Notice2022-18454
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Marine Site Characterization Surveys in the Area of Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lease Areas OCS-A 0486, 0487, and 0500
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
August 26, 2022
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Abstract
NMFS has received a request from Orsted Wind Power North America LLC (Orsted) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to high resolution geophysical (HRG) site characterization surveys in coastal waters from New York to Massachusetts in the areas of Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf Lease Areas OCS-A 0486, 0487, 0500, and along potential export cable routes (ECR) to landfall locations between Raritan Bay (part of the New York Bight) and Falmouth, MA. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to incidentally take marine mammals during the specified activities. NMFS is also requesting comments on a possible one-time, one-year renewal that could be issued under certain circumstances and if all requirements are met, as described in Request for Public Comments at the end of this notice. NMFS will consider public comments prior to making any final decision on the issuance of the requested MMPA authorization and agency responses will be summarized in the final notice of our decision.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 165 (Friday, August 26, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 165 (Friday, August 26, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52515-52538]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18454]
[[Page 52515]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[RTID 0648-XC136]
Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities;
Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Marine Site Characterization
Surveys in the Area of Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for
Renewable Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lease
Areas OCS-A 0486, 0487, and 0500
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request
for comments on proposed authorization and possible renewal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from Orsted Wind Power North
America LLC (Orsted) for authorization to take marine mammals
incidental to high resolution geophysical (HRG) site characterization
surveys in coastal waters from New York to Massachusetts in the areas
of Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development
on the Outer Continental Shelf Lease Areas OCS-A 0486, 0487, 0500, and
along potential export cable routes (ECR) to landfall locations between
Raritan Bay (part of the New York Bight) and Falmouth, MA. Pursuant to
the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on
its proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to
incidentally take marine mammals during the specified activities. NMFS
is also requesting comments on a possible one-time, one-year renewal
that could be issued under certain circumstances and if all
requirements are met, as described in Request for Public Comments at
the end of this notice. NMFS will consider public comments prior to
making any final decision on the issuance of the requested MMPA
authorization and agency responses will be summarized in the final
notice of our decision.
DATES: Comments and information must be received no later than
September 26, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief,
Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service and should be submitted via email to
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9cd5c8ccb2e8fde5f0f3eedcf2f3fdfdb2fbf3ea"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="eca5b8bcc2988d9580839eac82838d8dc28b839a">[email protected]</span></a>.
Instructions: NMFS is not responsible for comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the
end of the comment period. Comments, including all attachments, must
not exceed a 25-megabyte file size. All comments received are a part of
the public record and will generally be posted online at
<a href="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> without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by the
commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential
business information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Taylor, Office of Protected
Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401. Electronic copies of the application
and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in
this document, may be obtained online at: <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>-other-energy-activities-renewable. In case of problems accessing
these documents, please call the contact listed above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The MMPA prohibits the ``take'' of marine mammals, with certain
exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to
allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of
small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a
specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified
geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations
are proposed or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a
proposed IHA is provided to the public for review.
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds
that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or
stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the
availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses
(where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods
of taking and other ``means of effecting the least practicable adverse
impact'' on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying
particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for
taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as
``mitigation''); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation,
monitoring and reporting of the takings are set forth. The definitions
of all applicable MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the
relevant sections below.
National Environmental Policy Act
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA;
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A,
NMFS must review our proposed action (i.e., the issuance of an IHA)
with respect to potential impacts on the human environment.
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified
in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or
mortality) of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-
6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for
significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for
which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would
preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has
preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHA
qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice
prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the
IHA request.
Summary of Request
On April 19, 2022, NMFS received a request from Orsted for an IHA
to take small numbers of marine mammals incidental to marine site
characterization surveys in federal waters located OCS Commercial Lease
Areas off the coasts from Rhode Island to Massachusetts, and along
potential ECRs to landfall locations between Raritan Bay (part of the
New York Bight) and Falmouth, Massachusetts. Following NMFS' review of
the draft application, a revised version was submitted on July 8, 2022.
The application was deemed adequate and complete on August 3, 2022.
Orsted's request is for take of 16 species of marine mammals
(consisting of 16 stocks) by Level B harassment only. Neither Orsted
nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from this
activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
NMFS previously issued IHAs and a renewal IHA to Orsted for marine
site characterization HRG surveys in the OCS-A 0486, 0487, and 0500
Lease Areas (84 FR 52464, October 2, 2019; 85
[[Page 52516]]
FR 63508, October 8, 2020; 87 FR 13975, March 11, 2022). Orsted
complied with all the requirements (e.g., mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting) of the previous IHA and information regarding their
monitoring results may be found in the Effects of the Specified
Activity on Marine Mammals and their Habitat section.
On August 1, 2022, NMFS announced proposed changes to the existing
North Atlantic right whale vessel speed regulations to further reduce
the likelihood of mortalities and serious injuries to endangered right
whales from vessel collisions, which are a leading cause of the
species' decline and a primary factor in an ongoing Unusual Mortality
Event (87 FR 46921). Should a final vessel speed rule be issued and
become effective during the effective period of this IHA (or any other
MMPA incidental take authorization), the authorization holder would be
required to comply with any and all applicable requirements contained
within the final rule. Specifically, where measures in any final vessel
speed rule are more protective or restrictive than those in this or any
other MMPA authorization, authorization holders would be required to
comply with the requirements of the rule. Alternatively, where measures
in this or any other MMPA authorization are more restrictive or
protective than those in any final vessel speed rule, the measures in
the MMPA authorization would remain in place. These changes would
become effective immediately upon the effective date of any final
vessel speed rule and would not require any further action on NMFS's
part.
Description of Proposed Activity
Overview
Orsted proposes to conduct HRG surveys in the Lease Areas OCS-A
0486, 0487, 0500 and ECR Area in federal waters from New York to
Massachusetts to support the characterization of the existing seabed
and subsurface geological conditions, which is necessary for the
development of an offshore electric transmission system. The proposed
project will use active HRG sources operating at frequencies lower than
180 kHz, which may result in the incidental take of marine mammals by
Level B harassment. This take of marine mammals is anticipated to be in
the form of behavioral harassment and no serious injury or mortality is
anticipated, nor is any proposed. In-water work will include
approximately 400 survey days using multiple vessels lasting from
September 25, 2022 to September 24, 2023.
Dates and Duration
As described above, HRG surveys are expected to commence on
September 25, 2022 and last through September 24, 2023 for up to
approximately 400 survey days (Table 1). Orsted is proposing to conduct
continuous HRG survey operations 12-hours per day and 24-hours per day
using multiple vessels. A survey day is defined as a 24-hour activity
day in which an assumed number of line km are surveyed. The number of
anticipated survey days was calculated as the number of days needed to
reach the overall level of effort required to meet survey objectives
assuming any single vessel covers, on average 70 line kilometer (km)
per 24-hour operations. A survey day accounts for multiple vessels such
that two vessels operating within one 24-hour period equates to two
survey days. A maximum of three vessels would work concurrently in the
project area in any combination of 24-hour and 12-hour vessels. To be
conservative, our exposure analysis assumes daily 24-hour operations.
Although vessels may complete 20-80 km/day of actual source operations,
we anticipate that vessels will average 70 line km of active IHA-
regulated sources per day. As shown by Table 1, the estimated number of
survey days varies by Lease Area and ECR.
