Approximation; the actual number will be based on final engineering design.
Construction Surveys
The construction surveys would be supported by up to four vessels
working concurrently throughout the project area. Construction surveys
would occur throughout the 12-month period of effectiveness for the
IHA. HRG survey equipment would either be deployed from remotely
operated vehicles (ROVs) or mounted to or towed behind the survey
vessel at a typical survey speed of approximately 4.0 knots (kts) (7.4
km) per hour.
Table 2 identifies all the representative HRG survey equipment that
operates below 180 kilohertz (kHz) (i.e., at frequencies that are
audible and have the potential to disturb marine mammals) that may be
used in support of planned construction survey activities, and are
likely to be detected by marine mammals given the source level,
frequency, and beamwidth of the equipment. For discussion of acoustic
terminology, please see the Potential Effects of Specified Activities
on Marine Mammals and their Habitat and Estimated Take sections in the
notice of the proposed IHA (86 FR 8490; February 5, 2021).
Table 2--Summary Of Representative HRG Survey Equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Pulse
HRG equipment category Specific HRG frequency Source level Source level Beamwidth Typical pulse repetition
equipment range (kHz) (dB rms) (dB 0-peak) (degrees) duration (ms) rate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shallow Sub-bottom Profilers...... ET 216 (2000DS or 2-16; 2-8 195 - 24 20 6
3200 top unit).
ET 424.............. 4-24 176 - 71 3.4 2
ET 512.............. 0.7-12 179 - 80 9 8
GeoPulse 5430A...... 2-17 196 - 55 50 10
[[Page 810]]
TB Chirp III--TTV 2-7 197 - 100 60 15
170.
Medium Sub-bottom Profilers....... AA, Dura-spark UHD 0.3-1.2 203 211 Omni 1.1 4
(400 tips, 500
J).\1\
AA, Dura-spark UHD 0.3-1.2 203 211 Omni 1.1 4
(400 + 400).\1\
GeoMarine, Geo- 0.4-5 203 211 Omni 1.1 2
Source or similar
dual 400 tip
sparker (<=800
J).\1\
GeoMarine Geo-Source 0.3-1.2 203 211 Omni 1.1 4
200 tip light
weight sparker (400
J).\1\
GeoMarine Geo-Source 0.3-1.2 203 211 Omni 1.1 4
200-400 tip
freshwater sparker
(400 J).\1\
AA, triple plate 0.1-5 205 211 80 0.6 4
S[dash]Boom (700-
1,000 J).\2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- = not applicable; NR = not reported; AA = Applied Acoustics; dB = decibel; ET = EdgeTech; J = joule; Omni = omnidirectional source.
\1\ The Dura-spark measurements and specifications provided in Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) were used for all sparker systems proposed for the survey.
The data provided in Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) represent the most applicable data for similar sparker systems with comparable operating methods
and settings when manufacturer or other reliable measurements are not available.
\2\ Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) provide S-Boom measurements using two different power sources (CSP-D700 and CSP-N). The CSP-D700 power source was
used in the 700 J measurements but not in the 1,000 J measurements. The CSP-N source was measured for both 700 J and 1,000 J operations but resulted
in a lower SL; therefore, the single maximum SL value was used for both operational levels of the S-Boom.
A detailed description of South Fork Wind's planned construction
activities is provided in the notice of the proposed IHA (86 FR 8490;
February 5, 2021). Since that time, South Fork Wind has not proposed
any changes to its construction activities through the IHA process,
other than the casing pipe alternative to installation of a temporary
cofferdam at the exit pit location of the export cable (as described
above and below). Therefore, a detailed description is not provided
here. Please refer to that notice for the detailed description of the
specified activity. Mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are
described in detail later in this document (please see Mitigation and
Monitoring and Reporting below). Modifications and additions to the
mitigation and monitoring measures have occurred since the proposed IHA
was published. All changes since the proposed IHA have been summarized
in the Changes from Proposed IHA to Final IHA section and described in
detail in their respective sections and/or the comment responses below.
Comments and Responses
Comment 1: The Marine Mammal Commission (Commission) claims that
ranges to the Level B harassment isopleth for impact pile driving of
11-m monopiles are underestimated by JASCO (the source of the modeling
used for NMFS' analysis) for the South Fork Wind project because,
primarily, Lippert et al. (2016) indicated that JASCO's time-domain
finite difference pile-driving source model (TDFD PDSM) predicted lower
sound exposure levels (SELs) in the far-field region than various
finite-element (FE) models. The Commission notes that while the exact
source level difference between the TDFD PDSM and FE models was not
reported, Lippert et al. (2016) indicated that the SELs predicted by
JASCO's TDFD PDSM were approximately 2.5 dB lower than the SELs
predicted by the FE models at 750-m distance from the source. To help
resolve this issue, the Commission suggests that JASCO could add 3 dB
to the SEL predictions from the TDFD PDSM to be consistent with
differences identified in Lippert et al. (2016). In addition, the
Commission suggests that NMFS could use the dampened cylindrical
spreading model (DCSM; Lippert et al., 2018) to substantiate the Level
B harassment zones. Finally, the Commission seeks clarity regarding the
models that JASCO used, and how JASCO's model(s) would compare to the
model used for the COMPILE workshop benchmark case in Lippert et al.
(2016).
Response: The Commission (1) recommends adding 3 dB based on the
COMPILE workshop comparison (Lippert et al. 2016), (2) recommends that
NMFS use the DCSM to substantiate Level B harassment zones, and (3)
seeks an explanation of the models JASCO used and how JASCO's model(s)
would compare to the model used in the COMPILE workshop benchmark case.
Adding 3 dB (or 2.5 dB, the value from which the Commission apparently
rounded up to 3 dB) to the JASCO SEL predictions at 750 m may bring
JASCO's predictions using the TDFD PDSM into line with the FE
predictions for the COMPILE scenario, but it is not clear that this
would be more accurate. This approach assumes that the FE models are
correct, but Lippert et al. (2016) also state ``a drawback of [the FE]
approach is that it simulates the energy loss due to friction in an
indirect and rather nonphysical way.'' Therefore, NMFS has concluded
that adding 3 dB to the SEL predictions from JASCO's TDFD PDSM is not
warranted.
NMFS agrees that there can generally be utility in comparing the
results of analogous models, but the
[[Page 811]]
Commission's suggestion to use the DCSM (Lippert et al., 2016) as a way
to verify the range to the Level B harassment isopleth predictions
estimated by JASCO is problematic. The DCSM is a modified geometric
model of propagation that applies a general correction for the
interaction of sound with the environmental parameters (e.g.,
absorption, and the assumption of cylindrical spreading), whereas the
full-wave parabolic-equation based propagation model (FWRAM (<2kHz)),
and Gaussian beam ray-trace model (BELLHOP (>2kHz)) JASCO used take
into account environmental interactions (e.g., bathymetry, sound
velocity profile, geoacoustic properties of the seabed) as the sound
propagates. BELLHOP was inadvertently excluded from the acoustic
modeling report (Denes et al., 2020a), but is run along with FWRAM as
part of the acoustic modeling. The DCSM assumes an apparent source
level for different pile sizes and then uses a simple model of
propagation. While NMFS agrees that DCSM is a valuable tool for some
applications, JASCO's well-tested, range-dependent propagation models
based on solutions to the wave equation represent the preferred
alternative to the simpler DCSM.
The Commission seeks clarity regarding the models used by JASCO.
The force at the top of each monopile, associated with the typical
hammers, was computed using the GRLWEAP 2010 wave equation model
(GRLWEAP, Pile Dynamics 2010), which produced forcing functions. The
source signatures of each monopile were predicted using the TDFD PDSM
to compute the monopile vibrations caused by hammer impact. To
accurately calculate propagation metrics of an impulsive sound, a time-
domain representation of the pressure wave in the water was used. To
model the sound waves associated with the monopile vibration in an
acoustic propagation model, the monopiles are represented as vertical
arrays of discrete point sources. The discrete sources are distributed
throughout the length of the monopile below the sea surface and into
the sediment with vertical separation of 3 m. The length of the
acoustic source is adjusted for the site-specific water depth and
penetration at each energy level, and the section length of the
monopile within the sediment is based on the monopile hammering
schedule (Table 6). Pressure signatures for the point sources are
computed from the particle velocity at the monopile wall up to a
maximum frequency of 2,048 Hz. This frequency range is suitable because
most of the sound energy generated by impact hammering of the monopiles
is below 1 kHz.
As mentioned above, to calculate predicted propagation of sounds
produced during impact pile driving of monopiles below 2 kHz, JASCO
used it's FWRAM, which is an acoustic model based on the wide-angle
parabolic equation (PE) algorithm (Collins 1993). FWRAM computes
synthetic pressure waveforms versus range and depth for range-varying
marine acoustic environments. It takes environmental inputs (e.g.,
bathymetry, sound velocity profile, and seabed geoacoustic profile) and
computes pressure waveforms at grid points of range and depth. Because
the monopile is represented as a linear array and FWRAM employs the
array starter method to accurately model sound propagation from a
spatially distributed source (MacGillivray and Chapman 2012), using
FWRAM ensures accurate characterization of vertical directivity effects
in the near-field zone. JASCO used BELLHOP, a Gaussian beam ray-trace
model that also incorporates environmental inputs, to model propagation
of sound produced above 2 kHz during monopile installation. The beam-
tracing model is basically described as an approximation of a given
source by a fan of beams through the medium. Then, the quantities of
interest (e.g., acoustic pressure at different ranges) are computed at
a specified location by summing the contribution of each of the
individual beams.
The acoustic source signature of vibratory driving of sheet piles
was modeled following the same steps used to model impact pile driving
of monopiles. The forcing function was modeled for a single cycle of
the vibrating hammer using the GRLWEAP 2010 wave equation model (Pile
Dynamics 2010). The TDFD PDSM model was used to compute the resulting
sheet pile vibrations from the stress wave that propagates down the
sheet pile. The radiated sound waves were modeled as discrete point
sources over the 18 m (60 ft) of the sheet pile in the water and
sediment (9 m [30 ft] water depth, 9 m [30 ft] penetration) with a
vertical separation of 10 cm. Sound propagation of the discrete point
sources was predicted with JASCO's Marine Operations Noise Model
(MONM). MONM computes received sound energy, the SEL, for directional
sources. MONM uses a wide-angle parabolic equation solution to the
acoustic wave equation (Collins 1993) based on a version of the U.S.
Naval Research Laboratory's Range-dependent Acoustic Model (RAM).
Similar to FWRAM and BELLHOP, MONM incorporates site-specific
environmental properties. MONM treats frequency dependence by computing
acoustic transmission loss at the center frequencies of 1/3-octave-
bands. At each center frequency, the transmission loss is modeled as a
function of depth and range from the source. Composite broadband
received SELs are then computed by summing the received 1/3-octave-band
levels across the modeled frequency range.
The accuracy of JASCO's TDFD PDSM has been verified by comparing
its output against benchmark scenarios (Lippert et al., 2016). In
addition, JASCO compared the TDFD PDSM predictions to an empirical
model prediction in the Institute of Technology and Applied Physics
(ITAP) report (Bellmann 2020). The empirical model is based on a large
data set of pile-driving sounds, measured at 750 m from the source,
collected during installation of various diameter piles (up to 8 m)
during wind farm installation in the North Sea (ITAP, Bellmann 2020).
As no noise monitoring results exist for 11-m monopiles (yet to be
installed offshore), the ITAP prediction facilitates a way of
validating the source levels of the numerical FD model. The ITAP data
are averaged across different scenarios--pile sizes, different hammers,
water depths, depths of penetration, and environmental conditions--and
the 95th percentile level is reported, whereas the aim of JASCO's
modeling is to estimate the median value. While the ITAP forecast and
the FD source predictions were comparable, there is variance in the
underlying ITAP data and there are parametric choices for the FD model
in the different environments, so an exact match is not expected. As
part of the comparison, it was found that different (but reasonable)
parametric input choices in the TDFD modeling can result in output
differences on the order of the variance in the ITAP data, so it was
concluded that the TDFD modeling approach performed as well as can be
discernible given the available data.
Comment 2: The Commission claims that in situ measurements
collected during the installation of Dominion's Coastal Virginia
Offshore Wind (CVOW) project's 7.8-m monopiles suggest that the range
to the Level B harassment isopleth for installation of 11-m monopiles
presented here has been underestimated. Specifically, the Commission
notes that JASCO estimated the Level B harassment zone for South Fork
Wind's impact driving of 11-m piles to be 4,684 m, assuming a 10-dB
sound attenuation, based on the use of a single BBC and up to 4,000 kJ
of
[[Page 812]]
hammer energy (see Tables 12 and 13; Denes et al. 2020a), while in situ
measurements made during the CVOW project for impact driving of a 7.8-m
pile with a measured 9-12 dB sound attenuation during use of a dBBC for
a hammer operating at a maximum of 550 kJ estimated the Level B
harassment zone to be 3,891 m (WaterProof 2020).
The Commission suggests that South Fork Wind's use of an impact
hammer with 7.3 times more energy intensity than the impact hammer used
for CVOW (4,000 kJ versus 550 kJ) spread over a 1.4 times larger
circumference than the pile size used in CVOW, would result in
approximately five-fold (or 7 dB) higher sound energy level than was
determined for CVOW. Based on DCSM, a 7-dB difference in source levels,
the measured Level B harassment zone of more than 3,800 m at Dominion,
and environmental conditions for Dominion, the Commission claims that
the measured Level B harassment zone would increase by 81 percent,
resulting in a Level B harassment zone of approximately 6,890 m based
on the increased hammer energies and pile size. Further, the Commission
suggests using DCSM to relate this range to the Level B harassment
isopleth to the acoustic propagation conditions in the South Fork Wind
project area, which the Commission states would result in a Level B
harassment zone of more than 9,600 m for the South Fork Wind project.
Response: Recent acoustic measurements associated with the
installation of two 7.8-m-diameter piles, with the hammer operating at
550 kJ, driven as part of the CVOW project found the range to the Level
B harassment isopleth (160 dB rms) to be 3,891 m, while JASCO's
prediction for 11-m piles with hammer energy of 4000 kJ was 4,684 m.
Both efforts employed comparable mitigation--JASCO assumed broadband
attenuation of 10-dB for acoustic modeling, while 9-12 dB of
attenuation was measured at CVOW using a dBBC situated around the pile
to attenuate noise produced by impact hammering of the pile. The
Commission reasons that because the hammer energy used in JASCO's
acoustic propagation modeling is approximately 7.3 times the energy of
the hammer employed for CVOW, JASCO's predicted range to the Level B
harassment isopleth should be more than double that measured at CVOW
instead of being approximately 20-percent larger. The 3,891-m range to
the Level B harassment isopleth reported for CVOW was obtained by
choosing the maximum measured SPL value produced during impact pile
driving of the monopile. JASCO's predictive modeling produces median
(expected or 50th percentile) SPL values. The 50th percentile SPL
values in CVOW (Waterproof 2020; Table 4.1) are 5-6 dB lower than the
maximum. Using the CVOW 50th percentile SPL values and the acoustic
propagation equations in the CVOW report results in a range to Level B
harassment isopleth of approximately 2,000 m, which is less than half
of the 4,684-m range predicted by JASCO for installation of monopiles
by South Fork Wind. JASCO uses the sound fields predicted during
acoustic modeling in subsequent animal movement modeling to estimate
probabilities of exposure. In the exposure analysis, the median
(equivalently, 50th percentile) sound level values are preferred so
that the probabilities represent likely occurrence. Using maximum or
95th percentile sound field values would systematically bias the marine
mammal exposure probabilities.
Regarding the Commission's estimates of zone sizes using the DCSM,
these are approximations but, in general, NMFS agrees with the logic
presented by the Commission, if one were to use that model. However, as
described above, JASCO's predictions are for the expected (median) SPL,
while the predictions for CVOW use the maximum measured SPL values. If
a 7-dB difference in source level is expected with the larger hammer
and larger pile (compared to CVOW) South Fork Wind plans to use, it
should be noted that there is an approximately 5-dB difference between
the measured maximum SPL and the 50th percentile SPL for the CVOW
project, so JASCO's approximately 20-percent increase in the range to
the Level B harassment isopleth (relative to the range measured for the
CVOW project) seems reasonable for a source level difference of 2 dB.
It should also be noted that there is greater than 5-dB difference in
the levels measured at closest location to the pile reported for the
CVOW projects, indicating that concepts like source level do not really
apply to distributed sources and that propagation may not be captured
well with simple models like DCSM.