Table 1--Proposed Number of Survey Days for Each Lease Area and ECR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total number
Area of survey days
\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OCS-A-0486.............................................. 10
OCA-A-0487.............................................. 10
OCS-A-0500.............................................. 200
ECR..................................................... 180
---------------
Total................................................. 400
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Up to three total survey vessels may be operating within both of the
survey areas concurrently.
Specific Geographic Region
Orsted's survey activities would occur in the Lease Areas located
approximately 14 miles (22.5 km) south of Martha's Vineyard,
Massachusetts at its closest point to land, as well as along potential
export cable route (ECR) corridors off the coast of New York,
Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts to landfall locations
between Raritan Bay and Falmouth, MA, as shown in Figure 1. Water
depths in the project area extend out from shoreline to approximately
90 m in depth.
[[Page 52517]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26AU22.000
Detailed Description of Specific Activity
Orsted proposes to conduct HRG survey operations, including
multibeam depth sounding, seafloor imaging, and shallow and medium
penetration sub-bottom profiling. The HRG surveys will include the use
of seafloor mapping equipment with operating frequencies above 180
kilohertz (kHz) (e.g., side-scan sonar (SSS), multibeam echosounders
(MBES)); magnetometers and gradiometers that have no acoustic output;
and shallow- to medium-penetration sub-bottom profiling (SBP) equipment
(e.g., parametric sonars, compressed high-intensity radiated pulses
(CHIRPs), boomers, sparkers) with operating frequencies below 180
kilohertz (kHz). No deep-penetration SBP surveys (e.g., airgun or
bubble gun surveys) will be conducted. HRG equipment will either be
deployed from remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) or mounted to or towed
behind the survey vessel at a typical survey speed of approximately 4.0
knots (7.4 km) during the site characterization activities within the
Lease areas and ECR area. Equipment deployed on the ROVs would be
identical to that deployed on the vessel; however, the sparker systems
are not normally deployed from an ROV due to the power supply required.
The extent of ROV usage in this project is unknown at this time,
however NMFS expects the use of ROVs to have de minimis impacts
relative to the use of vessels given the smaller sources and inherent
nature of utilizing an ROV (e.g., much smaller size of an ROV relative
to a vessel and less acoustic exposure given location of their use in
the water column). For these reasons, our analysis focuses on the
acoustic sources themselves and the use of vessels to deploy such
sources, rather than the specific use of ROVs to deploy the survey
equipment. Therefore, ROVs are not further analyzed in this notice.
Acoustic sources planned for use during HRG survey activities
proposed by Orsted for which sounds levels have the potential to result
in Level B harassment of marine mammals include the following:
<bullet> Shallow penetration, non-impulsive, intermittent, mobile,
non-parametric SBPs (i.e., CHIRP SBPs) are used to map the near-surface
stratigraphy (top 0 to 10 m) of sediment below seabed. A CHIRP system
emits sonar pulses that increase in frequency from approximately 2 to
20 kHz over time. The frequency range can be adjusted to meet project
variables. These sources are typically mounted on a pole, either over
the side of the vessel or through a moon pool in the bottom of the
hull. The operational configuration and relatively narrow beamwidth of
these sources reduce the likelihood that an animal would be exposed to
the signal;
<bullet> Medium penetration SBPs (boomers) are used to map deeper
subsurface stratigraphy as needed. A boomer is a broad-band sound
source operating in the 3.5 Hz to 10 kHz frequency range. This system
is commonly mounted on a sled and towed behind the vessel. Boomers are
impulsive and mobile sources; and
<bullet> Medium penetration SBPs (sparkers) are used to map deeper
subsurface stratigraphy as needed. Sparkers create acoustic pulses from
50 Hz to 4 kHz omnidirectionally from the source, and are considered to
be impulsive and mobile sources. Sparkers are typically towed behind
the vessel with adjacent hydrophone arrays to receive the return
signals.
Operation of the following survey equipment types is not reasonably
expected to result in take of marine mammals and will not be discussed
further beyond the brief summaries provided below:
<bullet> Parametric SBPs, also commonly referred to as sediment
echosounders, are used to provide high data density in sub-bottom
profiles that are typically required for cable routes, very shallow
water, and archaeological surveys. Parametric SPBs are typically
mounted
[[Page 52518]]
on a pole, either over the side of the vessel or through a moon pool in
the bottom of the hull. Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) does not provide
relevant measurements or source data for parametric SBPs, however, some
source information is provided by the manufacturer. For the proposed
project, the SBP used would generate short, very narrow-beam (1[deg] to
3.5[deg]) sound pulses at relatively high frequencies (generally around
85 to 100 kHz). The narrow beam width significantly reduces the
potential for exposure while the high frequencies of the source are
rapidly attenuated in seawater. Given the narrow beam width and
relatively high frequency. NMFS does not reasonably expect there to be
potential for marine mammals to be exposed to the signal;
<bullet> Acoustic cores are seabed-mounted sources with three
distinct sound sources: A high-frequency parametric source, a high-
frequency CHIRP sonar, and a low-frequency CHIRP sonar. The beam width
is narrow (3.5[deg] to 8[deg]) and the source is operated roughly 3.5 m
above the seabed from a seabed mount, with the transducer pointed
directly downward;
<bullet> Ultra-short baseline (USBL) positioning systems are used
to provide high accuracy ranges by measuring the time between the
acoustic pulses transmitted by vessel transceiver and a transponder (or
beacon) necessary to produce the acoustic profile. It is a two-
component system with a moon pool- or side pole mounted transceiver and
one or several transponders mounted on other survey equipment. USBLs
are expected to produce extremely small acoustic propagation distances
in their typical operating configuration;
<bullet> Multibeam echosounders (MBES) are used to determine water
depths and general bottom topography. MBES sonar systems project sonar
pulses in several angled beams from a transducer mounted to a ship's
hull. The beams radiate out from the transducer in a fan-shaped pattern
orthogonally to the ship's direction. All of the proposed MBESs have
operating frequencies >180 kHz and, therefore, are outside the general
hearing range of marine mammals; and
<bullet> Side scan sonars (SSS) are used for seabed sediment
classification purposes and to identify natural and man-made acoustic
targets on the seafloor. The sonar device emits conical or fan-shaped
pulses down toward the seafloor in multiple beams at a wide angle,
perpendicular to the path of the sensor through the water column. All
of the proposed SSS have operating frequencies >180 kHZ and, therefore,
are outside the general hearing range of marine mammals.
Table 2 identifies representative survey equipment with the
expected potential to result in exposure of marine mammals and thus
potentially result in take. The make and model of the listed
geophysical equipment may vary depending on availability and the final
equipment choices will vary depending upon the final survey design,
vessel availability, and survey contractor selection.
Table 2--Summary of Representative HRG Survey Equipment \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Pulse Pulse
Representative frequency SL (SPL dB re 1 SL (SEL dB re 1 SL (PK dB re 1 Beamwidth duration repetition
HRG survey equipment equipment ranges [micro]Pa m) [micro]Pa2 m2 [micro]Pa m) ranges (width) rate
(kHz) s) (degrees) (millisecond) (Hz)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHIRPs (non-impulsive, non- ET 216 (2000DS 2-16 195 178 ............... 24............. 20 6
parametric). or 3200 top 2-8
unit).