Comment 3: The Commission seeks clarity regarding the type and
configuration of the bubble curtain South Fork Wind will utilize during
impact pile driving. In addition, the Commission references Bellmann et
al. (2020), in which the authors report an average of 9-dB sound
attenuation utilizing a BBC as a noise mitigation device for
installation of 8-m monopiles in 40 m of water. The authors indicated
diminishing efficacy of the BBC with increasing water depth, suggesting
that additional noise mitigation devices should be used for pile
diameters greater than or equal to 6 m installed in water depths
greater than 25 m.
Response: The Commission is correct that Bellmann (2020) reported
an average of 9-dB (7 < 9 < 11dB) attenuation using a BBC for a water
depth of 40 m, but this was for an air flow rate of 0.3m\3\/(min*m).
South Fork Wind will use an air flow rate of at least 0.5m\3\/(min*m)
for BBC deployments. As increased air flow results in a stronger BBC,
this will effectively result in more attenuation than reported in
Bellmann et al. (2020). Further, the final IHA requires that South Fork
Wind not use a single BBC as the only means of noise mitigation,
meaning they must pair a single BBC with an additional noise mitigation
device; alternatively, they may use a dBBC. South Fork Wind is
committed to reducing noise levels generated by pile driving to the
lowest levels practicable such that they do not exceed a noise
footprint modeled, assuming a 10-dB attenuation. South Fork Wind is
required to prepare and submit a Pile Driving Plan to NMFS for review
and approval 90 days before the start of pile driving. As part of this
plan, South Fork Wind must include specifications of the bubble
curtain(s) and additional noise mitigation device(s) that will be used
during impact pile driving, as well details on how the bubble
curtain(s) and additional noise mitigation device(s) will be deployed
to reduce noise levels to the maximum extent practicable.
Comment 4: The Commission states that estimated ranges to the Level
B harassment isopleth in JASCO's underwater acoustic modeling report
(Denes et al. 2020a) are smaller than those used in its animal exposure
modeling report (Denes et al., 2020b), and indicated that it is not
clear which zones are correct.
Response: The acoustic range estimates in the animal exposure
modeling report (Denes et al., 2020b; Tables 12 and 13) are
approximately 100 m longer than those shown in the acoustic modeling
report (Denes et al., 2020a; Tables E13 and E14). Tables 12 and 13 in
the animal exposure report show the acoustic ranges to the Level B
harassment isopleth for the most conservative case--the impact hammer
with greater range and at the highest hammer energy level for summer
and winter, respectively. Tables E-13 and E14 of the acoustic modeling
report show the SPL ranges to various isopleths, assuming 10-dB
attenuation, for the IHC S-4000 hammer and Menck
[[Page 813]]
3500S hammer, respectively, at two modeling locations (P1 and P2). The
Menck 3500S operating at 3500 kJ produced slightly longer ranges (Table
14) than the IHC S-4000 operating at 4000 kJ (Table 13). Using the
Menck 3500S data (Table 14), the ranges to the Level B harassment
isopleth in winter are 4,769 (P1) and 4,718 (P2), for an average of
4,744 m. Likewise, the ranges to the Level B harassment isopleth in
summer are 4,443 (P1) and 4,403 (P2), for an average of 4,423 m. The
corresponding ranges to the Level B harassment isopleth, assuming 10-dB
attenuation, in the animal movement modeling report are: 4,535 m
(summer; Table 12) and 4,832 m (winter; Table 13). There is an
approximately 10-m difference when comparing the summer values (4,423 m
vs 4,535 m) and winter values (4,744 m vs 4,832 m). Zones are not used
in animal movement modeling (3D sound fields are) so animal exposure
estimates are not affected by the apparent small difference of zone
radius. Zones are shown in the animal exposure modeling for reference
purposes only.
Comment 5: The Commission seeks clarity regarding (1) how sound
field verification (SFV) will be conducted should lesser hammer
energies be required for installation of the first monopile(s), which
might not be representative of the required hammer energies and
associated acoustic impacts for later piles, and (2) the required
mitigation and monitoring should the measured range to the Level B
harassment isopleth exceed the range produced by acoustic propagation
modeling, assuming 10-dB attenuation (4,684 m).
Response: South Fork Wind will be required to conduct SFV on
multiple piles to capture the spectrum of hammer energies required to
install monopiles in varying substrates throughout the project area.
Specifically, they will monitor the first 3 piles and, if a subsequent
piling location is selected that was not represented by the previous
locations (i.e., substrate composition, water depth), additional SFV
will be required. South Fork Wind has committed to mitigating noise
produced by impact pile driving, such that the ranges to harassment
isopleths align with those modeled, assuming 10-dB attenuation. If the
ranges measured for the first pile are larger than those modeled, South
Fork Wind will be required to make a series of adjustments to the sound
attenuation measures, including (and in the following order): (1) A
reduction in the hammer schedule (the number of strikes at a given
energy level), (2) modifications to the bubble curtain(s), and 3)
implementation of an additional noise mitigation device to further
refine noise mitigation. In the interim between SFV of the first
evaluated pile and the next, South Fork Wind must conduct both visual
and acoustic monitoring of the zones associated with the measured
ranges to the Level A harassment and Level B harassment isopleths for
the first pile. Should additional SFV demonstrate that the ranges to
the Level A harassment and Level B harassment isopleths are still
greater than those modeled assuming 10-dB attenuation, the IHA (see
condition 5(f)(iv)) states that NMFS may adjust the Level A harassment
and Level B harassment zones, and the associated mitigation and
monitoring zones accordingly, for the installation of the remaining
monopiles. In this case, visual monitoring would be adjusted
accordingly by shifting the location of the secondary PSO vessel to
approximately half the measured range to the Level B harassment
isopleth. Clearance and shutdown zones would be adjusted according to
condition 5(f)(iv) of the final IHA. In all cases, passive acoustic
monitoring (PAM) will supplement visual observations. South Fork Wind
is required to establish a PAM system designed to facilitate
localization of baleen whale calls within a 5-km radius of the impact
pile-driving vessel; however, the PAM system will likely have a
detection range of 10 km or more, thus providing ample acoustic
monitoring coverage should the Level B harassment zone be increased in
size. Depending on the extent to which Level A harassment and Level B
harassment zones are expanded, reinitiation of consultation under
Section 7 of the ESA with NMFS GARFO may be required.
Comment 6: The Commission (1) claims that JASCO's assumptions used
to seed its animat modeling were not appropriate, (2) questions whether
the 7-day simulations used in JASCO's exposure modeling appropriately
accounted for the 16 days of proposed pile driving, and (3) suggests
that animal exposure modeling could have been accomplished using 100
Monte Carlo simulations for the 140 and 250 minutes of activities for
installation of standard and difficult-to-drive piles, respectively,
producing density scaled estimates for each activity that could then be
multiplied by the number of days of activities.
Response: It is unclear what the Commission means when claiming
that JASCO's seeding for animat modeling was not appropriate. However,
the use of 7-day simulations can be addressed. Representative 7-day
periods of project construction were simulated (e.g., piling every day,
or every other day). NMFS' Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects
of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (NMFS 2018) recommends
a 24-hour accumulation period, so 24-hour sliding windows (with 4-hour
advancements) within the 7-day simulations were used to find the
average exposure expected in a 24-hour period that includes pile
driving. This provides a more robust probability calculation of 24-hour
exposure estimates compared to a single-day simulation. The average 24-
hour estimate is then scaled by the number of days of pile driving
(i.e., 15 days of standard pile installations plus 1 day of a
difficult-to-drive pile installation). It is unclear why the Commission
suggests conducting 100 Monte Carlo simulations (or to what that
comment is referring); however, multiple simulations were run. For
example, the piling-every-day simulations consisted of approximately
140 minutes of pile driving in each day of the simulation. JASCO
simulated tens of thousands of animats and determined the average
exposure probability in a 24-hour period. That probability was then
scaled using the real-world density of different species to estimate
the number of individuals expected to exceed a threshold. Note, if the
Commission's suggested use of 100 Monte Carlo simulations is referring
to a Monte Carlo approach to sampling from the different predictions in
a 24-hour period, this could be done but would arrive at the same mean
estimate as scaling the averaged estimates by the number of pile-
driving days, and thus NMFS determined the use of Monte Carlo
simulations is not warranted.
Comment 7: The Commission notes that NMFS did not increase the
proposed numbers of take resulting from impact pile driving to at least
the average group size (based on DoN (2017)) for Level B harassment
take of sperm whales, long-finned pilot whales, and Atlantic spotted
dolphins, and Level A harassment take of blue whales. In addition, the
Commission claims that NMFS did not propose to authorize an appropriate
number of Level A harassment takes of fin whales, Level A harassment
and Level B harassment takes of humpback whales, and Level B harassment
takes for common dolphins and bottlenose dolphins during impact pile
driving, given the frequency of occurrence and group sizes observed in
the South Fork Wind project area during previous monitoring efforts
(A.I.S., Inc. 2017, Smultea Sciences, 2020).
Response: Animal movement modeling that accounts for exposure
within the sound field was used to
[[Page 814]]
estimate take. However, NMFS concurs that density models and animal
movement models may not capture all site-specific conditions nor year-
to-year fluctuations in animal distributions. Where modeled takes were
zero, South Fork Wind requested Level B harassment take for the
following species based on cited references rather than on DoN (2017):
sperm whales (Barkaski and Kelly, 2018) and long finned pilot whales
(Kenney and Vigness-Raposa, 2010).
Given that South Fork Wind already conservatively requested (and
NMFS proposed to authorize) 3 Level B harassment takes of sperm whales
(or one group size; Barkaski and Kelly, 2018) despite animal exposure
modeling resulting in zero Level B harassment takes of sperm whales,
NMFS determined that no further increases in authorized take are
warranted.
Upon further review of scientific literature, NMFS updated the
reference for average group size for long-finned pilot whales (n=20;
CETAP 1982) and increased authorized take by Level B harassment from 12
to 20 (Table 18). Atlantic spotted dolphins were sighted on two
occasions (approximately 20 individuals total; average group size of
10) during recent monitoring efforts near the South Fork Wind project
area conducted over a 7-month period and covering over 11,000 km of
survey trackline (Smultea Sciences, 2020). Similar monitoring efforts
within the South Fork Wind project area covering 9,597 km from June
through September 2020 detected zero Atlantic spotted dolphins
(Gardline 2021). Barkaski and Kelly (2018) report an average group size
of 13 for Atlantic spotted dolphins, which is similar to the average
group size based on sighting data near the South Fork Wind project area
(10; CSA 2021). To account for group size, NMFS has conservatively
increased take, by Level B harassment, of Atlantic spotted dolphins
from 2 to 13 (Table 18).
NMFS does not agree that take, by Level A harassment, of blue
whales should be increased. Rather, upon further review, and based on
the lack of blue whale sightings during previous monitoring efforts
within and near the South Fork Wind project area (Smultea Sciences,
2020; Gardline 2021), NMFS has determined that any take, by Level A
harassment or Level B harassment, of blue whales resulting from the
project's construction activities is de minimus and, therefore, NMFS
has not authorized take of blue whales by Level B harassment. Tables 18
and 23 have been revised to reflect this change from the notice of the
proposed IHA, which included the proposal of one take, by Level B
harassment, of a blue whale.
South Fork Wind requested, and NMFS proposed to authorize, one
take, by Level A harassment, and 6 takes, by Level B harassment, of fin
whales incidental to impact pile driving. The Level A harassment zone,
assuming 10-dB attenuation, is 1,769 m for fin whales. Given that the
shutdown zone for fin whales (2,000 m) is larger than the Level A
harassment zone (1,769 m), and the relatively small number of monopiles
planned for installation, NMFS has determined that no increases in
take, by Level A harassment or Level B harassment, of fin whales
incidental monopile installation, are warranted.
Because the Level A harassment zone for humpback whales (3,642 m,
assuming 10-dB attenuation) is larger than the 2,000-m shutdown zone,
South Fork Wind requested and NMFS proposed to authorize, 4 takes, by
Level A harassment, of humpback whales in addition to 8 takes, by Level
B harassment. NMFS has determined that, due to the relatively small
number of monopiles planned for installation, 4 takes by Level A
harassment and 8 takes by Level B harassment are appropriate for
authorization.
Upon further review of scientific literature (DoN 2017; Smultea
Sciences, 2020; CSA 2921; AMAPPS 2021), NMFS has conservatively
selected the largest group size reported among references for common
(35; AMAPPS 2021) and bottlenose (21.6; AMAPPS 2021) dolphins to
incorporate into increases of take, by Level B harassment, for each
species. The group size for each species was multiplied by the number
of days on which impact pile driving of monopiles may occur (16),
resulting in 560 common dolphin and 346 bottlenose dolphin takes, by
Level B harassment.
Comment 8: The Commission noted several perceived inconsistencies,
errors, and omissions in the Federal Register Notice of the proposed
IHA (86 FR 8490; February 5, 2021) and the proposed authorization,
including:
(1) Omission of shutdown, Level A harassment, and Level B
harassment zones in Table 2 of the proposed IHA;
(2) Lack of alignment of mitigation and monitoring measures between
the Federal Register notice and the proposed IHA;
(3) Need to clarify that the 5,000-m clearance and 2,000-m acoustic
shutdown zones for North Atlantic right whales (NARWs) will minimize
the potential for Level A harassment, but not necessarily Level B
harassment (as stated in the notice of the proposed IHA).
Response: The harassment, clearance, and shutdown zone ranges
(which were included in the notice of the proposed IHA but erroneously
excluded from the draft IHA) are now included in the final IHA (Tables
2-6) and align with corresponding tables in this notice. All mitigation
and monitoring measures now align between this notice and the final
IHA. In the final IHA, NMFS is requiring that South Fork Wind shut down
impact pile driving of monopiles if a NARW is sighted at any distance.
On days with good visibility, shutdown may occur based on a NARW
sighting entering or within the limit of the Level B harassment zone
(4,684 m). While this mitigation measure will not necessarily minimize
take by Level B harassment, it might reduce the duration and intensity
of exposure above the Level B harassment isopleth.
Comment 9: The Commission argues that, if NMFS' intent is to
minimize all impacts during impact pile driving, requiring South Fork
Wind to monitor a 2,200-m clearance zone is inadequate given that the
Level B harassment zone is 4,684 m. Further, the Commission asserts
that a single vessel stationed a 2,200 m would not be sufficient to
monitor the farther extents of the zones. The Commission claims that
the range to the farthest extent would be 4,200 m based on the
exclusion zone and more than 6,800 m based on the Commission's
calculation of the size of the Level B harassment zone using DCSM.
Response: NMFS is requiring South Fork Wind to monitor the Level B
harassment zone (4,684 m) prior to all impact pile driving, utilizing a
combination of two PSOs located on the impact pile-driving vessel, two
PSOs located on a dedicated vessel circling the pile-driving vessel at
a radius of 2,200 m from the pile-driving vessel, and PAM capable of
localizing baleen whale calls within a 5-km radius of the impact pile-
driving vessel. The 2,200-m zone to which the Commission is referring
is the minimum visual clearance zone for all baleen whale species other
than the NARW (for which the clearance zone is undefined because any
NARW observed by a PSO stationed on the pile-driving vessel or
dedicated PSO vessel, regardless of distance, would trigger a delay in
pile driving). The use of PAM to complement visual observations will be
particularly important when visibility is limited to the minimum visual
clearance zone rather than the full extent of the Level B harassment
zone. Monitoring must begin 60 minutes prior to initiating pile
driving; however, the clearance zones must be clear of marine mammals
for 30
[[Page 815]]
minutes before pile driving may commence. The final IHA adds and
clarifies all zones and the mitigation and monitoring required to be
implemented by South Fork Wind. It is unclear what method the
Commission used to estimate a range of 4,200 m, or to what that range
refers. Finally, as described above, NMFS does not adopt the use of
DCSM to estimate or substantiate the modeled Level B harassment zone
for impact pile driving, and is proceeding with 4,684 m as the range to
the Level B harassment isopleth. Again, these ranges will be verified
upon the onset of pile driving and the IHA contains measures that must
be followed should SFV indicate ranges are larger than those predicted
by the model.
Comment 10: The Commission states that the measure in the proposed
IHA requiring PAM PSOs to review acoustic detections within 15 minutes
of the original detection to verify whether a NARW has been detected is
not real-time and would not preclude taking.
Response: PAM will occur in real-time, meaning a PAM PSO will be
actively monitoring the hydrophones. However, in some cases, a PAM PSO
cannot immediately identify a call as one from a NARW and requires some
time to analyze the signal. Following the publication of the proposed
IHA, South Fork Wind communicated to NMFS that PAM PSOs will be capable
of reviewing and classifying detections within 5 minutes of the
original detection, better approximating real-time monitoring of NARW
presence. The final IHA and Federal Register notice have been revised
to reflect this updated capability.