ET 424 3200-XS. 4-24 176 152 ............... 71............. 3.4 2
ET 512i........ 0.7-12 179 158 ............... 80............. 9 8
GeoPulse 5430A. 2-17 196 183 ............... 55............. 50 10
Teledyne 2-7 197 185 ............... 100............ 60 15
Benthos Chirp
III--TTV 170.
Pangeo SBI..... 4.5-12.5 188.2 165 ............... 120............ 4.5 45
Sparker (impulsive)......... AA, Dura-spark 0.3-1.2 203 174 211 Omni........... 1.1 4
UHD Sparker
(400 tips, 500
J) \2\.
Sparkers and Boomers AA, Dura-spark 0.3-1.2 203 174 211 Omni........... 1.1 4
(impulsive). UHD Sparker
Model 400 x
400 \2\.
GeoMarine, Dual 0.4-5 203 174 211 Omni........... 1.1 2
400 Sparker,
Model Geo-
Source 800 \2\
\3\.
GeoMarine 0.3-1.2 203 174 211 Omni........... 1.1 4
Sparker, Model
Geo-Source 200-
400 \2\ \3\.
GeoMarine 0.3-1.2 203 174 211 Omni........... 1.1 4
Sparker, Model
Geo-Source 200
Lightweight
\2\ \3\.
AA, triple 0.1-5 205 172 211 80............. 0.6 4
plate S-Boom
(700-1,000 J)
\4\.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[micro]Pa = micropascal; AA = Applied Acoustics; CF = Crocker and Fratantonio (2016); CHIRP = compressed high-intensity radiated pulses; dB = decibel;
EM = equipment mounted; ET = edgetech; J = joule; Omni = omnidirectional source; re = referenced to; PK = zero-to-peak sound pressure level; PM = pole
mounted; SBI = sub-bottom imager; SL = source level; SPL = root-mean-square sound pressure level; T = towed; TB = Teledyne benthos; UHD = ultra-high
definition; WFA = weighting factor adjustment.
\1\ Operational parameters listed here differ from those listed in the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Biological Assessment published in February
2021 (Baker and Howson, 2021).
\2\ The Dura-spark measurements and specifications provided in Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) were used for all sparker systems proposed for the survey.
The data provided in Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) represent the most applicable data for similar sparker systems with comparable operating methods
and settings when manufacturer or other reliable measurements are not available.
\3\ The AA Dura-spark (500 J, 400tips) was used as a proxy source.
\4\ Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) provide S-Boom measurements using two different power sources (CSP-D700 and CSP-N). The CSP-D700 power source was
used in the 700 J measurements but not in the 1,000 J measurements. The CSP-N source was measured for both 700 J and 1,000 J operations but resulted
in a lower SL; therefore, the single maximum SL value was used for both operational levels of the S-Boom.
The deployment of certain types of HRG survey equipment, including
some of the equipment planned for use during Orsted's proposed
activity, produces sound in the marine environment that has the
potential to result in harassment of marine mammals. Proposed
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in detail
later in
[[Page 52519]]
this document (please see Proposed Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring
and Reporting).
Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities
Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information
regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and
behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. NMFS
fully considered all of this information, and we refer the reader to
these descriptions, incorporated here by reference, instead of
reprinting the information. Additional information regarding population
trends and threats may be found in NMFS Stock Assessment Reports (SARs;
<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="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species</a>).
Table 3 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and
proposed to be authorized for these activities, and summarizes
information related to the population or stock, including regulatory
status under the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential
biological removal (PBR), where known. PBR is defined by the MMPA as
the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that
may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to
reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in
NMFS' SARs). While no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or
authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from
anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the
status of the species and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document
represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or
the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area.
NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total
estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that
comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend
beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in
NMFS U.S. draft 2021 U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico SARs. All values
presented in Table 3 are the most recent available at the time of
publication and are available in the 2020 SARs (Hayes et al., 2021) and
draft 2021 SARs (available online at: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/draft-marine-mammal-stock-assessment-reports</a>).
Table 3--Species Likely Impacted by the Specified Activities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stock abundance (CV,
Common name Scientific name Stock ESA/MMPA status; Nmin, most recent PBR Annual M/
strategic (Y/N) \1\ abundance survey) \2\ SI \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Mysticeti (baleen whales)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Atlantic right whale.......... Eubalaena glacialis.... Western Atlantic...... E/D, Y 368 (0; 364; \5\ 2019) 0.7 7.7
Humpback whale...................... Megaptera novaeangliae. Gulf of Maine......... -/-, Y 1,396 (0; 1,380; 2016) 22 12.15
Fin whale........................... Balaenoptera physalus.. Western North Atlantic E/D, Y 6,802 (0.24; 5,573; 11 1.8
2016).
Sei whale........................... Balaenoptera borealis.. Nova Scotia........... E/D, Y 6,292 (1.02; 3,098; 6.2 0.8
2016).
Minke whale......................... Balaenoptera Canadian East Coastal. -/-, N 21,968 (0.31; 17,002; 170 10.6
acutorostrata. 2016).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Cetartiodactyla--Cetacea--Superfamily Odontoceti (toothed whales, dolphins, and porpoises)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sperm whale......................... Physeter macrocephalus. North Atlantic........ E/D, Y 4,349 (0.28; 3,451; 3.9 0
2016).
Long-finned pilot whale............. Globicephala melas..... Western North Atlantic -/-, N 39,215 (0.3; 30,627; 306 29
2016).
Striped dolphin..................... Stenella coeruleoalba.. Western North Atlantic -, -, N 67,036 (0.29, 52,939, 529 0
2016).
Atlantic white-sided dolphin........ Lagenorhynchus acutus.. Western North Atlantic -/-, N 93,233 (0.71; 54,443; 544 27
2016).
Bottlenose dolphin.................. Tursiops truncatus..... Western North Atlantic -/-, N 62,851 (0.23; 51,914; 519 28
Offshore. 2016).
Short-beaked Common dolphin......... Delphinus delphis...... Western North Atlantic -/-, N 172,974(0.21, 145,216, 1,452 390
2016).
Atlantic spotted dolphin............ Stenella frontalis..... Western North Atlantic -/-, N 39,921 (0.27; 32,032; 320 0
2016).
Risso's dolphin..................... Grampus griseus........ Western North Atlantic -/-, N 35,215 (0.19; 30,051; 301 34
Sock. 2016).
Harbor porpoise..................... Phocoena phocoena...... Gulf of Maine/Bay of -/-, N 95,543 (0.31; 74,034; 851 164
Fundy. 2016).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Carnivora--Superfamily Pinnipedia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor seal......................... Phoca vitulina......... Western North Atlantic -/-, N 61,336 (0.08; 57,637; 1,729 339
2018).
Gray seal \4\....................... Halichoerus grypus..... Western North Atlantic -/-, N 27,300 (0.22; 22,785; 1,389 4,453
2018).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ESA status: Endangered (E), Threatened (T)/MMPA status: Depleted (D). A dash (-) indicates that the species is not listed under the ESA or
designated as depleted under the MMPA. Under the MMPA, a strategic stock is one for which the level of direct human-caused mortality exceeds PBR or
which is determined to be declining and likely to be listed under the ESA within the foreseeable future. Any species or stock listed under the ESA is
automatically designated under the MMPA as depleted and as a strategic stock.
\2\ NMFS marine mammal stock assessment reports online at: <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 the coefficient of variation; Nmin is the minimum estimate of stock abundance. In some cases, CV is not applicable.
\3\ These values, found in NMFS' SARs, represent annual levels of human-caused mortality plus serious injury from all sources combined (e.g., commercial
fisheries, ship strike).
\4\ NMFS' stock abundance estimate (and associated PBR value) applies to U.S. population only. Total stock abundance (including animals in Canada) is
approximately 451,431. The annual M/SI value given is for the total stock.
\5\ The draft 2022 SARs have yet to be released; however, NMFS has updated its species web page to recognize the population estimate for NARWs is now
below 350 animals (<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/north-atlantic-right-whale">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/north-atlantic-right-whale</a>).
As indicated above, all 16 species (with 16 managed stocks) in
Table 3 temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the
degree that take is reasonably likely to occur. All species that could
potentially occur in the
[[Page 52520]]
proposed survey areas are included in Table 6 of the IHA application.
While the blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), Cuvier's beaked whale
(Ziphius cavirostris), four species of Mesoplodont beaked whale
(Mesoplodon spp.), dwarf and pygmy sperm whale (Kogia sima and Kogia
breviceps), short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus),
northern bottlenose whale (Hyperoodon ampullatus), killer whale
(Orcinus orca), pygmy killer whale (Feresa attenuata), false killer
whale (Pseudorca crassidens), melon-headed whale (Peponocephala
electra), white-beaked dolphin (Lagenorhynchus albirostris),
pantropical spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuata), Fraser's dolphin
(Lagenodelphis hosei), rough-toothed dolphin (Steno bredanensis),
Clymene dolphin (Stenella clymene), spinner dolphin (Stenella
longirostris), hooded seal (Cystophora cristata), and harp seal
(Pagophilus groenlandicus) have been documented in the area, the
temporal and/or spatial occurrence of these species is such that take
is not expected to occur and they are not analyzed further.
In addition, the Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris)
may be found in the coastal waters of the project area. However,
Florida manatees are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
are not considered further in this document.
Below is a description of the species that have the highest
likelihood of occurring in the project area and are, thus, expected to
potentially be taken by the proposed activities as well as further
detail informing the baseline for select species (i.e., information
regarding current Unusual Mortality Events (UMEs) and important habitat
areas).
North Atlantic Right Whale
The North Atlantic right whale ranges from calving grounds in the
southeastern United States to feeding grounds in New England waters and
into Canadian waters (Hayes et al., 2021). Right whales have been
observed in or near southern New England during all four seasons
(Quintana-Rizzo et al., 2021), and passive acoustic monitoring
indicates the year-round presence of NARWs in the Gulf of Maine (Morano
et al., 2012; Bort et al., 2015). Surveys have demonstrated the
existence of seven areas where NARWs congregate seasonally: The coastal
waters of the southeastern U.S., the Great South Channel, Jordan Basin,
Georges Basin along the northeastern edge of Georges Bank, Cape Cod and
Massachusetts Bays, the Bay of Fundy, and the Roseway Basin on the
Scotian Shelf (Hayes et al., 2018). NOAA Fisheries has designated two
critical habitat areas for the NARW under the ESA: The Gulf of Maine/
Georges Bank region, and the southeast calving grounds from North
Carolina to Florida (81 FR 4837, January 27, 2016).
New England waters are a primary feeding habitat for NARWs during
late winter through spring, with feeding moving into deeper and more
northerly waters during summer and fall. Since 2010, NARWs have reduced
their use of habitats in the Great South Channel and Bay of Fundy,
while increasing their use of habitat within Cape Cod Bay as well as a
region south of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Islands (Stone et al.,
2017; Mayo et al., 2018; Ganley et al., 2019; Record et al., 2019;
Meyer-Gutbrod et al., 2021). This shift is likely due to changes in
oceanographic conditions and food supply as dense patches of
zooplankton are necessary for efficient foraging (Mayo and Marx, 1990;
Record et al., 2019). NARW use of habitats such as in the Gulf of St.
Lawrence, southern New England waters, and the mid-Atlantic waters of
the United States have also increased over time (Davis et al., 2017;
Davis and Brillant, 2019; Crowe et al., 2021; Quintana-Rizzo et al.,
2021). Simard et al. (2019) documented the presence of NARWs in the
southern Gulf of St. Lawrence from late April through mid-January
annually from 2010-2018 using passive acoustics, with occurrences
peaking in the area from August through November each year (Simard et
al., 2019). In addition, Pendleton et al. (2022) found that peak use of
NARW habitat in Cape Cod Bay has shifted over the past 20 years to
later in the spring, likely due to variations in seasonal conditions.
In the late fall months (e.g., October), right whales are generally
thought to depart from the feeding grounds in the North Atlantic and
move south to their calving grounds off Georgia and Florida. However,
recent research indicates our understanding of their movement patterns
remains incomplete and not all of the population undergoes a consistent
annual migration (Davis et al., 2017). Females may remain in the
feeding grounds during the winter in the years preceding and following
the birth of a calf to increase their energy stores while juvenile and
adult males may move to southern wintering grounds after years of
abundant prey in northern feeding areas (Gowan et al., 2019). Within
the proposed project area, NARWs have primarily been observed during
the winter and spring seasons through visual surveys although are
likely present year-round (Kraus et al., 2016; Quintana-Rizzo et al.,
2021).
NARW movements within and between habitats are extensive and the
area off the coasts of Rhode Island and Massachusetts is an important
migratory corridor. The proposed project area overlaps a portion of a
NARW Biologically Important Area (BIA) for migration. This migratory
corridor is approximately 269,488 km\2\ in size, comprises the waters
of the continental shelf offshore the east coast of the United States,
and extends from Florida through Massachusetts (LaBrecque et al.,
2015). NARW movements may include seasonal migrations between northern
feeding grounds and southern breeding grounds as well as movements
between feeding habitats in Cape Cod Bay and southern New England
waters (Quintana-Rizzo et al., 2021). Given that Orsted's proposed
surveys would be concentrated offshore of Massachusetts and Rhode
Island, many NARWs in the vicinity would likely be migrating through
the area, however, foraging activity may also take place as Quintana-
Rizzo et al. (2021) observed NARWs foraging in southern New England
waters year-round.
Since 2010, the western North Atlantic right whale population has
been in decline (Pace et al., 2017), with a 40 percent decrease in
calving rate (Kraus et al., 2016). In 2018, no new North Atlantic right
whale calves were documented in their calving grounds; this represented
the first time since annual NOAA aerial surveys began in 1989 that no
new right whale calves were observed. Eighteen right whale calves were
documented in 2021. As of July 14, 2022 and the writing of this
proposed Notice, 15 North Atlantic right whale calves have been
documented during this calving season. Presently, the best available
peer-reviewed population estimate for North Atlantic right whales is
368 per the draft 2021 SARs (<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>). The draft
2022 SARs have yet to be released; however, NMFS has updated its
species web page to recognize the population estimate for NARWs is
below 350 animals (<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/north-atlantic-right-whale">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/north-atlantic-right-whale</a>).