Comment 11: The Commission requested more specificity regarding
South Fork Wind's proposed PAM plan (i.e., minimum number, type, and
location of hydrophones; bandwidth/sampling rate; estimated acoustic
detection range; sensitivity of the hydrophones; detection software
planned for use), noting that this information is necessary to ensure
that South Fork Wind can detect, classify, and locate NARWs. ENGOs also
requested that NMFS explain how the number and location of acoustic
detection systems will be adequate to fully cover the area within the
clearance and shutdown zones, particularly during times of high vessel
traffic and development activity. Finally, the Commission recommends
that NMFS consider how the direct strike pulses and reverberation from
pile-driving activity could inhibit detection of marine mammal
vocalizations, particularly those of NARWs.
Response: South Fork Wind is required to submit a detailed PAM plan
to NMFS and BOEM for review and approval at least 90 days prior to the
planned start of construction. The PAM plan must include sufficient
information, including all equipment, procedures, and protocols to
demonstrate that the monitoring and mitigation requirements included in
the authorization will be met. Regarding the Commission's
recommendation that NMFS consider the influence of direct strike pulses
and reverberation on the ability to detect marine mammal vocalizations,
NMFS agrees that the multipaths will potentially spread the signal out
and reduce the ``quiet time'' between pulses, thus increasing masking
and making the detection process during pile driving more difficult.
Additional signal processing methods will be required to enhance signal
detection under such circumstances. The IHA is conditioned such that
hydrophones will not be placed closer than 1 km from the pile being
driven to minimize interference, and that the PAM system must be
capable of detecting whales to implement mitigation within 5 km. The
PAM plan submitted by South Fork Wind must be approved by NMFS prior to
construction.
Comment 12: The Commission noted several perceived errors and
omissions regarding hydroacoustic monitoring reporting requirements for
impact pile driving, recommending that the following should be
included: (1) hydrophone sensitivity, (2) water depth and sediment
type(s) at the pile-driving location(s), (3) ranges to the Level A
SEL<INF>cum</INF> harassment isopleths, (4) fitting of the
hydroacoustic data using DCSM and/or a simple cylindrical spreading
model (following Waterproof (2020)), and 5) ambient noise spectra for
diagnosing issues with hydrophone(s), and that the visibility metrics
and ambient sound level measurements should be omitted from the
reporting requirements.
Response: NMFS concurs with the Commission's recommendation that
the hydroacoustic monitoring report should include (1) hydrophone
sensitivity, water depth and sediment type at the pile location, ranges
to the Level A harassment isopleths, and ambient noise spectra and (2)
omit visibility metrics, and has adjusted those requirements in both
the final IHA and in the Monitoring and Reporting section. In addition,
for comparison of in situ data to sound fields modeled a priori, South
Fork Wind plans to conduct SFV by measuring sound levels at multiple
locations, (e.g., nominal distances of 750; 1,500; 3,000; and 6,000 m).
The SFV results will be fitted using a geometric spreading loss model,
[alpha] [middot] Log(r), to provide the ability to predict sound levels
at any range. The fitting process generates a site-dependent estimate
of the transmission loss coefficient, [alpha], in the geometric
spreading model. This differs from assuming cylindrical spreading loss,
[alpha]=10, as is done in a Damped Cylindrical Spreading Model (DCSM).
The DCSM includes a damping (absorption) term, which may be included
when fitting the geometric model.
NMFS agrees with the Commission that ambient noise spectra should
be reported and that visibility metrics are not a necessary reporting
requirement, and has included these changes in the final IHA. However,
despite the Commission's suggestion, NMFS supports collection of
ambient sound measurements (as proposed by South Fork Wind), as these
data contribute to the overall soundscape characterization within the
WEA and provide context for detections of marine mammals during
construction activities. NMFS has included this requirement in the
final IHA.
Comment 13: The Commission claims that the Level B harassment zone
presented here for vibratory pile driving is overestimated, that the
modeled spectra provided in the Denes et al. (2020a) are inconsistent
with spectra obtained from in situ measurements of similar activities
(e.g., Caltrans 2016; Illingworth and Rodkin 2017), and that the source
level used to model the Level B harassment range for vibratory pile
driving was too high. Using a simple transmission loss calculation and
the estimated distance to the Level B harassment isopleth (36.8 km),
the Commission estimates that the source level would be 173.5 dB re 1
[micro]Pa at 10 m and claims that this source level is higher than that
used by NMFS for installation of smaller piles or sheet piles.
Response: The Commission appears concerned NMFS overestimated the
Level B harassment zone for vibratory pile driving; however, any
difference in the size of the modeled Level B harassment zone using
their back-calculated source level (or any other lower source level) is
minimally impactful given the very short period of activity (no more
than 36 hours). NMFS recognizes that no model is exactly accurate and
that in situ data demonstrate sound levels are not consistent both
vertically and horizontally in the water column or during the same
activity (e.g., installing
[[Page 816]]
2 different piles of the same size/configuration). JASCO maintains, and
NMFS agrees, that the spectra calculated using GRLWEAP (Denes et al.,
2020a) are fundamentally consistent with those provided by Illingworth
and Rodkin (2017), as presented in the Caltrans reports (Caltrans 2016,
2020). The spectra calculated by JASCO are low frequency (i.e., primary
acoustic energy occurs below approximately 1 kHz), with peaks around
the oscillation frequency of the vibratory hammer. This is
approximately the same finding as Illingworth and Rodkin (2017), which
showed that most of the primary acoustic energy occurs below
approximately 2 kHz. The calculated levels near the source exceed the
expected values of SPL 160-165 dB re 1 [micro]Pa measured at 10 m for
sheet pile driving in the Caltrans report (2016, 2020) and as cited in
NOAA's pile-driving worksheet tool (Caltrans 2012, 2015) (<a href="https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2021-02/SERO%20Pile%20Driving%20Noise%20Calculator_for%20web.xlsx?null">https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2021-02/SERO%20Pile%20Driving%20Noise%20Calculator_for%20web.xlsx?null</a>). JASCO
estimates an SPL of 180 dB re 1 [micro]Pa at 31 m, and consequently a
range to 120 dB re 1[micro]Pa of approximately 36 km. JASCO recognized
this as an overestimate but considered it acceptable because the source
level measurements for vibratory driving of sheet piles cited in
Caltrans (2012, 2015) come from only a few examples, and were obtained
when setting the pile to a shallow depth before impact pile driving was
used to drive the sheet pile to full desired depth. Only vibratory
driving would be used for installation of sheet piles to construct the
cofferdam for the South Fork Wind project. It is likely that sheet
piles, and therefore the vibratory hammer, might encounter more
resistance as the desired installation depth is approached at the
cofferdam location compared to the examples included in the Caltrans
report (2016, 2020). This increased resistance would require an
increase in vibratory hammer energy, producing an elevated level of
sound propagating from the installation site. NMFS agrees with this
approach and, as such, no adjustments were made to the Level B
harassment zone (or Level A harassment zone) in the final IHA for
vibratory driving of sheet piles.
Comment 14: The Commission claims that NMFS assumed that vibratory
pile driving would occur on only two days, rather than a maximum of six
days (up to three days each for installation and removal) specified
elsewhere in the notice of the proposed IHA 86 FR 8490; February 5,
2021).
Response: This is an incorrect interpretation of the text. The
total installation and removal will take up to six days to complete.
Within that period, vibratory pile driving for the cofferdam is
expected to occur for 18 hours to install the sheet piles and 18 hours
to remove them, so a total of 2 days was used to estimate take. [86 FR
8490; February 5, 2021, p. 8533 states: Since NMFS expects that any
exposures would be brief (no more than 3 hours per day for impact pile
driving or 36 hours over 6 days for vibratory pile driving, and likely
less given probable avoidance response). 36 hours over 6 days=a maximum
of two 18-hour periods. p. 8521 states: Modeling of the Level A
harassment exposures resulting from two 18-hour periods of vibratory
pile driving and removal resulted in less than one exposure for all
species for each month between October 1 and May 31. p. 8508 states:
But the short-term duration (approximately 36 hours over 6 non-
consecutive days, 18 hours each for installation and removal). p. 8491
states: Installation and removal of the cofferdam are each expected to
take 1 to 3 days of vibratory pile driving.].
Comment 15: The Commission claims that NMFS did not increase the
estimated Level B harassment takes for vibratory pile driving to an
appropriate number, based on group size and frequency of occurrence in
the project, for fin whales, sei whales, humpback whales, Atlantic
white-sided dolphins, and common dolphins.
Response: Based on the best available scientific information and
the large Level B harassment zone, NMFS agrees and has increased the
number of takes by Level B harassment for humpback whales, and common
and Atlantic white-sided dolphins. NMFS reviewed reported group sizes
for each species (DoN 2017; Smultea Sciences, 2020; CSA 2921; AMAPPS
2021), selected the largest group size reported for humpback whales
(1.6; AMAPPS) and common dolphins (35; AMAPPS), multiplied group size
by the number of potential days on which vibratory pile driving could
occur (18 hours over 3 days for installation, 18 hours over 3 days for
removal, total of 6 days), and rounded to the nearest whole number.
This approach resulted in the following increases in Level B harassment
takes: Humpback whale (10) and common dolphins (210). Previous
monitoring efforts in or near the South Fork Wind Lease Area reported
that no Atlantic white-sided dolphins were sighted during surveys
(Smultea Sciences, 2020; CSA 2021). However, AMAPPS (2021) reported
sightings of Atlantic white-sided dolphins in the RI/MA WEA, with a
peak group size of 50 during the summer. Based on this group size, NMFS
has increased Level B harassment takes of Atlantic white-sided dolphins
from 1 to 50. Finally, the Commission also recommended increasing take,
by Level B harassment, of fin and sei whales incidental to vibratory
pile driving. Exposure modeling resulted in exposures for each of 10
months (October-May; Table 19) for all species potentially impacted by
vibratory pile driving. The amount of take proposed, by Level B
harassment, of fin whales was based on the month (April) with the
highest number of exposures (n=2). Of the remaining months, fin whale
exposure estimates were zero (November, December, January, and
February) and one (March and May). Given that the proposed amount of
take was already conservatively based on modeled exposures in April and
sightings of fin whales are generally more frequent in/near the Lease
Area as compared to along the ECR and nearshore HDD site (e.g., Smultea
Sciences, 2020), NMFS does not find that increasing take of fin whales,
by Level B harassment, is warranted. Exposure modeling resulted in zero
exposures of sei whales in all 10 months considered (Table 19). In
addition, sei whale sightings are extremely rare throughout the project
area, which agrees with the generally offshore pattern of sei whale
distribution (Hayes et al., 2021). Given the brief timeframe for
cofferdam installation/removal, the low likelihood of sei whale
occurrence in the project area during that brief timeframe, and the
lack of exposures resulting from exposure modeling, NMFS does not find
that increasing take of sei whales, by Level B harassment, is
warranted.
Comment 16: The Commission notes that the input parameters
necessary to estimate the Level A harassment zones for construction
surveys using HRG equipment were not specified in the Federal Register
notice for the proposed IHA (86 FR 8490; February 5, 2021). In
addition, the Commission states that South Fork Wind specified
incorrect frequencies in Table 13 of the IHA application for each
functional hearing group's most sensitive frequency within the proposed
operating frequencies of all impulsive sources, citing the example that
South Fork Wind specified 1.5 kHz as the most sensitive frequency for
all functional hearing groups within the 0.4-5 kHz operating frequency
for the GeoMarine Geo-Source 400 tip sparker. The Commission states
that most sensitive frequencies are 1.7 kHz for low-frequency (LF)
cetaceans and 5 kHz for the other three functional hearing groups.
[[Page 817]]
Response: NMFS recognizes that not all input parameters (e.g.,
Weighting Factor Adjustments, WFAs) required to estimate Level A
harassment zones were included in the notice for the proposed IHA;
however, these values were included in the IHA application, which was
available for review during the public comment period (please refer to
the IHA application for more details on input parameters). The
Commission notes that the frequencies in Table 13 of the application
were incorrectly specified, and NMFS agrees. However, when the correct
frequencies are applied, the resulting ranges to the Level A harassment
isopleths are significantly smaller than the 500-m shutdown zone for
NARWs and 100-m shutdown for all other species (excluding some
delphinid species for which shutdown is waived). Further, NMFS has
repeatedly indicated that the potential for Level A harassment from
marine site characterization surveys is not a realistic outcome
regardless of implementation of mitigation measures such as shut down
(see Take Calculation and Estimation section); therefore, identifying
inputs into any Level A harassment model is not necessary.
Comment 17: The Commission notes that the ranges to Level A
harassment isopleths in Table 12 of the notice of the proposed IHA (86
FR 8490, February 5, 2021) for high-frequency cetaceans are incorrect,
according to their calculations, by a margin of tenths of a meter for
all impulsive sources based on SEL<INF>cum</INF> thresholds (ranges
were reported as zero in the notice of the proposed IHA, but should
have been reported as <1), by a margin of 1.9 m for the AA triple plate
S-boom based on SPL<INF>peak</INF> (2.8 m versus 4.7 m, as indicated in
the notice of the proposed IHA), and by a margin of tens of meters for
the non-impulsive GeoPulse 5430 based on SEL<INF>cum</INF> (97.7 m
versus 36.5 m as indicated in the notice of the proposed IHA), assuming
use of the User Spreadsheet and South Fork Wind's specified input
parameters.
Response: NMFS appreciates the Commission's detailed comments
regarding ranges to the Level A harassment isopleths for high-frequency
cetaceans. NMFS has corrected the text in the Take Calculation and
Estimation section to reflect that South Fork Wind estimated the range
to the Level A harassment isopleth based on SEL<INF>cum</INF> for the
GeoPulse 5430 (36.5 m) following NMFS interim guidance (NMFS, 2019b),
which accounts for beamwidth, water depth, and absorption (rather than
using the User Spreadsheet). While there are minor inconsistencies
between values calculated by NMFS and the Commission for the other
ranges to the Level A harassment isopleths, the differences are
inconsequential given that NMFS neither anticipates nor authorizes
Level A harassment incidental to construction surveys. For the purposes
of the exposure analysis, it was conservatively assumed that sparkers
would be the dominant acoustic source for all survey days. Thus, the
range to the isopleth corresponding to the threshold for Level B
harassment for sparkers (141 m), which is larger than any modeled range
to the Level A harassment isopleth for any hearing group, was used as
the basis of the take calculation for all marine mammals.
Comment 18: The Commission seeks clarification regarding why the
exclusion zones for mid-frequency cetaceans (except sperm whales), and
phocids are different between Table 26 in the Federal Register notice
of the proposed IHA (86 FR 8490; February 5, 2021) and Table 2 of the
proposed authorization.
Response: The zones being referenced in Table 26 of the notice of
the proposed IHA are the Level A harassment zones for HRG survey
activities, which are based on the calculated ranges, whereas the zones
in Table 2 of the proposed authorization represent the clearance zones
to be implemented during surveys. These zones are consistent with the
clearance and shutdown zones listed in Table 26 of the notice of the
proposed IHA (100 m).
Comment 19: The Commission notes that the Level B harassment zones
for CHIRPS are inconsistent in Tables 12 and 26 of the Federal Register
notice of the proposed IHA (86 FR 8490; February 5, 2021).
Response: The Level B harassment zones for CHIRPS have been
corrected to 54 m in Table 28 of this notice.
Comment 20: The Commission recommends that NMFS publish a revised
Federal Register notice and draft authorization with another 30-day
comment period because it believes there were errors in the proposed
IHA notice that prevented the public from fully understanding NMFS'
proposed action and NMFS's preliminary findings are questionable given
these perceived errors.
Response: NMFS does not agree with the Commission assertions and
does not adopt the recommendation. Specifically, NMFS disagrees that
the information presented in association with the proposed IHA was
insufficient to make the relevant findings under the MMPA. What the
Commission claims are ``inconsistencies, omissions, errors, and
deficiencies'' are, for the most part, differences of opinion on how
available data should be applied to our analysis. For example, the
Commission states that installing 16 monopiles, with one pile installed
every other day, would take 31 rather than 30 days as specified in
South Fork Wind's application and the Federal Register notice. Neither
the IHA application nor the Federal Register notice state that
monopiles would actually be installed every other day. Animal exposure
modeling required a piling schedule within which to conduct animat
modeling; therefore, two construction schedules were considered, one in
which piles are installed every day and one in which piles are
installed every other day. It is likely that neither of these absolute
representative schedules will be adhered to during installation of the
monopiles (e.g., pile installation may occur on consecutive days if
conditions allow, or might be interrupted by days of inclement weather
or other mitigating circumstances, etc.). The 30-day timeframe for
monopile installation was proposed by South Fork Wind in the IHA
application and, therefore, included in the notice of the proposed IHA.
Regardless of the detailed schedule, up to 16 monopiles will be
installed, no more than one per day, over the course of the South Fork
Wind construction project.