NMFS regulations at 50 CFR part 224.105 designated nearshore waters
of the Mid-Atlantic Bight as Mid-Atlantic U.S. Seasonal Management
Areas (SMA) for right whales in 2008. SMAs were developed to reduce the
threat of collisions between ships and right whales around their
migratory route and calving grounds. The Block Island SMA,
[[Page 52521]]
which occurs off the mouth of Long Island Sound, overlaps spatially
with the proposed project area (<a href="https://apps-nefsc.fisheries.noaa.gov/psb/surveys/MapperiframeWithText.html">https://apps-nefsc.fisheries.noaa.gov/psb/surveys/MapperiframeWithText.html</a>). The SMA is active from November
1 through April 30 of each year and may be used by NARWs for feeding or
migrating.
Right Whale Slow Zones are established when NARWs are detected both
visually (i.e., Dynamic Management Area) and acoustically (i.e.,
Acoustic Slow Zone). These are areas where mariners are encouraged to
avoid and/or reduce speeds to 10 kn (5.1 m/s) to avoid vessel
collisions with NARWs. Slow Zones typically persist for 15 days. More
information on these right whale Slow Zones can be found on NMFS'
website (<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/reducing-vessel-strikes-north-atlantic-right-whales">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/reducing-vessel-strikes-north-atlantic-right-whales</a>).
Dynamic Management areas (DMAs) are a type of NARW Slow Zones that
may be established when three or more NARWs are visually sighted within
a discrete area. This criteria is based upon findings by Clapham and
Pace (2001) that showed an aggregation of three or more whales is
likely to remain in the area for several days, in contrast to an
aggregation of fewer whales. Acoustic Slow Zones are another type of
NARW Slow Zone based upon acoustic detections, and are established when
three or more upcall detections from an acoustic system occur within an
evaluation period (e.g., 15 min). More information, as well as the most
up-to-date DMA establishments, can be found on NMFS' website (<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/reducing-vessel-strikes-north-atlantic-right-whales">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/reducing-vessel-strikes-north-atlantic-right-whales</a>).
Elevated North Atlantic right whale mortalities have occurred since
June 7, 2017 along the U.S. and Canadian coasts. As of July 2022, a
total of 34 confirmed dead stranded whales (21 in Canada; 13 in the
United States) have been documented. This event has been declared an
Unusual Mortality Event (UME), with human interactions, including
entanglement in fixed fishing gear and vessel strikes, implicated in at
least 16 of the mortalities thus far. More information is available
online at: <a href="http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2017-2019-north-atlantic-right-whale-unusual-mortality-event">www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2017-2019-north-atlantic-right-whale-unusual-mortality-event</a>.
Humpback Whale
Humpback whales are found worldwide in all oceans. Humpback whales
were listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Conservation Act
(ESCA) in June 1970. In 1973, the ESA replaced the ESCA, and humpbacks
continued to be listed as endangered. On September 8, 2016, NMFS
divided the species into 14 distinct population segments (DPS), removed
the current species-level listing, and in its place listed four DPSs as
endangered and one DPS as threatened (81 FR 62259; September 8, 2016).
The remaining nine DPSs were not listed. The West Indies DPS, which is
not listed under the ESA, is the only DPS of humpback whales that is
expected to occur in the project area. Whales occurring in the project
area are not necessarily from the Gulf of Maine feeding population
managed as a stock by NMFS. Bettridge et al. (2015) estimated the size
of the West Indies DPS population at 12,312 (95 percent CI 8,688-
15,954) whales in 2004-05, which is consistent with previous population
estimates of approximately 10,000-11,000 whales (Stevick et al., 2003;
Smith et al., 1999) and the increasing trend for the West Indies DPS
(Bettridge et al., 2015).
In New England waters, feeding is the principal activity of
humpback whales, and their distribution in this region has been largely
correlated to abundance of prey species (Payne et al., 1986, 1990).
Humpback whales are frequently piscivorous when in New England waters,
feeding on herring (Clupea harengus), sand lance (Ammodytes spp.), and
other small fishes, as well as euphausiids in the northern Gulf of
Maine (Paquet et al., 1997). During winter, the majority of humpback
whales from the North Atlantic feeding area (including the Gulf of
Maine) mate and calve in the West Indies, where spatial and genetic
mixing among feeding groups occurs (Katona and Beard 1990; Clapham et
al. 1993; Palsb[oslash]ll et al., 1997; Stevick et al., 1998; Kennedy
et al., 2014), though significant numbers of animals are found in mid-
and high-latitude regions at this time (Clapham et al., 1993; Swingle
et al., 1993). Some individuals have been sighted repeatedly within the
same winter season (Clapham et al., 1993; Robbins, 2007), indicating
that not all humpback whales migrate south every winter (Waring et al.,
2017).
Kraus et al. (2016) observed humpbacks in the Rhode Island/
Massachusetts (RI/MA) & MA Wind Energy Areas (WEAs) and surrounding
areas during all seasons. Humpback whales were observed most often
during spring and summer months, with a peak from April to June. Kraus
et al. (2016) also observed calves and one instance of courtship
behavior among adults. Acoustic data indicate that this species may be
present within the MA WEA year-round, with the highest rates of
acoustic detections in the winter and spring (Kraus et al., 2016).
Stocks of sand lance appear to correlate with the years in which the
most abundant whales are observed, suggesting that humpback whale
distribution and occurrences could largely be influenced by prey
availability (Kenney and Vigness-Raposa, 2010). Other sightings of note
include 46 sightings of humpback whales in the New York-New Jersey
Harbor Estuary documented from 2011-2016 (Brown et al., 2017) and
multiple humpbacks observed feeding off Long Island during July 2016
(Hayes et al., 2020). Pendleton et al. (2022) documented a recent shift
in humpback whale peak habitat use of Cape Cod Bay, in which maximum
occupancy occurred later in the spring during May rather than April.
The most significant anthropogenic causes of mortality of humpback
whales include incidental fishery entanglements, responsible for
roughly eight whale mortalities, and vessel collisions, responsible for
four mortalities both on average annually from 2013 to 2017 (Hayes et
al., 2020).
Since January 2016, elevated humpback whale mortalities have
occurred along the Atlantic coast from Maine to Florida. This event has
been declared a UME. Partial or full necropsy examinations have been
conducted on approximately half of the 161 known cases (as of July 14,
2022). Of the whales examined, approximately 50 percent had evidence of
human interaction, either ship strike or entanglement. While a portion
of the whales have shown evidence of pre-mortem vessel strike, this
finding is not consistent across all whales examined and more research
is needed. Three previous UMEs involving humpback whales have occurred
since 2000, in 2003, 2005, and 2006. More information is available at:
<a href="http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2016-2021-humpback-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-atlantic-coast">www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2016-2021-humpback-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-atlantic-coast</a>.
Fin Whale
Fin whales have a common occurrence in waters of the U.S. Atlantic
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), principally from Cape Hatteras northward
with a distribution in both continental shelf and deep water habitats
(Hayes et al., 2021). Fin whales are present north of 35-degree
latitude in every season and are broadly distributed throughout the
western North Atlantic for most of the year although densities vary
seasonally (Edwards et al., 2015; Hayes et al.,
[[Page 52522]]
2021). They are typically found in small groups of up to five
individuals (Brueggeman et al., 1987).
New England and Gulf of St. Lawrence waters represent major feeding
grounds for fin whales (Hayes et al., 2021). Two well-known feeding
grounds for fin whales are present near the proposed project area in
the Great South Channel and Jeffrey's Ledge and in waters directly east
of Montauk, New York (Hayes et al., 2019; Kenney and Vigness-Raposa,
2010). The highest occurrences are identified south of Montauk Point to
south of Nantucket (Kenney and Vigness-Raposa, 2010). Cape Cod Bay,
just north of the proposed project area, also represents seasonal
feeding habitat for fin whales (Clapham and Seipt, 1991). Surveys
conducted in the RI/MA WEA indicate fin whales may be present year-
round, but sightings were the highest during the spring and summer
(Kraus et al., 2016). The northwest corner of the ECR Area overlaps
with a fin whale BIA for feeding (LaBrecque et al., 2015). The BIA is
located east of Montauk Point between the 15-m and 50-m contours.
Feeding is known to occur from March through October (LaBrecque et al.,
2015).
The fin whale is federally listed under the ESA as an endangered
marine mammal and are designated as a strategic stock under the MMPA
due to their endangered status under the ESA, uncertain human-caused
mortality, and incomplete survey coverage of the stock's defined range.
The main threats to fin whales are fishery interactions and vessel
collisions (Hayes et al., 2021).
Sei Whale
The Nova Scotia stock of sei whales can be found in deeper waters
of the continental shelf edge waters of the northeastern U.S. and
northeastward to south of Newfoundland (Hayes et al., 2021). Sei whales
have a regular occurrence in the proposed project area. The southern
portion of the stock's range during spring and summer includes the Gulf
of Maine and Georges Bank. Spring is the period of greatest abundance
in U.S. waters, with sightings concentrated along the eastern margin of
Georges Bank and into the Northeast Channel area, and along the
southwestern edge of Georges Bank in the area of Hydrographer Canyon
(CETAP, 1982; Kraus et al., 2016, Roberts et al., 2016; Palka et al,.
2017; Cholewiak et al., 2018).
Sei whales are most common in deeper waters along the continental
shelf edge (NMFS, 2021) but will forage occasionally in shallower,
inshore waters. A sei whale BIA for feeding occurs adjacent to the east
of the proposed project area. The occurrence and abundance of sei
whales on feeding grounds may shift dramatically from one year to the
next. CETAP surveys observed sei whales along the continental shelf
edge only during the spring and summer (CETAP, 1982). In the RI/MA WEA,
sei whales were also only observed during the spring (eight sightings)
and summer (13 sightings). No sightings were reported in the WEA during
the fall and winter (Kraus et al., 2016).
Sei whales are listed as endangered under the ESA, and the Nova
Scotia stock is considered strategic and depleted under the MMPA. The
main threats to this stock are interactions with fisheries and vessel
collisions. Impacts from environmental contaminants also present a
concern as well as potential spatial shifts in distribution related to
climate change (Hayes et al., 2020; Sousa et al., 2019).
Minke Whale
Minke whales can be found in temperate, tropical, and high-latitude
waters. The Canadian East Coast stock can be found in the area from the
western half of the Davis Strait (45[deg] W) to the Gulf of Mexico
(Hayes et al., 2021). This species generally occupies waters less than
100 m deep on the continental shelf and has a common occurrence in the
proposed project area. There appears to be a strong seasonal component
to minke whale distribution in the survey areas, in which spring to
fall are times of relatively widespread and common occurrence while
during winter the species appears to be largely absent (Hayes et al.,
2021; Risch et al., 2013).
Little is known about their specific migratory behavior compared to
other large whale species; however, acoustic detections show that minke
whales migrate south in mid-October to early November and return from
wintering grounds starting in March through early April (Risch et al.,
2014). Northward migration appears to track the warmer waters of the
Gulf Stream along the continental shelf, while southward migration is
made farther offshore (Risch et al., 2014). Surveys conducted in the
RI/MA WEA, reported 103 minke whale sightings within the area,
predominantly in the spring followed by summer and fall (Kraus et al.,
2016).
Since January 2017, elevated minke whale mortalities have occurred
along the Atlantic coast from Maine through South Carolina, with a
total of 123 strandings (as of July 14, 2022). This event has been
declared a UME. Full or partial necropsy examinations were conducted on
more than 60 percent of the whales. Preliminary findings in several of
the whales have shown evidence of human interactions or infectious
disease, but these findings are not consistent across all of the whales
examined, so more research is needed. More information is available at:
<a href="http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2017-2021-minke-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-atlantic-coast">www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2017-2021-minke-whale-unusual-mortality-event-along-atlantic-coast</a>.
Sperm Whale
The distribution of the sperm whale in the U.S. EEZ occurs on the
continental shelf edge, over the continental slope, and into mid-ocean
regions (Hayes et al., 2020). The basic social unit of the sperm whale
appears to be the mixed school of adult females plus their calves and
some juveniles of both sexes, normally numbering 20-40 animals in all.
There is evidence that some social bonds persist for many years
(Christal et al., 1998). In summer, the distribution of sperm whales
includes the area east and north of Georges Bank and into the Northeast
Channel region, as well as the continental shelf (inshore of the 100 m
isobath) south of New England. In the fall, sperm whale occurrence
south of New England on the continental shelf is at its highest level,
and there remains a continental shelf edge occurrence in the Mid-
Atlantic Bight. In winter, sperm whales are concentrated east and
northeast of Cape Hatteras (Hayes et al., 2020).
CETAP and NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center sightings in
shelf-edge and off-shelf waters included many social groups with
calves/juveniles (CETAP, 1982). Sperm whales were usually seen at
locations corresponding to the tops of the seamounts and rises and did
not generally occur over the slopes. Sperm whales were recorded at the
surface over depths varying from 800 to 3,500 m. Kraus et al. (2016)
reported sightings of sperm whales in the RI-MA WEA during the summer
and fall months, with five individuals in August, one in September, and
three in June. There have also been occasional strandings in
Massachusetts and Long Island (Kenney and Vigness-Raposa, 2010).
Although the likelihood of occurrence within the proposed project area
remains very low, the sperm whale was included as an affected species
because of its high seasonal densities east of the project area.
Sperm whales are listed as endangered under the ESA, and the North
Atlantic stock is considered
[[Page 52523]]
strategic under the MMPA. The greatest threats to sperm whales include
ship strikes (McGillivary et al., 2009; Carrillo and Ritter, 2010),
anthropogenic sound (Nowacek et al., 2015), and the potential for
climate change to influence variations in spatial distribution and
abundance of prey (Hayes et al., 2020).
Long-Finned Pilot Whale
Long-finned pilot whales are found from North Carolina north to
Iceland, Greenland, and the Barents Sea (Sergeant, 1962; Leatherwood et
al., 1976; Abend, 1993; Bloch et al., 1993; Abend and Smith, 1999). In
U.S. Atlantic waters, the species is distributed principally along the
continental shelf edge off the northeastern U.S. coast in winter and
early spring (CETAP 1982; Payne and Heinemann, 1993; Abend and Smith,
1999; Hamazaki, 2002). In late spring, pilot whales move onto Georges
Bank and into the Gulf of Maine and more northern waters and remain in
these areas through late autumn (CETAP 1982; Payne and Heinemann,
1993). Long-finned pilot whales are highly social and vocal and are
typically observed in groups of 10 to 20 surface-active individuals
(NOAA 2022). Within the RI-MA WEA, no sightings of pilot whales were
observed during the summer, fall, or winter (Kraus et al., 2016).