As described in responses to comments 1 and 3, a majority of the
Commission's comments were centered around the recommendation to use a
different, but not necessarily more accurate, acoustic model (i.e.,
DCSM and associated spreadsheet tool, DCSiE (Heaney et al., 2020)).
NMFS does not agree that utilizing DCSM and the DCSiE spreadsheet tool
would provide more appropriate acoustic propagation distances because
the DCSM and DCSIE approach would include a simpler model of
propagation (with limitations beyond 5 km from the acoustic source)
that approximates some aspects of environmental interaction (namely
absorption). NMFS believes that the well-tested, range-dependent
propagation models based on solutions to the wave equation used by
JASCO (described in Denes et al., 2020a) are more appropriate. Where we
did agree that there was an error or that the Commission's logic was
more appropriate to implement, we have made the recommended changes.
However, the recommendations by the Commission we did adopt were
predominately to either provide additional clarification or detail and
do not provide additional conservation
[[Page 818]]
value or meaningfully influence any of the analyses underlying the
necessary findings. NMFS strongly disagrees with the Commission's
suggestion that NMFS' negligible impact and least practicable adverse
impact determinations may be invalid, and we note that the Commission
does not provide any information supporting this comment, whether NMFS
retained the take numbers and mitigation requirements from the proposed
IHA or adopted those recommended by the Commission. Since publication
of the proposed IHA, NMFS included additional monitoring and mitigation
measures, including multiple additions to the vessel strike avoidance
requirements. In addition, the Federal Register notice for issuance of
the final IHA includes installation of a casing pipe as an alternative
to a cofferdam. Given the shorter installation time and fewer number of
piles, potential impacts associated with installation of a casing pipe
are anticipated to be equal to or less than those associated with
installation of the cofferdam. Overall, these changes are not
sufficient to lead NMFS to reach any other conclusions regarding the
impact to marine mammals. For these reasons, NMFS is not republishing a
notice of proposed IHA.
Comment 21: The Commission states that NMFS must provide consistent
and informed guidance to the numerous industry operators that have
submitted or soon will submit incidental take authorization
applications for wind energy surveying, siting, and construction
projects.
Response: NMFS appreciates the Commission recommendation and will
consider developing broader/general guidance that allows for proper and
consistent mitigation and monitoring during various stages of offshore
wind development. NMFS will continue to prioritize pre-application
engagement with applicants seeking incidental take authorizations.
Comment 22: The Commission recommended that NMFS consider whether,
in situations involving marine site characterization surveys using HRG
equipment, IHAs are necessary. The Commission makes reference to
comments on previously proposed IHAs for marine site characterization
surveys, in which the Commission states that the small size of the
Level B harassment zones, the various shutdown requirements, and BOEM's
lease-stipulated requirements support the claim that NMFS should
consider the Commission's recommendation. In addition, the Commission
recommended that NMFS should evaluate whether take needs to be
authorized for those sources that are not considered de minimis,
including sparkers, and for which implementation of the various
mitigation measures should be sufficient to avoid Level B harassment
takes.
Response: NMFS thanks the Commission for its recommendation.
However, as NMFS has noted previously to comments (e.g., 85 FR 60424;
September 25, 2020), NMFS has evaluated whether taking needs to be
authorized for those sources that are not considered de minimis,
including sparkers and boomers, factoring into consideration the
effectiveness of mitigation and monitoring measures, and we have
determined that implementation of mitigation and monitoring measures
cannot ensure that all take can be avoided during all marine site
characterization survey activities under all circumstances at this
time. If and when we are able to reach such a conclusion, we will re-
evaluate our determination that an incidental take authorization is
warranted for these activities.
Comment 23: The ENGOs recommended that NMFS reduce the number of
Level A harassment takes for large whales to as close to zero as
possible and ensure zero Level A harassment takes of NARWs. The ENGOs
feel that the number of individuals projected to experience permanent
threshold shift (PTS), including humpback, minke, and endangered fin
whales, is relatively high for a project comprising only 15 turbines.
Response: South Fork Wind has not requested, nor has NMFS
authorized, incidental take by Level A harassment of NARWs. The
mitigation and monitoring measures included in the IHA help ensure this
level of harassment does not occur. The estimated Level A harassment
exposures for humpback, minke, and endangered fin whales resulting from
animal movement modeling are conservatively based on the maximum design
scenario including one difficult-to-drive pile, the maximum densities
across the proposed construction months, and a 24-hour accumulation
period. This sophisticated model produces a reliable, but conservative,
estimate of how many marine mammals may experience PTS incidental to
the project. Although modeling does take into account the seasonal
moratorium on impact pile driving of monopiles, it does not account for
any additional mitigation. In addition, the proposed Level A harassment
(in the form of PTS) take numbers, which are based on animal movement
modeling, do not fully account for the likelihood that whales will
avoid a stimulus (i.e., aversion) when possible before the individual
accumulates enough acoustic energy to potentially cause auditory
injury. Any adjustments to the model considering mitigation or
avoidance behavior are uncertain; therefore, to be conservative, NMFS
is authorizing the amount of take, by Level A harassment (PTS),
predicted by the model. Any Level A harassment would be expected to be
in the form of slight PTS (i.e., minor degradation of hearing
capabilities) which is not likely to meaningfully affect the ability to
forage or communicate with conspecifics. Even absent mitigation, no
serious injury or mortality from construction activities is
anticipated.
Comment 24: The ENGOs recommended that NMFS require the seasonal
prohibition on impact pile driving to be effective from December 1
through April 30.
Response: Since publication of the proposed IHA, South Fork Wind
communicated to NMFS that construction activities will not commence
until November 2022, rather than between April and May 2022 (as
indicated in the proposed IHA). Therefore, the period of effectiveness
of the IHA is November 15, 2022, to November 14, 2023. In the final
IHA, NMFS is requiring a seasonal restriction on impact pile driving of
monopiles from December 1 through April 30, unless unanticipated delays
due to weather or technical problems, notified to and approved by the
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), arise that necessitate
extending impact pile driving of monopiles into December. South Fork
Wind's revised project schedule includes, as the first construction
activity during the period of effectiveness of the IHA, installation of
a cofferdam or casing pipe where the export cable conduit exits from
the seabed to contain drilling returns and prevent the excavated
sediments from silting back into the Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD)
exit pit. Based on the seasonal restriction on monopile installation
and South Fork Wind's revised construction schedule, monopile
installation would not begin until May 2023. Therefore, the timeframe
in which South Fork Wind would install monopiles is limited to May 1,
2023, through November 14, 2023.
Comment 25: The ENGOs recommended that NMFS take measures to
minimize Level B harassment exposure of NARWs to noise from pile
driving beyond the 5,000-m clearance
[[Page 819]]
zone by requiring stringent noise reduction and attenuation devices.
Response: While the clearance zone (using a combination of visual
and acoustic observation) for NARWs is 5,000 m, NMFS is including
measures to minimize exposure beyond that zone. For example, any
observation of a NARW at any distance by PSOs on the pile-driving
platform or dedicated PSO vessel will trigger a delay in impact pile
driving. Because PSOs on the pile-driving platform will be equipped
with enhanced vision capabilities (e.g., big eye binoculars), it may
well be that NARWs are observed beyond 5,000 m on days with good
visibility conditions. The final IHA clarifies that the minimum
visibility zone to begin pile driving is 2,200 m and that PAM PSOs must
confirm that there have been no PAM detections of NARWs out to 5,000 m
prior to commencing pile driving (during the clearance period). The IHA
does require noise reduction such that the model results, assuming 10-
dB attenuation, are not exceeded. If acoustic monitoring reveals
greater than anticipated zone sizes, the IHA requires South Fork Wind
to take additional noise mitigation measures to prevent further
exceedance of the modeled zones. If all measures are exhausted and
monitoring reveals South Fork Wind was not successful in meeting the
modeled zones, harassment, minimum visibility, and shutdown zones will
be expanded and monitoring enhanced.
Comment 26: The ENGOs recommended that if a NARW is visually or
acoustically detected within the 5,000-m clearance zone, or visually
detected at any distance from the pile at any time, that pile driving
be shutdown, unless continued pile-driving activities are necessary for
reasons of human safety or installation feasibility. In addition, they
suggest that NMFS should consider expanding these same protections to
other endangered species, as well as those currently experiencing a UME
that are in the same functional hearing group as the NARW.
Response: NMFS agrees with the ENGOs that impact pile driving
should be delayed or shutdown, if already initiated, if a NARW is
sighted at any distance from the pile and, thus, NMFS included those
conditions in the proposed IHA and has carried them over to the final
authorization as well. South Fork Wind is required to delay pile
driving if a NARW call is localized to a position within the 5,000-m
clearance zone and, if pile driving has already commenced, South Fork
Wind must shutdown pile driving if a NARW call is localized to a
position within the 2,000-m PAM shutdown zone. NMFS has determined that
the combination of a PAM shutdown zone that is larger than the Level A
harassment zone for NARWs (1,621 m) and the requirement to shutdown if
a NARW is sighted at any distance are sufficiently protective to
prevent Level A harassment.
The ENGOs suggested that NMFS should also require a 5,000-m
shutdown zone during monopile installation if other endangered species
(i.e., fin and sei whales) as well as those currently experiencing a
UME (i.e., humpback and minke whales), are detected visually or
acoustically within the 5,000-m clearance zone specific to NARWs. NMFS
is not authorizing any take by Level A harassment (i.e., PTS) for
NARWs; therefore, the shutdown requirements when a NARW is detected
(visually or acoustically) must afford the greatest practicable
protection to avoid any Level A harassment. NMFS is authorizing take by
Level A harassment of fin, sei, and minke whales (one take for each
species), although both the clearance (2,200 m) and shutdown zones
(2,000 m) are hundreds of meters larger than the exposure-based modeled
ranges to the Level A harassment isopleths for these species. Animal
movement modeling resulted in the Level A harassment exposure of one
fin whale and one minke whale; however, animal movement modeling does
not account for mitigation measures or potential avoidance behavior
and, as mentioned above, the shutdown zone is larger than the ranges to
the Level A harassment isopleths for both fin (1,756 m) and minke
whales (1,571 m). Although animal movement modeling resulted in zero
Level A exposures of sei whales, South Fork Wind requested and NMFS is
authorizing take, by Level A harassment, of one sei whale based on (1)
rare observations of singleton sei whales in the Lease Area during
previous monitoring effects (Kenney and Vigness-R,aposa, 2010; Smultea
Sciences, 2020; AMAPPS 2021), and (2) difficulty distinguishing fin and
sei whales at sea (observers sometimes report a sei/fin whale complex).
NMFS is authorizing take, by Level A harassment, of 4 humpback whales
based on the results of animal movement modeling, and the possibility
that humpback whales might remain in the area between the shutdown zone
(2,000 m) and the furthest extent of the Level A harassment zone (3,642
m), (assuming 10-dB attenuation) for a long enough timeframe to incur
PTS.
If any large whale (including NARWs) enters the Level B harassment
zone undetected or if visibility conditions limit visual monitoring to
the minimum visibility zone, it is possible that individuals might be
exposed to impact pile-driving noise sufficient to cause behavioral
effects rising to the level of take under the MMPA. NMFS expects those
effects would be temporary in nature and unlikely to cause any
perceptible longer-term consequences to individuals or populations.
While NMFS analyzed Level A harassment exposures as requested by
South Fork Wind and authorized them as appropriate, NMFS finds that
such exposures are unlikely given (1) the short duration of monopile
installation (2-4 hours), (2) the fact that authorized take numbers do
not account for mitigation measures, and (3) the potential for a
whale's averse behavior in response to impact pile driving. Level B
harassment of some smaller number of individuals as a subset of the
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. Accordingly, NMFS
does not find it warranted to require shutdown if a fin, sei, humpback,
or minke whale is detected between 2,000 m and 5,000 m of the pile.
Comment 27: The ENGOs stated that NMFS should provide more detail
(both a written description and diagram of potential ``blind spots''
during monitoring) on how the secondary vessel will be deployed during
the 60-minute clearance period (e.g., vessel speed, configuration of
PSOs on the vessel, etc.) to monitor the entire clearance zones as well
as the 3,642-m Level A harassment zone for humpback whales and, if it
is not possible to provide full coverage of the clearance zone for the
full 60-minute period, the ENGOs recommended that NMFS require
additional monitoring vessels and PSOs.
Response: South Fork Wind is required to visually monitor a minimum
clearance zone with a 2.2-km radius from the pile-driving vessel, and
to use a combination of visual and acoustic methods to ensure that a 5-
km radius clearance zone is clear of NARWs prior to initiating pile
driving. Further, on days when PSOs are able to observe beyond 5 km,
any detection of a NARW by PSOs on the pile-driving and/or dedicated
PSO vessels, regardless of distance, would trigger a delay in pile
driving. Each of the two PSOs deployed on the pile-driving vessel will
be responsible for visually surveying 180 degrees (for a total of 360
degrees) out to a minimum of 2.2 km from the pile-driving vessel, the
minimum visibility requirement for clearance to occur, thereby
providing total visual coverage
[[Page 820]]
of the large whale clearance zone without any potential ``blind
spots.'' The PSOs on the pile-driving vessel will likely be positioned
at a higher elevation above the waterline than the PSOs on the
dedicated PSO vessel and will, therefore, have a range of vision well
beyond 2.2 km on days with good visibility. The two additional PSOs
deployed on the dedicated PSO vessel, surveying at a radius of 2.2 km
from the pile-driving vessel, are expected to be positioned at an
elevation above the waterline similar to PSOs on HRG vessels used in
marine site characterization surveys. Each of these PSOs will also be
responsible for surveying 180 degrees, with one PSO providing visual
coverage between the dedicated PSO vessel and the pile-driving vessel
(the 2.2-km clearance zone), and the second PSO visual monitoring the
area beyond the 2.2-km clearance zone. Visibility conditions may, at
times, prevent 100-percent visual coverage of the humpback Level A
harassment zone beyond 2.2 km from the piling vessel; therefore NMFS is
authorizing 4 takes, by Level A harassment, of humpback whales.
PSOs on board the pile-driving and dedicated PSO vessels will
coordinate to the extent practicable to visually cover discrete zones
while monitoring. The dedicated PSO vessel will travel at a maximum
speed of 10 kts, allowing it to make a complete trip around the piling
vessel at a distance of 2.2 km in one hour or less. The use of a real-
time data collection platform, including the software program
Mysticetus, will allow PSOs on the pile-driving vessel to see
detections made by PSOs on the dedicated PSO vessel, and vice versa.
Comment 28: The ENGOs recommended that all project-associated
vessels should adhere to a 10-kt speed restriction at all times, except
in circumstances where the best available scientific information
demonstrates that whales do not use a particular area within the
overall project area.
Response: South Fork Wind is required to operate all vessels at 10
kts or less when overlapping with a DMA and in any designated SMA.
Further, if a vessel is operating faster than 10 kts, a dedicated
observer is required to be onboard that vessel. While NMFS acknowledges
that vessel strikes can result in injury or mortality, and that risk of
vessel strike increases with speed, NMFS has analyzed the potential for
ship strike resulting from South Fork Wind's activity and has
determined that, based on the number and frequency of vessels South
Fork Wind will be operating and the required mitigation measures
specific to vessel strike avoidance included in the IHA, the potential
for vessel strike is so low as to be discountable. These mitigation
measures, most of which were included in the proposed IHA and all of
which are required in the final IHA, include, but are not limited to
the following requirements: (1) All vessel operators must comply with
10-kt (18.5 km/hour) or less speed restriction in any SMA while
underway, (2) in the event that a DMA is established that overlaps with
an area where a project-associated vessel would operate, that vessel,
regardless of size, will transit that area at 10 kts (18.5 km/hour) or
less, and (3) vessels of all sizes must operate port to port at 10 kts
(18.5 km/hour) or less between November 1 and April 30, except while
transiting inside Narragansett Bay or Long Island Sound. NMFS has
determined that the ship strike avoidance measures in the IHA are
sufficient to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or
stocks and their habitat. Furthermore, NMFS is not aware of any
documented vessel strikes involving vessels associated with offshore
wind development, including vessels used for marine site
characterization surveys (for which IHAs were issued by NMFS) during
the survey activities themselves or while transiting to and from
project sites.
Comment 29: The ENGOs recommended that NMFS require South Fork Wind
to use the best commercially feasible technology and methods to
minimize sound levels from pile driving. Specifically, they stated that
NMFS should require a combination of noise mitigation systems to (1)
obtain the greatest noise reduction and attenuation using technically
and commercially feasible measures considering factors such as project
design and seabed conditions, and (2) achieve no less than 10-dB SEL in
combined noise reduction and attenuation, taking as a baseline,
projections from prior noise measurements of unmitigated piles from
Europe and North America.
Response: NMFS agrees with the ENGOs recommendation that South Fork
Wind should use the best available technology to reduce acoustic
impacts to marine mammals incidental to impact pile driving of
monopiles. In the IHA application, South Fork Wind proposed to use a
single BBC to attenuate noise produced during monopile installation.
However, the final IHA requires that South Fork Wind use either a
single BBC coupled with an additional noise mitigation device (e.g.,
Hydro Sound Damper), or a dBBC to achieve measured ranges to the Level
A harassment and Level B harassment isopleths that are equal to or less
than those predicted by acoustic modeling, assuming 10-dB attenuation.
NMFS has determined that this mitigation measure will help to ensure
that take of marine mammals, including NARWs, is reduced to the level
of least practicable adverse impact.
Comment 30: The ENGOs recommended that NMFS should require South
Fork Wind to report all visual observations and acoustic detections of
NARWs to NMFS or the Coast Guard as soon as possible and no later than
the end of the PSO shift, and that South Fork Wind should also be
required to immediately report an entangled or dead NARW to NMFS, the
Marine Animal Response Team (1-800-900-3622) or the United States Coast
Guard via one of several available systems (e.g., phone, app, radio).
Response: NMFS agrees with the recommendation that NARW detections,
both visual and acoustic, should be reported as soon as possible. The
IHA requires that if a NARW is observed at any time by PSOs or
personnel on any project vessels, during any project-related activity
or during vessel transit, South Fork Wind must report sighting
information to the NMFS NARW Sighting Advisory System, the U.S. Coast
Guard via channel 16, and the WhaleAlert app as soon as feasible but no
longer than 24 hours after the sighting. We anticipate that most
sightings will be reported by the end of the PSO shift as recommended
by the ENGOs; however, we also recognize that communications at sea can
sometimes be interrupted (e.g., poor cellular or satellite service).
Therefore, we are allowing the 24-hour maximum delay in reporting a
sighting(s) (with the caveat they report a sighting as soon as
feasible). If a NARW is detected via PAM, a report of the detection
must be submitted to NMFS as soon as is feasible, but no longer than 24
hours after the detection. In addition, within 48 hours, metadata
associated with the detection(s) must be submitted to the Northeast
Passive Acoustic Reporting System (<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#eb85868d98c59b8a88868f8a9f8aab85848a8ac58c849d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="91fffcf7e2bfe1f0f2fcf5f0e5f0d1fffef0f0bff6fee7">[email protected]</span></a>). We note
that given the gravity of a situation associated with the unauthorized
take by ship strike, the IHA requires South Fork Wind to report any
such taking to NMFS immediately, dedicating all resources to ensure
that the incident is reported. Such dedication, including ceasing
activities (as required if a ship strike occurs) is not necessary for a
sighting or acoustic detection report. See the Mitigation section below
for details. In addition, NMFS agrees with the recommendation that
South Fork
[[Page 821]]
Wind should be required to immediately report a dead or entangled whale
to NMFS, a Marine Animal Response Team, and the USCG, and has included
this requirement in the final authorization.
Comment 31: The ENGOs and a commenter from the general public
recommended that NMFS incorporate additional data sources into
calculations of marine mammal density and take estimates. Similarly,
RODA stated the NMFS' analyses should rely on the best available data
for estimating marine mammal take and developing robust mitigation
measures, and that the impacts to NARWs be fully considered prior to
the issuance of the IHA.
Response: Habitat-based density models produced by the Duke
University Marine Geospatial Ecology Lab (MGEL; Roberts et al., 2016,
2017, 2018, 2020) represent the best available scientific information
concerning marine mammal occurrence within the U.S. Atlantic Ocean
(more information, including the model results and supplementary
information for each of those models, is available at <a href="https://seamap.env.duke.edu/models/Duke/">https://seamap.env.duke.edu/models/Duke/</a> EC/). Density models were originally
developed for all cetacean taxa in the U.S. Atlantic (Roberts et al.,
2016). These models provided key improvements over previously available
information, by (1) incorporating additional aerial and shipboard
survey data from NMFS and other organizations collected over the period
1992-2014, (2) incorporating data from 60-percent more shipboard and
500-percent more aerial survey hours than did previously available
models, (3) controlling for the influence of sea state, group size,
availability bias, and perception bias on the probability of making a
sighting, and (4) modeling density from an expanded set of 8
physiographic and 16 dynamic oceanographic and biological covariates.
In subsequent years, certain models have been updated on the basis of
availability of additional data as well as methodological improvements.
In addition, a new density model for seals was produced as part of the
2017-18 round of model updates. Of particular note, Roberts (2020)
further updated density model results for NARWs by incorporating
additional sighting data and implementing three major changes:
Increasing spatial resolution, generating monthly estimates based on
three periods of survey data, and dividing the study area into 5
discrete regions. Model Version 9 for NARWs was undertaken with the
following objectives (Roberts 2020): (1) To account for recent changes
to NARW distributions, the model should be based on survey data that
extend through 2018, or later if possible. In addition to updates from
existing collaborators, data should be solicited from two survey
programs not used in prior model versions, including aerial surveys of
an area overlapping the Massachusetts (MA) and RI/MA WEAs from 2011-
2015 led by New England Aquarium (Kraus et al., 2016), and continued
from 2017-2018, and recent surveys of New York waters, either
traditional aerial surveys initiated by the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation in 2017, or digital aerial surveys
initiated by the New York State Energy Research and Development
Authority in 2016, or both; (2) to reflect a view in the NARW research
community that spatiotemporal patterns in NARW density changed around
the time the species entered a decline in approximately 2010, consider
basing the new model only on recent years, including contrasting
``before'' and ``after'' models that might illustrate shifts in
density, as well as a model spanning both periods, and specifically
consider which model would best represent NARW density in the near
future; (3) to facilitate better application of the model to near-shore
management questions, extend the spatial extent of the model farther
in-shore, particularly north of New York; and (4) increase the
resolution of the model beyond 10 km, if possible. All of these
objectives were met in developing the Version 9 update to the NARW
density model.
Accordingly, NMFS has determined that the Roberts et al. suite of
density models represent the best available scientific information, and
this determination was incorporated into NMFS' analysis for this IHA.
NMFS' reliance on the best available scientific evidence in our
analysis of potential impacts of the project on marine mammals and the
development of take estimates further includes recent survey data. For
example, where marine mammal sighting data collected by PSOs during
marine site characterization surveys in or near the project area
indicated that the potential for take may be higher than indicated by
the modeled exposures, we adjusted take numbers accordingly, when
appropriate. For NARWs, exposure modeling was based on the most recent
density data (Roberts 2020), which, as described above, incorporated
more recent survey data (through 2018) and that for the first time
included data from the 2011-2015 surveys of the MA and RI/MA WEAs
(Kraus et al. 2016) as well as the 2017-2018 continuation of those
surveys, known as the Marine Mammal Surveys of the Wind Energy Areas
(MMS-WEA) (Quintana et al., 2018). In addition, Pace (2021) describes
that the stock abundance of NARW is lower than that considered when the
proposed IHA was published; we have evaluated that new information and
incorporated it into the final IHA. In developing the final IHA, NMFS
also consulted the NARW sighting database, WhaleMap, which aggregates
both visual and acoustic sighting information from 2010 to present day.
Contributors to the database include the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans Canada, Transport Canada, NOAA's Protected Species Branch, Woods
Hole Oceanographic Institution/robots4whales, New England Aquarium,
Center for Coastal Studies, Canadian Whale Institute, Mingan Island
Cetacean Study, Ocean Tracking Network, Dalhousie University,
University of New Brunswick, and Nick Hawkins Photography, making it an
extensive database and useful tool in identifying spatial and temporal
occurrence of whales as well as locations and timing of management
actions such as implementation of DMAs.
NMFS invests heavily in conserving NARWs and, in analyzing the
impacts to NARWs from project construction, has considered and
leveraged the wealth of data collected by NOAA and partners to make
appropriately conservative management decisions in consideration of our
statutory authority under the MMPA. NMFS has applied the best available
(and most recent) science and has made the determinations necessary to
issue this IHA.
For future IHAs, NMFS will continue to review other recommended
data sources that become available to evaluate their applicability in a
quantitative sense (e.g., to an estimate of take numbers) and,
separately, to ensure that relevant information is considered
qualitatively when assessing the impacts of the specified activity on
the affected species or stocks and their habitat. NMFS will continue to
use the best available scientific information, and we welcome future
input from interested parties on data sources that may be of use in
analyzing the potential presence and movement patterns of marine
mammals, including NARWs, in U.S. Atlantic waters.
Comment 32: The ENGOs recommended that NMFS should acknowledge the
potential for take from vessel strikes and vessel noise. RODA similarly
expressed concern that the vessel traffic associated with construction
and operation of offshore wind farms may increase the risk of ship
strike of NARWs, and suggests that
[[Page 822]]
NMFS should focus restrictions on increases in vessel traffic rather
than vessel speed restrictions alone. In addition, RODA stated that
increased vessel travel might contribute to elevated noise levels that
will disrupt NARW behavior.
Response: South Fork Wind did not request authorization for take
incidental to vessel strike during construction of South Fork Wind
Farm. Nevertheless, as mentioned in the response to a previous comment,
NMFS analyzed the potential for vessel strikes to occur during the
construction phase of the project, and determined that the potential
for vessel strike is so low as to be discountable. NMFS does not
authorize any take of marine mammals incidental to vessel strike
resulting from the construction phase of the project. If South Fork
Wind strikes a marine mammal with a vessel, it would be in violation of
the MMPA. This gives South Fork Wind a strong incentive to operate its
vessels with all due caution and to effectively implement the suite of
vessel strike avoidance measures called for in the IHA. South Fork Wind
proposed a very conservative suite of mitigation measures related to
vessel strike avoidance, including measures specifically designed to
avoid impacts to NARWs. Section 4(d) in the IHA contains a suite of
non-discretionary requirements pertaining to ship strike avoidance,
including vessel operation protocols and monitoring. Since publication
of the proposed IHA, NMFS included several new vessel strike avoidance
measures that further reduce the likelihood of take incidental to
vessel strike (see Changes from Proposed IHA to Final IHA).
Construction of the project will likely be based out of ProvPort, RI or
Port of New London, CT, both of which require a 50-60 mile one-way trip
by vessel to the Lease Area. South Fork Wind has indicated that during
construction, the number of crew transfer vessel transits will be
limited to 20 per month. To date, NMFS is not aware of any wind
industry vessel (e.g., marine site characterization survey vessel)
reporting a ship strike. When considered in the context of the low
overall probability of any vessel strike by South Fork Wind vessels,
given the limited additional project-related vessel traffic relative to
existing traffic in the project area, the comprehensive visual and PAM
monitoring required in transit routes, and that construction would
occur during the time of year when NARW density is lowest, NMFS
believes these measures are sufficiently protective to avoid ship
strike; thus, we did not authorize take from ship strike. These
measures are described fully in the Mitigation section below, and
include, but are not limited to: training for all vessel observers and
captains, daily monitoring of the NARW Sighting Advisory System,
WhaleAlert app, and USCG Channel 16 for situational awareness regarding
NARW presence in the project area (including transit corridors),
communication protocols if whales are observed by any South Fork Wind
personnel, vessel operational protocols should any marine mammal be
observed, and visual and passive acoustic monitoring to clear transit
routes of NARWs.
The potential impacts of overall increases in the amount of vessel
traffic related to OSW development, which is separate from the analysis
of the potential for vessel strike during South Fork Wind's
construction phase under the final authorization, were addressed in
BOEM's EIS for the South Fork Wind project, which can be found here:
<a href="https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/south-fork">https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/south-fork</a>. In
summary, BOEM determined that it is likely that mobile marine mammals
would avoid behavioral disturbance from exposures like those resulting
from vessel noise, meaning that the duration of exposure to noise from
slow-moving, or closely clustered and stationary construction vessels
would be limited. Moreover, a substantial portion of construction
vessel activity would occur in an area having high existing levels of
vessel traffic. In these areas, construction vessel noise would
contribute to, but may not substantially alter, ambient noise generated
by existing large vessel traffic in the vicinity.
As described above, South Fork Wind estimates that 20 crew transfer
vessel transits per month will be required. While some individual
marine mammals may exhibit short-term behavioral responses, and given
the possibility that elevated background noise from vessels and other
sources could interfere with the detection or interpretation of
acoustic cues among NARW conspecifics, brief exposures to one or two
South Fork Wind vessels transporting crew between the Lease Area and a
nearby port would be unlikely to disrupt behavioral patterns in a
manner that would rise to the level of take.
Comment 33: The ENGOs and a commenter from the general public
recommended that NMFS analyze cumulative impacts to NARWs and other
endangered and protected marine mammals species and stocks as part of
the take estimation and permitting process, and suggest that NMFS
advance a programmatic incidental take regulation for offshore wind
development activities that takes into account risks from other
sectors.
Response: The ENGOs conflate the requirements of the MMPA and NEPA
in their contention that NMFS must analyze the cumulative impacts from
multiple proposed wind development activities on NARWs and other
endangered and protected species and stocks, and that appropriate
mitigation must be prescribed to mitigate those cumulative impacts.
Neither the MMPA nor NMFS' codified implementing regulations
specifically call for consideration of impacts on marine mammals and
their habitat from activities other than those specified in the request
for authorization. The preamble for NMFS' implementing regulations (54
FR 40338; September 29, 1989) states in response to comments that the
impacts from other past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are to be
incorporated into the negligible impact analysis via their impacts on
the baseline. Consistent with that direction, NMFS has factored into
its negligible impact analysis the impacts of other past and ongoing
anthropogenic activities via their impacts on the baseline (e.g., as
reflected in the density/distribution and status of the species,
population size and growth rate, and other relevant stressors). Section
101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA requires NMFS to modify, suspend, or revoke
the IHA if it finds that the activity is having more than a negligible
impact on the affected species or stocks of marine mammals. NMFS will
closely monitor baseline conditions before and during the period when
the IHA is effective and will exercise this authority if appropriate.
Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA requires NMFS to make a determination
that the take incidental to a ``specified activity,'' as opposed to
other activities not specified in the request for an IHA, will have a
negligible impact on the affected species or stocks of marine mammals.
NMFS' implementing regulations require applicants to include in their
request a detailed description of the specified activity or class of
activities that can be expected to result in incidental taking of
marine mammals. 50 CFR 216.104(a)(1). Thus, the ``specified activity''
for which incidental take coverage is being sought under section
101(a)(5)(D) is generally defined and described by the applicant. Here,
South Fork Wind was the applicant for the IHA, and NMFS is responding
to the specified activity as described in their application (and
[[Page 823]]
making the necessary findings on that basis). Through the response to
public comments in the 1989 implementing regulations, we also indicated
(1) that NMFS would consider cumulative effects that are reasonably
foreseeable when preparing a NEPA analysis and (2) that reasonably
foreseeable cumulative effects would also be considered through the
section 7 consultation for ESA-listed species. In this case, cumulative
impacts have been adequately addressed under NEPA in BOEM's
Environmental Impact Statement regarding South Fork Wind's proposed
project. NMFS is a cooperating agency under NEPA on that EIS and has
adopted the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for purposes of
issuing the IHA to South Fork Wind. In addition, NMFS was a signatory
to the associated Record of Decision issued on November 24, 2021.
Separately, NMFS engaged in intra-agency consultation under section 7
of the ESA. The resulting Biological Opinion, issued October 1, 2021,
determined that NMFS' action of issuing the IHA is not likely to
adversely affect listed marine mammals or adversely modify their
critical habitat. The Biological Opinion considered activities both
within (related to construction) and outside (e.g., operation and
decommissioning) the scope of NMFS' IHA and included Terms and
Conditions aimed at reducing the potential impacts of the project on
marine mammals, including NARWs.
With respect to the recommendation that NMFS advance programmatic
incidental take regulations for offshore wind development that take
into account risks from other sectors, NMFS may issue regulations upon
request. To date, neither the offshore wind industry nor BOEM has
expressed interest in applying for such regulations. We note that the
footnote the ENGOs provided in the letter including this comment cites
the request to BOEM for a programmatic EIS. Again, it appears the ENGOs
are conflating the NEPA and MMPA processes. NMFS does agree with the
ENGOs that consistency in mitigation measures, where appropriate,
provides efficiencies and helps to ensure adequate measures are being
prescribed. To this end, NMFS is working on developing best management
practice guidelines that will assist NMFS in developing mitigation
measures common to all offshore wind IHAs.
Comment 34: The ENGOs recommended that NMFS avoid describing
potential changes resulting from offshore wind development as
``beneficial,'' as it is unclear what implications these changes may
have on the wider ecosystem, and instead use terminology such as
``increase,'' ``decrease,'' and ``change.''