Striped Dolphin
Striped dolphins are widely distributed in tropical and warm
temperate waters of the Western North Atlantic ranging from Nova Scotia
to the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico (Archer and Perrin, 1997; Archer,
2002; Hayes et al., 2020). In waters off the northeastern U.S. coast,
striped dolphins are distributed along the continental shelf edge from
Cape Hatteras to the southern margin of Georges Bank, and also occur
offshore over the continental slope and rise in the mid-Atlantic region
(CETAP, 1982; Mullin and Fulling, 2003). During CETAP surveys,
continental shelf edge sightings were generally centered along the
1,000 m depth contour in all seasons (CETAP, 1982). Striped dolphins
prefer offshore waters from the continental slope to the Gulf Stream
(Hayes et al., 2020; Leatherwood et al., 1976; Perrin et al., 1994;
Schmidly, 1981).
There are few reported occurrences of striped dolphins in the
project area. All CETAP records reported striped dolphins in waters
greater than 900m; although it was noted that the most northern
sightings aligned with warm core rings of the Gulf Stream (Hayes et
al., 2020; Waring et al., 1992). Striped dolphins would not typically
be associated with shelf waters off New York and Massachusetts;
however, preliminary data from site investigation surveys for offshore
wind have a very small number of probable striped dolphin sightings;
therefore, they have been included in this assessment. Between 2013 and
2017, strandings of striped dolphins were reported from New York
(five); Massachusetts (two); and New Jersey (seven) (Hayes et al.,
2020). None showed definitive signs of human interaction (Hayes et al.,
2020).
Atlantic White-Sided Dolphin
Atlantic white-sided dolphins observed off the U.S. Atlantic coast
are part of the Western North Atlantic Stock (Hayes et al., 2020) which
inhabits waters from central West Greenland to North Carolina (about
35[deg] N) and primarily continental shelf waters to the 328 ft (100 m)
depth contour (Doks[aelig]ter et al., 2008). Sighting data indicate
seasonal shifts in distribution (Northridge et al., 1997). From January
to May, low numbers of Atlantic white-sided dolphins are found from
Georges Bank to Jeffrey's Ledge off New Hampshire. From June through
September, large numbers of Atlantic white-sided dolphins are found
from Georges Bank to the lower Bay of Fundy. From October to December,
they occur at intermediate densities from southern Georges Bank to the
southern Gulf of Maine (Payne and Heinemann, 1990). Sightings south of
Georges Bank, particularly around Hudson Canyon, occur year-round, but
at low densities (Hayes et al., 2020).
Offshore Rhode Island, Atlantic white-sided dolphins are common in
continental shelf waters, with a slight tendency to occur in shallower
waters in the spring (Kenney and Vigness-Raposa, 2010). Aggregations of
sightings have occurred southeast of Montauk Point during the spring
and summer. In the RI-MA WEA, Atlantic white-sided dolphins were
sighted primarily during summer followed by fall (Kraus et al., 2016).
Bottlenose Dolphin
There are two distinct bottlenose dolphin ecotypes in the western
North Atlantic: The coastal and offshore forms (Duffield et al., 1983;
Mead and Potter, 1995; Rosel et al., 2009). The migratory coastal
ecotype resides in waters typically less than 20 m deep, along the
inner continental shelf (within 7.5 km (4.6 miles) of shore), around
islands, and is continuously distributed south of Long Island, New York
into the Gulf of Mexico. Torres et al. (2003) found a statistically
significant break in the distribution of the ecotypes at 34 km from
shore based upon the genetic analysis of tissue samples collected in
nearshore and offshore waters from New York to central Florida. The
offshore ecotype was found exclusively seaward of 34 km and in waters
deeper than 34 m. This ecotype is primarily expected in waters north of
Long Island, New York (Waring et al., 2017; Hayes et al., 2018). The
offshore form is distributed primarily along the outer continental
shelf and continental slope in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean from
Georges Bank to the Florida Keys and is the only type that may be
present in the project area.
Common bottlenose dolphins were observed in the RI/MA WEA in all
seasons with the highest seasonal abundance estimates during the fall,
summer, and spring. The greatest concentrations of bottlenose dolphins
were observed in the southernmost portion of the RI/MA WEA (Kraus et
al., 2016). Further evidence for the presence of the offshore stock in
the study area is supported by seasonal stranding records which match
the temporal patterns of the offshore stock better than the coastal
stock (Kenney and Vigness-Raposa, 2010). Therefore, the northern
migratory coastal stock is not likely to occur in the project area and
will not be discussed further.
Common Dolphin
Common dolphins within the U.S. Atlantic EEZ belong to the Western
North Atlantic stock, generally occurring from Cape Hatteras to the
Scotian Shelf (Hayes et al., 2021). Common dolphins are a highly
seasonal, migratory species. Within the U.S. Atlantic EEZ, this species
is distributed along the continental shelf and typically associated
with Gulf Stream features (CETAP, 1982; Selzer and Payne, 1988;
Hamazaki, 2002; Hayes et al., 2021). Common dolphins occur from Cape
Hatteras northeast to Georges Bank (35[deg] to 42[deg] N) during mid-
January to May and move as far north as the Scotian Shelf from mid-
summer to fall (Selzer and Payne, 1988). Migration onto the Scotian
Shelf and continental shelf off Newfoundland occurs when water
temperatures exceed 51.8 [deg] Fahrenheit (11[deg] Celsius) (Sergeant
et al., 1970, Gowans and Whitehead 1995). Breeding usually takes place
between June and September (Hayes et al., 2019). Kraus et al. (2016)
observed 3,896 individual common dolphins within the RI-MA WEA. Summer
surveys included observations of the most individuals followed by fall,
winter, then spring.
[[Page 52524]]
Atlantic Spotted Dolphin
Atlantic spotted dolphins are found in tropical and warm temperate
waters ranging from southern New England, south to Gulf of Mexico and
the Caribbean to Venezuela (Hayes et al., 2020). The Western North
Atlantic stock regularly occurs in continental shelf waters south of
Cape Hatteras and in continental shelf edge and continental slope
waters north of this region (Hayes et al., 2020). Atlantic spotted
dolphins occur in two forms, with the larger ecotype inhabiting the
continental shelf and usually occurring inside or near the 200-m
isobaths (Hayes et al., 2020).
There are few reported occurrences of spotted dolphins (Stenella
spp.) in the proposed project area. CETAP reported 126 spotted dolphin
sightings over the course of the 3-year study, and 40 individuals south
of Block Island in 1982 (CETAP, 1982). NMFS shipboard surveys conducted
during June-August between central Virginia and the Lower Bay of Fundy
reported 542 to 860 individual sightings from two separate visual teams
(Palka et al., 2017).