Response: In the proposed IHA notice, NMFS identified that impacts
from the permanent structures (i.e., WTGs and OSS) on marine mammal
habitat may be beneficial as a result of increased presence of prey due
to the WTGs (and OSS) potentially acting as artificial reefs (Russell
et al., 2014). However, we recognize that the long-term impact from
foundation presence is outside the scope of the effective period of the
IHA and that this analysis is more appropriate in the context of the
ESA consultation and NEPA analysis as it relates to marine mammal
habitat. We agree that the long-term ecosystem effects from offshore
wind development in the Northwest Atlantic are still being evaluated
and that those ecosystem effects are likely to be complex. Thus, while
we acknowledge that there is currently insufficient information to draw
a conclusion regarding longer-term impacts to marine mammals, we agree
with the commenters that the term ``beneficial'' should be avoided when
describing potential outcomes of offshore wind development for marine
mammals.
Comment 35: The ENGOs recommended that NMFS prohibit extensions of
any 1-year authorizations through a truncated 15-day comment period as
it is contrary to the MMPA. A member of the general public echoed this
concern and suggested that there is not adequate time in the review
process to comment on the proposed IHA or any potential renewal IHA.
Response: NMFS did not include language in the final IHA for the
South Fork Wind project related to renewal. While this does not
necessarily preclude a Renewal IHA, we think a Renewal IHA is unlikely
in this case, given the potential for changes over the next three years
that could affect our analyses. However, NMFS' IHA renewal process
meets all statutory requirements. In prior responses to comments about
IHA renewals (e.g., 84 FR 52464; October 02, 2019 and 85 FR 53342,
August 28, 2020), NMFS has explained how the renewal process, as
implemented, is consistent with the statutory requirements contained in
section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, provides additional efficiencies
beyond the use of abbreviated notices and, further, promotes NMFS'
goals of improving conservation of marine mammals and increasing
efficiency in the MMPA compliance process. Therefore, we intend to
continue implementing the renewal process. The notice of the proposed
IHA published in the Federal Register on February 5, 2021 (86 FR 8490)
made clear that the agency was seeking comment on both the initial
proposed IHA and the potential issuance of a renewal for this project.
Because any renewal is limited to another year of identical or nearly
identical activities in the same location or the same activities that
were not completed within the 1-year period of the initial IHA,
reviewers have the information needed to effectively comment on both
the immediate proposed IHA and a possible 1-year renewal, should the
IHA holder choose to request one. While there would be additional
documents submitted with a renewal request, for a qualifying renewal
these would be limited to documentation that NMFS would make available
and use to verify that the activities are identical to those in the
initial IHA, are nearly identical such that the changes would have
either no effect on impacts to marine mammals or decrease those
impacts, or are a subset of activities already analyzed and authorized
but not completed under the initial IHA. NMFS would also need to
confirm, among other things, that the activities would occur in the
same location; involve the same species and stocks; provide for
continuation of the same mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements; and that no new information has been received that would
alter the prior analysis. The renewal request would also contain a
preliminary monitoring report in order to verify that effects from the
activities do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously
analyzed. The additional 15-day public comment period provides the
public an opportunity to review these few documents, provide any
additional pertinent information, and comment on whether they think the
criteria for a renewal have been met. Between the initial 30-day
comment period on these same activities and the additional 15 days, the
total comment period for a renewal is 45 days.
In addition to the IHA renewal process being consistent with all
requirements under section 101(a)(5)(D), it is also consistent with
Congress' intent for issuance of IHAs to the extent reflected in
statements in the legislative history of the MMPA. Through the
provision for renewals in the regulations, description of the process
and express invitation to comment on specific potential renewals in the
Request for Public Comments section of each proposed IHA, the
description of the process on NMFS' website, further elaboration on the
process through
[[Page 824]]
responses to comments such as these, posting of substantive documents
on the agency's website, and provision of 30 or 45 days for public
review and comment on all proposed initial IHAs and Renewals
respectively, NMFS has ensured that the public is ``invited and
encouraged to participate fully in the agency's decision-making
process'' as Congress intended.
Comment 36: The ENGOs recommended that NMFS work with relevant
experts and stakeholders towards developing a robust and effective near
real-time monitoring and mitigation system for NARWs and other
endangered and protected species (e.g., fin, sei, minke, and humpback
whales) during offshore wind development.
Response: NMFS is generally supportive of this concept. A network
of near real-time baleen whale monitoring devices are active or have
been tested in portions of New England and Canadian waters. These
systems employ various digital acoustic monitoring instruments, which
have been placed on autonomous platforms including slocum gliders, wave
gliders, profiling floats, and moored buoys. Systems that have proven
to be successful will likely see increased use as operational tools for
many whale monitoring and mitigation applications. A recent report
published by NMFS summarizes a workshop NMFS convened to address
objectives specifically related to monitoring NARWs and presents the
Expert Working Group's recommendations for a comprehensive monitoring
strategy to guide future analyses and data collection (``Technical
Memorandum NMFS[hyphen]OPR[hyphen]64: North Atlantic Right Whale
Monitoring and Surveillance: Report and Recommendations of the National
Marine Fisheries Service's Expert Working Group,'' which is available
at: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/north-atlantic-right-whale-monitoring-and-surveillance-report-and-recommendations">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/north-atlantic-right-whale-monitoring-and-surveillance-report-and-recommendations</a>).
Among the numerous recommendations found in the report, the Expert
Working Group encouraged the widespread deployment of auto-buoys to
provide near real-time detections of NARW calls that visual survey
teams can then respond to for collection of identification photographs
or biological samples. Similar approaches utilizing real-time or
archival PAM could be utilized to monitor other marine mammal species
throughout the life cycles of offshore wind farms.
Comment 37: For comments and recommendations on high-resolution
geophysical survey activities, the ENGOs directed NMFS to their letter
submitted on September 9, 2020, regarding NMFS' failure to adequately
protect endangered and protected marine mammals during marine site
characterization surveys required for offshore wind development.
Response: NMFS refers the ENGOS to the Federal Register notice 85
FR 63508 (October 8, 2020) for previous responses to the ENGOs'
previous letter.
Comment 38: The ENGOs recommended that NMFS coordinate with BOEM to
establish and fund a robust, long-term scientific plan to monitor the
effects of offshore wind development on marine mammals and other
species before, during, and after large-scale commercial projects are
constructed.
Response: NMFS appreciated the ENGOs' recommendation and will
continue working with BOEM to develop strategies for monitoring the
impacts of offshore wind development on protected species.
Comment 39: RODA expressed concern about potential negative impacts
(i.e., increased restrictions or other constraints) to Atlantic
fisheries, local fisherman, and coastal communities resulting from any
potential adverse impacts to NARWs and other protected species from
offshore wind construction projects, noting that impacts on the fishing
industry were not addressed in the proposed IHA.
Response: The socio-economic impacts of the South Fork Wind's
activities are evaluated in the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) prepared by BOEM to assess the effects of construction and
operation of the project, and which NMFS adopted to support the
issuance of the IHA. However, neither the MMPA nor our implementing
regulations require NMFS to analyze impacts to other industries (e.g.,
fishermen) or coastal communities from issuance of an ITA. In order to
issue an ITA, Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA
require NMFS to make a determination that the take incidental to a
``specified activity'' will have a negligible impact on the affected
species or stocks of marine mammals, and will not result in an
unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of marine mammals for
taking for subsistence uses. NMFS has made the required determinations.
Comment 40: RODA expressed concern that the presence of offshore
wind turbines may impact low altitude aerial surveys conducted by NOAA/
NMFS to monitor protected species, including NARWs, as the height of
the turbines would exceed the survey altitude.
Response: NMFS has determined that offshore wind development
projects in the Northeast will impact several NEFSC surveys, including
the aerial surveys for protected species. NEFSC has developed a federal
survey mitigation program to mitigate the impacts to these surveys, and
is in the early stages of implementing this program. However, this
impact is outside the scope of analysis related to issuance of take
incidental to the specified activity under the MMPA.
Comment 41: RODA stated that offshore wind site characterization
surveys using HRG equipment could result in long-term and high-
intensity impacts on marine mammals. In addition, RODA questions the
efficacy of mitigation measures prescribed for such surveys, stating
that it is presumptive to assume that mitigation measures are
sufficient to eliminate adverse impacts to marine mammals and guarantee
that no NARWs will be harmed during site characterization surveys.
Response: This IHA does not cover site characterization surveys--
nevertheless, the construction surveys covered similarly utilize HRG
equipment. RODA provides no evidence that site characterization surveys
could result in long-term and high-intensity impacts on marine mammals,
and that NARWs could be harmed during these surveys. The surveys
utilizing HRG equipment SFEC (construction surveys) that will be
conducted under the South Fork Wind IHA are specifically to assess the
inter-array and export cables during construction of the SFWF, are
relatively small scale (i.e., no more than 60 days of survey
activities), and use HRG equipment with small associated Level A
harassment and Level B harassment zones (maximum of 141 m for Level B
harassment). Both the clearance and shutdown zones for NARWs are more
than three times the size of the Level B harassment zone (i.e., 500 m),
making it unlikely that NARWs would even experience Level B harassment
from surveys, let alone more significant or long-term impacts. In
contrast to RODA's comment, the Commission, the agency charged with
advising federal agencies on the impacts of human activity on marine
mammals, has questioned in its comments whether incidental take
authorizations are even necessary for surveys utilizing HRG equipment
(i.e., take is unlikely to occur).
BOEM (2021a) reviewed underwater noise levels produced by the
available types of HRG survey equipment as part of a programmatic
biological assessment for this and other activities associated
[[Page 825]]
with regional offshore wind energy development. NMFS (2021) concurred
with BOEM's determination that planned marine site characterization
survey activities using even the loudest available equipment types
would be unlikely to injure or measurably affect the behavior of ESA-
listed marine mammals. The rationale supporting this conclusion also
applies to non-listed marine mammal species. Specifically, the noise
levels produced by HRG survey equipment are relatively low, meaning
that an individual marine mammal would have to remain very close to the
sound source for extended periods to experience auditory injury. This
type of exposure is unlikely as the sound sources are continuously
mobile and directional (i.e., pointed at the bottom). Along those
lines, on June 29, 2021, NMFS GARFO concluded ESA consultation with
BOEM and NMFS, finding that marine site assessment surveys using HRG
equipment similar to that used by the surveys planned under this South
Fork Wind IHA, may effect, but are not likely to adversely affect, ESA-
listed marine mammals provided the project design criteria (PDC) and
best management practices (BMP) proposed by BOEM are incorporated. NMFS
has included those PDCs and BMPs in South Fork Wind's IHA, including
the use of protected species observer (PSO) monitoring of species-
specific clearance zones around specified HRG equipment (i.e., boomers,
sparkers, and Chirps), and mandatory shutdown procedures to further
minimize exposure risk. While individual marine mammals may be exposed
to marine site characterization survey noise sufficient to cause
behavioral effects rising to the level of take under the MMPA, those
effects would be temporary in nature and unlikely to cause any
perceptible longer-term consequences to individuals or populations.
Upon request, NMFS has conservatively issued take, by Level B
harassment, incidental to construction surveys using HRG equipment.
Comment 42: RODA expressed interest in understanding the outcome if
the number of actual takes exceed the number authorized during
construction of an offshore wind project (i.e., would the project be
stopped mid-construction or mid-operation), and how offshore wind
developers will be held accountable for impacts to protected marine
species such that impacts are not inadvertently assigned to fishermen.
Response: It is important to recognize that an IHA does not
authorize the activity but authorizes take of marine mammals incidental
to the activity. As described in condition 3(b) and (c) of the IHA,
authorized take, by Level A harassment and Level B harassment only, is
limited to the species and numbers listed in Table 1 of the final IHA,
and any taking exceeding the authorized amounts listed in Table 1 is
prohibited and may result in the modification, suspension, or
revocation of the IHA. As described in condition 3(f), if an individual
from a species for which authorization has not been granted, or a
species for which authorization has been granted but the authorized
take number has not been met, is observed entering or within the Level
B harassment zone (construction surveys) or clearance zone (both impact
and vibratory piles driving), HRG acoustic sources and pile-driving
activities must be shut down immediately (when technically feasible as
described under condition 4(a)(ix)(1) of the final IHA). Pile driving
and reinitiation of HRG acoustic sources must not resume until the
animal has been confirmed to have left the relevant clearance zone or
the observation time (as indicated in conditions 4(a)(xi)(2),
4(b)(i)(6)), and 4(c)(i)(4) of the final IHA) has elapsed with no
further sightings.
It is unclear why RODA would be concerned that impacts would be
``inadvertently assigned'' to fishermen. Fishing impacts generally
center on entanglement in fishing gear, which is a very acute, visible,
and severe impact. In contrast, the pathway by which impacts occur
incidental to construction is primarily acoustic in nature. Regardless,
any take beyond that authorized is unlawful. If the authorized takes
were exceeded, but the project could proceed without additional take of
marine mammals, it would be lawful. It is BOEM's responsibility as the
permitting agency to make decisions regarding ceasing the project. If
the case suggested by RODA does occur, NMFS would work with BOEM and
South Fork Wind to determine the most appropriate means by which to
ensure compliance with the MMPA.
Comment 43: A commenter from the general public suggested that
there is a lack of baseline auditory physiology data and adequate
conservation metrics for sea turtles, finfish, and other marine species
in the project area. The commenter correctly noted that the mitigation
measures included in the proposed IHA do not include protections for
sea turtles.
Response: Under the MMPA, NMFS is charged with analyzing the
impacts from the specified activity to marine mammals and their
habitat, including their prey (e.g., fish and invertebrates), and to
prescribe the permissible means of taking and other ``means of
effecting the least practicable adverse impact'' on the affected
species or stocks and their habitat. In the Effects to Prey section of
the notice of the proposed IHA (84 FR 8690, February 5, 2021), NMFS
provides a summary and discussion of the ways noise produced by
construction activities might impact fishes. The potential effects of
noise on fishes depends on the overlapping frequency range, distance
from the sound source, water depth of exposure, and species-specific
hearing range, anatomy, and physiology. Key impacts to fishes may
include behavioral responses, hearing damage, barotrauma (pressure-
related injuries), and mortality. However, the most likely impact to
fishes from impact and vibratory pile-driving activities in the project
areas would be temporary avoidance of the area. The duration of fish
avoidance of an area is unknown, but given the relatively short
duration of vibratory pile driving (18 hours each for installation and
removal), and the small number of monopiles planned for installation,
NMFS anticipates a rapid return to normal recruitment, distribution,
and behavior. In general, impacts to marine mammal prey species are
expected to be minor and temporary.
Because sea turtles are not marine mammals, no protections are
afforded to them under the MMPA. However, we refer the commenter to
NMFS' Biological Opinion, issued October 1, 2021. The Biological
Opinion, issued pursuant to the ESA, contains an analysis on the
impacts to ESA-listed fish and all sea turtles (as all sea turtle
species are listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA). Impacts
to non-listed fishes may be found in BOEM's Final EIS for the project,
issued August 20, 2021, and found here: <a href="https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/south-fork">https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/south-fork</a>.
Comment 44: A commenter from the general public identified several
scientific journal articles that discuss the diving physiology of
marine mammals, and stated that NMFS should consider this information
as it relates to potential avoidance behavior marine mammals might
demonstrate as a result of impact pile driving.
Response: NMFS used the best available science in developing its
impact analysis and making the findings required to issue the requested
IHA. The proposed IHA notice acknowledges avoidance as a potential
response of a marine mammal when exposed to noise from project
construction and identifies that such a response may reduce the
potential of more severe impacts such as PTS. While the commenter was
not specific about how NMFS should consider the suggested literature
related
[[Page 826]]
to diving behavior, the Level A Harassment exposure estimates modeled
by JASCO incorporated known dive behavior via animat modeling. However,
NMFS has found that incorporating a behavior such as avoidance into an
exposure model is extremely complex and contains a high degree of
uncertainty. For this reason, the exposure modeling, and resulting
take, do not consider avoidance behavior. NMFS reviewed the references
provided by the commenter and determined that that the information
contained therein was not sufficient to lead NMFS to reach any other
conclusions regarding the impacts of pile driving on marine mammals.
Comment 45: A commenter from the general public stated that the
proposed IHA would have benefited from NMFS' consideration of input
from public comments on the DEIS and subsequent corrections in BOEM's
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), which assesses the
physical, biological, and social/human impacts of the South Fork Wind
project and all reasonable alternatives.
Response: NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA under the MMPA to
authorize the taking of marine mammals incidental to South Fork Wind's
in-water construction activities was a major federal action for
purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), necessitating
preparation of an appropriate level NEPA document. NMFS chose to
satisfy this obligation by actively working with BOEM as a cooperating
agency on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the South Fork Wind offshore
wind project. Once the FEIS was completed, NMFS independently evaluated
it and determined the FEIS was sufficient to satisfy NMFS' independent
NEPA responsibilities. NMFS drafted a memorandum for the record
documenting its rationale for adopting BOEM's FEIS. NMFS then signed a
Joint Record of Decision (ROD) in which it selected the alternative of
issuing the IHA to South Fork Wind, explained the factors it considered
in doing so, and specified the mitigation measures that would be
imposed.
Changes From Proposed IHA to Final IHA
In the final IHA, NMFS Office of Protected Resources (OPR) adopted
the Terms and Conditions of the October 2021 Biological Opinion for the
South Fork Offshore Energy Project, the August 2021 Programmatic
Consultation on marine site assessment surveys, and made other
modifications as a result of public input on the proposed IHA, which
resulted in changes to mitigation and monitoring measures from proposed
to final IHA. NMFS provides a summary here, and the changes are also
described in the specific applicable sections below (e.g., Mitigation).
A complete list of final measures may be found in the issued IHA
(available 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>).
Please note that since publication of the notice of the proposed
IHA, NMFS has changed terminology from exclusion zone to shutdown zone
to clarify the mitigation action to be taken when a marine mammal
enters this zone. In addition, in order to distinguish surveys using
HRG equipment to obtain a baseline assessment of seabed, ecological,
and archeological conditions within the footprint of future offshore
wind development (marine site characterization) from those surveys
planned under this IHA (also using HRG equipment) to assess the inter-
array and export cables throughout construction of the SFWF and SFEC,
NMFS has changed terminology from HRG surveys to construction surveys.
Since publication of the proposed IHA, South Fork Wind communicated
to NMFS that construction activities will not commence until November
2022, rather than between April and May 2022 (as indicated in the
proposed IHA). Therefore, the period of effectiveness of the IHA is
November 15, 2022 to November 14, 2023.
In addition to the seasonal restriction on impact pile driving of
monopiles from January 1 through April 30 included in the proposed IHA,
the final IHA specifies that impact pile driving of monopiles must not
occur in December unless an unanticipated delay due to weather or
technical problems, notified to and approved by BOEM, arises that
necessitates extending impact pile driving of monopiles through
December.
After further consideration, NMFS modified several zone sizes
associated with monitoring and mitigation measures to provide
additional protection for NARWs. The final IHA includes the condition
that any large whale visually observed by a PSO within 2,000 m, or as
modified based on SFV measurements, of the impact pile-driving vessel
that cannot be identified to species must be treated as if it were a
NARW for clearance and shutdown purposes. The distance has been
increased from 1,000 m (included in the proposed IHA) to 2,000 m to
align with the large whale shutdown zone. Similarly, the distance
within which PSOs must treat an unspecified large whale as a NARW
during vibratory pile driving has been increased from 1,000 m to 1,500
m for the same reason. In the final IHA, NMFS has defined the minimum
visibility zone, or the area over which PSOs must be able to clearly
observe marine mammals to begin the clearance process, as 2.2 km. In
addition, NMFS has clarified that the 2.2 km large whale clearance zone
included in the notice of proposed IHA (Table 24) is the minimum visual
clearance zone (i.e., the zone that must be both fully visible and
clear of NARWs and other large whales for 30 minutes immediately prior
to commencing impact pile driving of monopiles)--beyond that distance,
PAM, in conjunction with visual monitoring (recognizing the visibility
limitations under certain conditions), must be used to confirm that the
5 km NARW clearance zone is clear of NARW's and other large whales
prior to commencing impact pile driving of monopiles.
Since publication of the proposed IHA, South Fork Wind communicated
to NMFS that the PAM system will be designed such that the PAM PSO will
be capable of reviewing acoustic detections within 5 minutes of the
original detection, rather than 15 minutes (as indicated in the
proposed IHA), to determine if a NARW was detected. This reduced
evaluation time provides improved support for near real-time mitigation
actions, should they be required. While the proposed IHA required a PAM
PSO to have 75-percent confidence that a vocalization originated from a
NARW to call for a delay or shutdown of impact pile driving of
monopiles, the final IHA only requires that a PAM PSO categorize a call
as having a probable (or greater) likelihood of originating from a NARW
(scale: No, possible, probable, yes). In addition, South Fork Wind is
required to communicate detections of all marine mammals detected at
any distance (i.e., not limited to the 5 km Level B harassment zone) to
visual PSOs for situational awareness. Finally, the final IHA now
specifies that the PAM system(s) must not be placed closer than 1 km to
the pile being driven.
The final IHA includes several additional vessel strike avoidance
measures to provide enhanced protection for NARWs. South Fork Wind must
use available sources of information on NARW presence, including (1)
daily monitoring of the Right Whale Sightings Advisory System, (2)
consulting the WhaleAlert app, and (3) monitoring of Coast Guard VHF
[[Page 827]]
Channel 16 throughout the day to receive notifications of any sightings
and information associated with any Dynamic Management Areas (DMAs), to
plan construction activities and vessel routes, if practicable, to
minimize the potential for co-occurrence with NARWs. This measure was
not included in the proposed IHA but affords increased protection of
NARWs by raising awareness of NARW presence in the area through
monitoring efforts outside of South Fork Wind's efforts. In addition,
whenever multiple project-associated vessels (e.g., construction
survey, crew transfer) are operating concurrently, any visual
observations of ESA-listed marine mammals must be communicated to PSOs
and/or vessel captains associated with other vessels to increase
situational awareness. While the proposed IHA only required vessels
greater than or equal to 65 ft (19.8 m) to immediately reduce speed to
10 kts or less when a NARW is sighted at any distance by the observer
or anyone on the underway vessel (or any other large whale, mom/calf
pair, or large assemblage of non-delphinoid cetaceans are observed near
(within 100 m) of an underway vessel), the final IHA includes vessels
of all sizes in this requirement. The final IHA requires that
confirmation of marine mammal observer training (including an
understanding of the IHA requirements) must be documented on a training
course log sheet and reported to NMFS for those dedicated visual
observers required on vessels that are traveling over 10 knots. In
addition, NMFS now requires that when a marine mammal is observed
during vessel transit, the following data must be collected: Time, date
and location (latitude/longitude); the vessel's activity, heading and
speed; sea state, water depth and visibility; marine mammal
identification to the best of the observer's ability (e.g., NARW,
whale, dolphin, seal); initial distance at which the marine mammal was
observed from the vessel and closest point of approach; and any
avoidance measures taken in response to the marine mammal sighting.
South Fork Wind is required to implement a noise mitigation system
to reduce noise during impact pile driving of monopiles such that the
measured ranges to Level A harassment and Level B harassment isopleths
are equal to or less than those predicted by acoustic modeling,
assuming 10-dB attenuation. The proposed IHA included the use of a
single BBC, while the final IHA specifies that South Fork Wind must use
(at a minimum) a single BBC coupled with an additional noise mitigation
device, or a dBBC.
The final IHA requires verification of the Level A harassment and
Level B harassment zones through sound field verification (SFV),
whereas the proposed IHA only required verification of the Level B
harassment zone. Additionally, the final IHA now specifies that NMFS
may expand the relevant clearance and shutdown zones in the event that
field measurements indicate ranges to Level A harassment and Level B
harassment isopleths are consistently greater than the ranges predicted
by modeling, assuming 10-dB attenuation (see Acoustic Monitoring for
Sound Field and Harassment Isopleth Verification section). However, if
harassment zones are expanded beyond an additional 1,500 m, additional
PSOs must be deployed on additional platforms, with each observer
responsible for maintaining watch in no more than 180[deg], and of an
area with a radius no greater than 1,500 m. Depending on the extent of
zone size expansion, reinitiation of consultation under Section 7 of
the ESA may be required. Conversely, if initial acoustic field
measurements indicate ranges to the isopleths corresponding to Level A
harassment and Level B harassment thresholds are less than the ranges
predicted by modeling (assuming 10-dB attenuation), South Fork Wind may
request a modification of the clearance and shutdown zones for impact
pile driving of monopiles. However, for a modification request to be
considered by NMFS, South Fork Wind must have conducted SFV on at least
three piles in representative monopile installation locations (e.g.,
substrate type, water depth) to verify that zone sizes are consistently
smaller than those predicted by modeling, assuming 10-dB attenuation.
In the event that subsequently driven monopiles require greater hammer
energy or substrate conditions suggest noise generated from the
activity could produce larger sound fields, SFV must be conducted for
those subsequent piles. Should NMFS approve reductions in zone sizes
(i.e., Level A harassment, Level B harassment, clearance and/or
shutdown) for impact pile driving of monopiles, the minimum visibility
zone will not be decreased to a size smaller than 2.2 km. The shutdown
and clearance zones would be equivalent to the measured range to the
Level A harassment isopleth plus 10 percent and 20 percent,
respectively, rounded up to the nearest 100 m for PSO clarity. The
shutdown zone for sei, fin, and sperm whales must not be reduced to a
size less than 1,000 m. The visual and PAM clearance and shutdown zones
for NARWs must not be decreased, regardless of acoustic field
measurements. The Level B harassment zone would be equal to the largest
measured range to the Level B harassment isopleth. Finally, the final
IHA requires South Fork Wind to report hammer energies required for
each monopile installation, as well as ambient noise spectra.
There are several additional planning and reporting requirements
included in the final IHA. Specifically, NMFS is requiring that South
Fork Wind prepare and submit Pile Driving and Marine Mammal Monitoring
Plans to NMFS for review and approval at least 90 days before the start
of any pile driving. The plans must include final project design
related to all pile driving (e.g., number and type of piles, hammer
type, noise mitigation equipment, anticipated start date, etc.), and
all information related to PAM PSO protocols and visual PSO protocols
(including alternative monitoring technology (i.e., IR/Thermal
camera)), for all activities. South Fork Wind must also submit a NARW
vessel strike avoidance plan 90 days prior to commencement of vessel
use. The plan will describe, at a minimum, how PAM will be conducted to
ensure the transit corridor(s) is clear of NARWs and provide details on
vessel-based observer protocols on transiting vessels. Submission of
the above plans was not required in the proposed IHA.
When reporting the results of SFV, South Fork Wind must include (in
addition to the information that was included as a requirement in the
proposed IHA) the bandwidth, hydrophone sensitivity, a description of
the depth and sediment type at the recording and pile-driving
locations, and any action taken to adjust the noise mitigation system.
In addition to the final report, the IHA requires South Fork Wind to
provide the initial results of SFV to NMFS in an interim report after
each monopile installation for the first three piles as soon as they
are available, but no later than 48 hours after each installation.
If a NARW is detected via PAM, the date, time, location of the
detection, and the recording platform must be reported to NMFS as soon
as feasible but no longer than 24 hours after the detection. Full
detection data and metadata must be submitted on the 15th of every
month for the previous month. Prior to initiation of the project
activities, South Fork Wind must demonstrate in a report submitted to
NMFS (<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#79100d09571c0a1a113917161818571e160f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1d74696d33786e7e755d73727c7c337a726b">[email protected]</span></a>) that all required training has been completed
for South Fork Wind personnel (including vessel crew and
[[Page 828]]
captains, and PSOs). This report was not required in the proposed IHA.
The proposed IHA only required that South Fork Wind submit a draft
report on all monitoring conducted under the IHA within 90 days of
completion of the monitoring efforts. Since that time, NMFS determined
that more frequent reviews of South Fork Wind's monopile installation
activities and monitoring data are warranted. In the final IHA, South
Fork Wind is required to submit weekly and monthly reports (see
Reporting section for details). Finally, NMFS has updated the contact
information for reporting injured or dead marine mammals, or a vessel
strike, in the event that South Fork Wind needs to report either.
From the proposed IHA to the final IHA, NMFS modified the take
number for blue whales. The proposed IHA allocated one take, by Level B
harassment, of a blue whale incidental to impact pile driving of
monopiles, even though animal exposure modeling resulted in zero blue
whale exposures (by Level A harassment or Level B harassment). However,
after further examination, NMFS has determined that the potential for
even Level B harassment of this species is de minimus and NMFS is not
authorizing take by Level B harassment. The area is not a preferred
blue whale habitat, as the species generally prefers deeper water and
bathymetric features such as the continental shelf edge. In addition,
there have been no blue whale sightings during previous monitoring
efforts within and near the SFWF and SFEC (e.g., CSA 2020; Smultea
Environmental Sciences 2020; Gardline 2021). For these reasons, NFMS
does not adopt the Commission's recommendation to authorize (in
addition to the proposed single take, by Level B harassment, which is
now considered de minimus) one take, by Level A harassment (PTS), of a
blue whale incidental to impact pile driving of monopiles.
Per the Commission's recommendation, NMFS has modified take, by
Level B harassment, incidental to impact pile driving of monopiles for
long-finned pilot whales, Atlantic spotted dolphins, common dolphins,
and bottlenose dolphins. The take numbers, by Level B harassment,
included in the proposed IHA for these species were those requested by
South Fork Wind in the IHA application. Upon further review of
scientific literature (DoN 2017; Smultea Sciences, 2020; CSA 2921;
AMAPPS 2021), NMFS updated the reference for average group size for
each species and conservatively selected the largest average group size
for each species reported among references as the basis for increasing
take numbers from the proposed to the final IHA. NMFS selected the
group size reported for long-finned pilot whales (n=20) in CETAP (1982)
and increased take, by Level B harassment, from 12 (included in the
proposed IHA) to 20 (Table 18). Barkaski and Kelly (2018) report an
average group size of 13 for Atlantic spotted dolphins, which is
similar to the average group size based on sighting data within and
near the SFWF and SFEC (Smultea Sciences, 2020). To account for group
size, NMFS conservatively increased take, by Level B harassment, of
Atlantic spotted dolphins from 2 to 13 (Table 18). To account for the
frequent occurrence of common dolphins and bottlenose dolphins in the
project area, NMFS increased take, by Level B harassment, by
multiplying the largest group size (common dolphins (35), bottlenose
dolphins (21.6); AMAPPS 2021) by the maximum number of days on which
monopile installation might occur (n=16), resulting in 560 common
dolphin takes and 346 bottlenose dolphins takes. Given the large size
of the Level B harassment zone for vibratory pile driving
(approximately 36 km), NMFS agreed with the Commission's recommendation
to modify take, by Level B harassment, of humpback whales, as well as
common dolphins and Atlantic white-sided dolphins. NMFS based take
increases on the largest estimated group sizes for each species using
the best available science (DoN 2017; Smultea Sciences, 2020; CSA 2921;
AMAPPS 2021). For humpback whales and common dolphins, the largest
estimated group sizes (humpback whales (1.6), common dolphins (35);
AMAPPS (2021)) were multiplied by the number of days over which
vibratory pile driving might occur (18 hours over 3 days for
installation, 18 hours over 3 days for removal, total = 6 days). This
approach resulted in the following increases in takes, by Level B
harassment, from the proposed IHA to the final IHA: Humpback whales
(from 1 to 9.6, rounded to 10) and common dolphins (from 4 to 210).
Animal exposure modeling predicted one take, by Level B harassment, of
an Atlantic white-sided dolphin incidental to vibratory pile driving,
although sightings of this species are uncommon in the project area.
However, NMFS has conservatively authorized 50 takes (or the equivalent
of the largest seasonal group size, reported for summer; AMAPPS 2021),
by Level B harassment, of Atlantic white-sided dolphins. As described
in the Comments and Responses section, the Commission also recommended
increasing take, by Level B harassment, of fin and sei whales
incidental to vibratory pile driving. Exposure modeling resulted in
exposures for each of 10 months (October-May; Table 19) for all species
potentially impacted by vibratory pile driving. Of the remaining
months, fin whale exposure estimates were zero (November-February) and
one (in both March and May). The proposed take estimate was already
conservatively based on the month with the highest number of modeled
exposures (April; n=2), and sightings of fin whales are less frequent
along the ECR and nearshore HDD site as compared to in/near the Lease
Area (e.g., Smultea Sciences, 2020). For these reasons, NMFS does not
find that increasing take of fin whales, by Level B harassment, is
warranted. As for sei whales, exposure modeling resulted in zero
exposures in all 10 months considered (Table 19). As described in the
Comments and Responses section, sei whale sightings are relatively rare
throughout the project area, which agrees with the generally offshore
pattern of sei whale distribution (Hayes et al., 2021). Given the brief
timeframe for cofferdam installation/removal, the low likelihood of sei
whale occurrence in the project area during that brief timeframe, and
the lack of exposures resulting from exposure modeling, NMFS does not
find that increasing take, by Level B harassment, is warranted.
After review of the scientific literature, NMFS has increased take
of long-finned pilot whales, by Level B harassment, incidental to
construction surveys from 4 (proposed) to 20 (authorized) based on the
largest estimated group size (CETAP 1982).
Since publication of the proposed IHA, South Fork Wind proposed the
installation of a temporary casing pipe using a small pneumatic impact
hammer at the horizontal directional drilling (HDD) exit pit location
for the SFEC as an alternative to the previously assessed sheet pile
cofferdam at the same location. The cofferdam, but not the casing pipe
alternative, was considered in the acoustic impact analysis performed
by JASCO in support of the South Fork Wind Construction Operation Plan
(COP) (Denes et al., 2020a,b). However, JASCO recently provided NMFS
with an general assessment of the potential acoustic impacts of casing
pipe installation, showing that it is expected to have less than, or
equal, acoustic impact relative to vibratory pile driving to construct
a cofferdam. No potential injurious exposures are expected for
installation
[[Page 829]]
of the cofferdam (see Estimated Take), and are, therefore, not expected
for installation of the casing pipe. The range to behavioral disruption
is less for casing pipe driving using a small impact hammer
(approximately 2,154 m) than for cofferdam construction using vibratory
pile driving (approximately 36,000 m). If temporary supports for the
casing pipe are needed during the HDD installation, vibratory pile
driving of up to 8 sheet piles may be required (resulting in a 36,000 m
range to behavioral disruption during installation of the support sheet
piles). South Fork Wind estimates that the entire installation and
removal will each take approximately four hours to complete. In
comparison, installation of a temporary cofferdam would require
vibratory pile driving of approximately 80-100 sheet piles for up to 18
hours for installation and an additional 18 hours for removal. If
vibratory pile driving of support sheet piles for the casing pile is
required, the range to the Level B harassment isopleth may be the same
as for cofferdam construction, but the potential for take would occur
over a shorter duration. Regardless of the construct selected for
installation at the exit pit location, South Fork Wind will adhere to
the more conservative mitigation and monitoring requirements for the
installation of the cofferdam (as proposed by South Fork Wind and
described in the notice of the proposed IHA (86 FR 8490; February 5,
2021)). NMFS agrees with this approach, given that the larger zone
sizes and longer duration for cofferdam installation/removal encompass
the potential spatial and temporal scales for installation of the
casing pipe alternative. Accordingly, authorized take (by Level B
harassment only) in the final IHA is conservatively based on take
incidental to vibratory pile driving associated with installation/
removal of the cofferdam.
In addition to the changes described above, NMFS has also (1)
revised tables in the Federal Register notice and IHA so all the
harassment, clearance, and shutdown zones align between the Federal
Register notice and final IHA, (2) corrected the reported maximum water
depth in the project area to 90 m, (3) corrected a typographical error
in Table 8 to reflect the fact that the mean Level A harassment zone
for a difficult-to-drive pile based on the cumulative SEL
(SEL<INF>cum</INF>) thresholds for low-frequency cetaceans is 7,868 m
rather than 7,846 m, 4) aligned the Level A harassment zones in Tables
10 and 24 based on the SEL<INF>cum</INF> thresholds for gray seals and
in Tables 7 and 24 based on the peak sound pressure level
(SPL<INF>peak</INF>) thresholds for harbor porpoises, and gray and
harbor seals, 5) corrected the Level B harassment zone for Chirps to 54
m in Table 28, 6) corrected the Level A harassment zone
(SPL<INF>0-pk</INF>) for high-frequency cetaceans for AA Triple plate
S-Boom (700/1,000 J) to 2.8 m in Table 12, 7) removed visibility
metrics from the reporting requirements for SFV, and 8) added a target
air flow rate of at least 0.5 m\3\/(min*m) for the bubble curtain(s)
used for noise mitigation during impact pile driving of monopiles. In
addition, the final IHA specifies that 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 has
been met, approaches or is observed within the Level B harassment zone
(rather than the clearance zone, as specified in the proposed IHA),
impact pile driving of monopiles must not commence or resume until the
animal has been confirmed to have left the Level B harassment zone or a
full 15 minutes (small odontocetes and seals) or 30 minutes (for all
other marine mammals) have elapsed with no further sightings. Finally,
NMFS did not include language in the final IHA related to a Renewal
IHA. This does not necessarily preclude a Renewal IHA but, as described
above, NMFS thinks a Renewal IHA is unlikely in this case, given the
potential for changes over the next two years that could affect the
analyses germane to construction of the SFWF and SFEC.
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities
Sections 3 and 4 of the IHA 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' Stock Assessment Reports (SARs;
<a href="http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments">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'
website (<a href="http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species">www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species</a>).
There are 36 marine mammal species that could potentially occur in
the project area and that are included in Table 16 of the IHA
application. However, the temporal and/or spatial occurrence of 21 of
these species is such that take is not expected to occur or authorized,
and they are, therefore, not discussed further beyond the explanation
provided here. The following species are not expected to occur in the
project area due to their more likely occurrence in habitat that is
outside the SFWF and SFEC, based on the best available information: The
blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), beluga whale (Delphinapterus
leucas), northern bottlenose whale (Hyperoodon ampullatus), killer
whale (Orcinus orca), pygmy killer whale (Feresa attenuata), false
killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens), melon-headed whale (Peponocephala
electra), pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps), Cuvier's beaked whale
(Ziphius cavirostris), Mesplodont beaked whales (spp.), short-finned
pilot whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus), pantropical spotted dolphin
(Stenella attenuata), Fraser's dolphin (Lagenodelphis hosei), white-
beaked dolphin (Lagenorhynchus albirostris), rough-toothed dolphin
(Steno bredanensis), Clymene dolphin (Stenella clymene), spinner
dolphin (Stenella longirostris), and striped dolphin (Stenella
coeruleoalba). The following species may occur in the project area, but
at such low densities that take is not anticipated: Hooded seal
(Cystophora cristata) and harp seal (Pagophilus groenlandica). There
are two pilot whale species (long-finned (Globicephala melas) and
short-finned (Globicephala macrorhynchus)) with distributions that may
overlap in the latitudinal range of the SFWF (Hayes et al., 2021;
Roberts et al., 2016). Because it is difficult to differentiate between
the two species at sea, sightings, and thus the densities calculated
from them, are generally reported together as Globicephala spp. (Hayes
et al., 2021; Roberts et al., 2016). However, based on the best
available information, short-finned pilot whales generally occur in
habitat that is both further offshore on the shelf break and further
south than the project area (Hayes et al., 2021). Therefore, NMFS
assumes that any take of pilot whales would be of long-finned pilot
whales.
In addition, the Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus) may be found
in the coastal waters of the project area. However, Florida manatees
are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and are not
considered further in this document.
Between October 2011 and June 2015, a total of 76 aerial surveys
were conducted throughout the MA and RI/MA WEAs. As mentioned
previously, the SFWF is contained within the RI/MA WEA (along with
several other offshore renewable energy Lease Areas). Between November
2011 and March 2015, Marine Autonomous Recording Units (MARUs; a type
of static PAM recorder) were deployed at nine sites in the MA and RI/MA
WEAs. The goal of
[[Page 830]]
the study was to collect visual and acoustic baseline data on
distribution, abundance, and temporal occurrence patterns of marine
mammals (Kraus et al., 2016). The lack of acoustic detections or
sightings of any of the species listed above reinforces the fact that
these species are not expected to occur in the project area. In
addition, during recent marine site characterization surveys of the
South Fork Wind Lease Area, none (other than long-finned pilot whales)
of the aforementioned species were observed during marine mammal
monitoring (Smultea Sciences, 2020; CSA, 2021). Further, acoustic
detections of four species of baleen whales in data collected from
2004-2014 show important distributional changes over the range of these
baleen whale species (Davis et al., 2020). That study showed blue
whales were more frequently detected in the northern latitudes of the
study area after 2010, and no detections occurred in the project area
in spring, summer, and fall when impact pile driving of monopiles would
occur (Davis et al., 2020). As the species identified above are not
expected to occur in the project area during the planned activities,
they are not discussed further in this document.
NMFS expects that the 15 species listed in Table 3 will potentially
occur in the project area and may, therefore, be taken as a result of
the project. Table 3 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, NMFS follows 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' SARs). While no mortality is
anticipated or authorized here, PBR is included here as a gross
indicator of the status of the species and other threats. Four marine
mammal species that are listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
may be present in the project area and may be taken incidental to the
planned activity: The NARW, fin whale, sei whale, and sperm whale.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or
the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area.
NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total
estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that
comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend
beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in
NMFS' U.S. Atlantic SARs. All values presented in Table 3 are the most
recent available at the time of publication, which can be found in the
NMFS' 2021 Draft SARs (Hayes et al., 2021), available 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>.
Table 3--Marine Mammals Known To Occur In the Project Area That May be Affected By South Fork Wind's Construction Activities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MMPA and ESA Stock abundance (CV,
status; Nmin, most recent Annual M/SI Occurrence and
Common name (scientific name) Stock strategic (Y/N) abundance survey) \2\ PBR \3\ \3\ seasonality in
\1\ project area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toothed whales (Odontoceti)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sperm whale (Physeter North Atlantic....... E; Y 4,349 (0.28; 3,451; 3.9 0 Rare.
macrocephalus). 2016).
Long-finned pilot whale W. North Atlantic.... --; N 39,215 (0.3; 30,627; 306 29 Rare.
(Globicephala melas). 2016).
Atlantic spotted dolphin (Stenella W. North Atlantic.... --; N 39,921 (0.27; 32,032; 320 0 Rare.
frontalis). 2016).
Atlantic white-sided dolphin W. North Atlantic.... --; N 93,233 (0.71; 54,443; 544 27 Common year round.
(Lagenorhynchus acutus). 2016).
Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops W. North Atlantic, --; N 62,851 (0.23; 51,914; 519 28 Common year round.
truncatus). Offshore. 2019).
Common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) W. North Atlantic.... --; N 172,974 (0.21; 1,452 390 Common year round.
145,216; 2016).
Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus). W. North Atlantic.... --; N 35,215 (0.19; 30,051; 301 34 Rare.
2016).
Harbor porpoise (Phocoena Gulf of Maine/Bay of --; N 95,543 (0.31; 74,034; 851 164 Common year round.
phocoena). Fundy. 2019).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baleen whales (Mysticeti)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Atlantic right whale W. North Atlantic.... E; Y 368 (0; 364; 2019)... 0.7 7.7 Year round in
(Eubalaena glacialis). continental shelf
and slope waters,
occur seasonally.
Humpback whale (Megaptera Gulf of Maine........ --; N 1,396 (0.15; 1,375; 22 58 Common year round.
novaeangliae). 2016).
Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus). W. North Atlantic.... E; Y 6,802 (0.24; 5,573; 11 1.8 Year round in
2016). continental shelf
and slope waters,
occur seasonally.
[[Page 831]]
Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis). Nova Scotia.......... E; Y 6,292 (1.02; 3,098 ; 6.2 0.8 Year round in
2016). continental shelf
and slope waters,
occur seasonally.
Minke whale (Balaenoptera Canadian East Coast.. --; N 21,968 (0.31; 17,002; 170 10.6 Year round in
acutorostrata). 2016). continental shelf
and slope waters,
occur seasonally.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earless seals (Phocidae)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray seal \4\ (Halichoerus grypus) W. North Atlantic.... --; N 27,300 (0.22; 22,785; 1,389 4,453 Common year round.
2016).
Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina)...... W. North Atlantic.... --; N 61,336 (0.08; 57,637; 1,729 339 Common year round.
2012).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ESA status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or
designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or
which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is
automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\2\ NMFS' 2021 Draft SARs, available online at: <a href="http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments">www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments</a>. CV is
coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable.
\3\ These values, found in NMFS' SAR, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial
fisheries, ship strike). Annual M/SI often cannot be determined precisely and is in some cases presented as a minimum value or range. A CV associated
with estimated mortality due to commercial fisheries is presented in some cases.
\4\ The NMFS stock abundance estimate applies to U.S. population only, however the actual stock abundance is approximately 451,431.
A detailed description of the species for which take has been
authorized, including brief introductions to the relevant stocks as
well as available information regarding population trends and threats,
and information regarding local occurrence, were provided in the
Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (86 FR 8490; February 5,
2021). Since that time, the status of some species and stocks have been
updated, most notably for large whales. In particular, Pace (2021) and
NMFS' 2021 Draft SARS (Hayes et al., 2021) provide an updated
population estimate of 368 for NARWs, a decrease from the estimate of
412 reported in the notice of the proposed IHA (86 FR 8490; February 5,
2021). Table 3 includes the most recent population abundances, PBR, and
annual mortality and serious injury (M/SI) rates for all species. NMFS
refers the reader to the proposed IHA Federal Register notice for basic
descriptions of each species' status, and provides a summary of updates
below where necessary. Please also refer to NMFS' website (<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species</a>) for generalized species accounts,
and note that Oleson et al. (2020) have established the project area as
year-round foraging habitat for NARWs.
As described in the proposed IHA notice, beginning in 2017,
elevated mortalities in the NARW population have been documented,
primarily in Canada but also in the U.S., and were collectively
declared an Unusual Mortality Event (UME). As of December 2021, 34
NARWs have been confirmed dead and an additional 16 have been
determined to be seriously injured. Entanglement and vessel strikes are
the primary causes of M/SI.
Marine Mammal Hearing
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals
underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious
effects. To assess the potential effects of exposure to sound
appropriately, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges
marine mammals are able to hear. 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, 2019) 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; in this case,
the lower bound from Southall et al. (2007) was retained. Marine mammal
hearing groups and their associated hearing ranges are provided in
Table 4.
[[Page 832]]
Table 4--Marine Mammal Hearing Groups
[NMFS, 2018]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generalized hearing
Hearing group range *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen whales).... 7 Hz to 35 kHz.
Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans (dolphins, toothed 150 Hz to 160 kHz.
whales, beaked whales, bottlenose whales).
High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true porpoises, 275 Hz to 160 kHz.
Kogia, river dolphins, cephalorhynchid,
Lagenorhynchus cruciger & L. australis).
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) (true seals). 50 Hz to 86 kHz.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a
composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual
species' hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized
hearing range chosen based on ~65 dB threshold from normalized
composite audiogram, with the exception for lower limits for LF
cetaceans (Southall et al. 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation).
The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et
al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have
consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing
compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range
(Hemil[auml] et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth and Holt,
2013).
For more details concerning these groups and associated frequency
ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information.
Fifteen marine mammal species (13 cetacean and 2 pinniped (both phocid
species); Table 3) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with South
Fork Wind's construction activities. Of the cetacean species that may
be present, five are classified as low-frequency cetaceans (i.e., all
mysticete species), seven are classified as mid-frequency cetaceans
(i.e., all delphinid species and the sperm whale), and one is
classified as a high-frequency cetacean (i.e., harbor porpoise).
Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
The effects of underwater noise from South Fork Wind's construction
activities have the potential to result in harassment of marine mammals
in the vicinity of the project area. The notice of proposed IHA (86 FR
8490; February 5, 2021) included a discussion of the effects of
anthropogenic noise on marine mammals, and the potential effects of
underwater noise from South Fork Wind's construction activities on
marine mammals and their habitat. That information and analysis is
incorporated by reference into this final IHA determination and is not
repeated here; for more details, please refer to the notice of proposed
IHA (86 FR 8490; February 5, 2021).
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes
authorized through this IHA, which will inform both NMFS' consideration
of ``small numbers'' and the negligible impact determination. As noted
in the summary of Changes from Proposed IHA to Final IHA, changes have
been made to the number of takes for the given species incidental to:
Impact pile driving of monopiles (blue whales, pilot whales, Atlantic
spotted dolphins, common dolphins, and bottlenose dolphins); vibratory
pile driving (humpback whales, common dolphins, white-sided dolphins);
and construction surveys (pilot whales). Detailed descriptions are
provided in the Comments and Responses and Changes from Proposed IHA to
Final IHA sections, and below.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from South
Fork Wind's construction 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 take would primarily be by Level B harassment, as noise
from impact and vibratory pile driving and construction surveys has the
potential to result in disruption of behavioral patterns for individual
marine mammals, either directly or as a result of masking or temporary
hearing impairment (also referred to as temporary threshold shift
(TTS), as described in the notice of proposed IHA (86 FR 8490, February
5, 2021)). There is also some potential for auditory injury (Level A
harassment) to result for select marine mammals. Mitigation and
monitoring measures are expected to minimize the severity of such
taking to the extent practicable. No serious injury or mortality is
anticipated or authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the
take is estimated.
Generally speaking, NMFS estimates 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. NMFS notes 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, NMFS
describes the factors considered here in more detail and presents the
authorized take.
Acoustic Thresholds
NMFS recommends the use of
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on January 6, 2022.
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.