Risso's Dolphin
Risso's dolphins occur worldwide in both tropical and temperate
waters (Jefferson et al., 2008, Jefferson et al., 2014). Risso's
dolphins within the U.S. Atlantic EEZ are part of the Western North
Atlantic stock which inhabits waters from Florida to eastern
Newfoundland (Leatherwood et al., 1976; Baird and Stacey, 1991). During
spring, summer, and fall, Risso's dolphins are distributed along the
continental shelf edge from Cape Hatteras north to Georges Bank (CETAP,
1982; Payne et al., 1984). During the winter, the distribution extends
outward into oceanic waters (Payne et al., 1984) within the Mid-
Atlantic Bight. However, little is known about their movement and
migration patterns, and they are infrequently observed in shelf waters.
Offshore Rhode Island, Risso's dolphins have been observed year-
round, with a peak abundance during the summer. Primarily observed
along the continental shelf break, few individuals are typically seen
in waters shallower than 100 m (Kenney and Vigness-Raposa, 2010).
Harbor Porpoise
The harbor porpoise occupies U.S. and Canadian waters. During
summer (July to September), harbor porpoises are generally concentrated
along the continental shelf within the northern Gulf of Maine, southern
Bay of Fundy region, and around the southern tip of Nova Scotia,
generally in waters less than 150 m deep (Gaskin, 1977; Kraus et al.,
1983; Palka, 1995). During fall (October to December) and spring (April
to June), they are more widely dispersed from New Jersey to Maine with
lower densities farther north and south. In winter (January to March),
intermediate densities of harbor porpoises can be found in waters off
New Jersey to North Carolina with lower densities found in waters off
New York to New Brunswick, Canada (Hayes et al., 2020).
There are four distinct populations of harbor porpoise in the
western Atlantic: Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy, Gulf of St. Lawrence,
Newfoundland, and Greenland (Gaskin, 1984, 1992; Hayes et al., 2020).
Harbor porpoises observed within the U.S. Atlantic EEZ are considered
part of the Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy stock.
The main threat to the species is interactions with fisheries, with
documented take in the U.S. northeast sink gillnet, mid-Atlantic
gillnet, and northeast bottom trawl fisheries and in the Canadian
herring weir fisheries (Waring et al., 2020).
Harbor Seal
Harbor seals are found throughout coastal waters of the Atlantic
Ocean and adjoining seas above 30[deg] N (Burns, 2009; Desportes et
al., 2010; Hayes et al., 2021). In the western North Atlantic, harbor
seals occur year-round in coastal waters of eastern Canada and Maine
(Katona et al., 1993), yet they are distributed seasonally along the
coast from southern New England to Virginia from September through late
May (Schneider and Payne, 1983; Schroeder, 2000; Rees et al., 2016,
Toth et al., 2018) Harbor seals are year-round inhabitants of the
coastal waters of eastern Canada and Maine (Richardson and Rough,
1993), and occur seasonally from southern New England to New Jersey
between September and late May (Schneider and Payne, 1983; Barlas,
1999; Schroeder, 2000). A general southward movement from the Bay of
Fundy to southern New England occurs in fall and early winter
(Rosenfeld et al., 1988, Whitman and Payne, 1990, Barlas 1999). A
northward movement from southern New England to Maine and eastern
Canada takes place prior to the pupping season, which occurs from mid-
May through June along the Maine coast (Richardson, 1976; Wilson, 1978;
Whitman and Payne, 1990; Kenney, 1994).
In addition to coastal waters, harbor seals use terrestrial habitat
as haul-out sites throughout the year, but primarily during the pupping
and molting periods, which occur from late spring to late summer in the
northern portion of their range. No pupping areas have been identified
in southern New England, but there are several haul-out sites on Block
Island and six haul-out sites have been identified in Narragansett Bay
(Barlas, 1999; Kenney and Vigness-Raposa, 2010).
From July 2018 through March 2020, elevated numbers of harbor seal
and gray seal mortalities occurred across Maine, New Hampshire and
Massachusetts. Additionally, stranded seals showed clinical signs as
far south as Virginia, although not in elevated numbers. This even was
declared a UME, and the UME investigation encompassed all seal
strandings from Maine to Virginia. A total of 3,152 reported strandings
(both harbor and gray seals) occurred during the UME. Full or partial
necropsy examinations have been conducted on some of the seals and
samples have been collected for testing. Based on tests conducted as of
April 30, 2021, the main pathogen found in the seals is phocine
distemper virus. NMFS is performing additional testing to identify any
other factors that may be involved in this UME. This UME was declared
from 2018 through 2020, and is currently pending closure to become non-
active. Therefore, this UME will not be addressed further in this
document. Further information is available at: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-england-mid-atlantic/marine-life-distress/2018-2020-pinniped-unusual-mortality-event-along">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-england-mid-atlantic/marine-life-distress/2018-2020-pinniped-unusual-mortality-event-along</a>.
Gray Seal
There are three major populations of gray seals found in the world:
eastern Canada (western North Atlantic stock), northwestern Europe and
the Baltic Sea. Gray seals in the project area belong to the western
North Atlantic stock. The range for this stock is thought to be from
New Jersey to Labrador (Davies, 1957; Mansfield, 1966; Katona et al.,
1993); however, stranding records as far south as Cape Hatteras
(Gilbert et al., 2005) have been recorded. This species inhabits
temperate and sub-arctic waters and lives on remote, exposed islands,
shoals, and sandbars (Jefferson et al., 2008).
In U.S. waters, pupping sites are located from Maine to
Massachusetts (Wood et al., 2019). Historically, gray seals were
relatively absent from Rhode Island and nearby waters. However, with
the recent recovery of the Massachusetts and Canadian populations,
their occurrence has increased in southern New England waters (Kenney
and Vigness-Raposa, 2010). In New York, gray seals are typically seen
alongside harbor seal
[[Page 52525]]
haul-outs. Two frequent sighting locations include Great Gull Island
and Fisher's Island (Kenney and Vigness-Raposa, 2010). Two breeding and
pupping grounds have also been identified in Nantucket Sound at Monomoy
and Muskeget Island (NMFS, 2021). Gray seals have been observed using
the historic pupping site on Muskeget Island in Massachusetts since
1990.
Current population trends show that gray seal abundance is likely
increasing in the U.S. Atlantic EEZ (Hayes et al., 2021). Although the
rate of increase is unknown, surveys conducted since the 1980s indicate
a steady increase in abundance in both Maine and Massachusetts (Hayes
et al., 2021). It is believed that recolonization by Canadian gray
seals is the source of the U.S. population (Hayes et al., 2021). As
described above, elevated seal mortalities, including gray seals, have
occurred from Maine to Virginia from 2018 through 2020. Phocine
distemper virus has been the main pathogen found in stranded seals.
More information is available at: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-england-mid-atlantic/marine-life-distress/2018-2020-pinniped-unusual-mortality-event-along">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-england-mid-atlantic/marine-life-distress/2018-2020-pinniped-unusual-mortality-event-along</a>.
Marine Mammal Hearing
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals
underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious
effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to
sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine
mammals are able to hear. Not all marine mammal species have equal
hearing capabilities (e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and
Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect this, Southall et al.
(2007, 2019) recommended that marine mammals be divided into hearing
groups based on directly measured (behavioral or auditory evoked
potential techniques) or estimated hearing ranges (behavioral response
data, anatomical modeling, etc.). Note that no direct measurements of
hearing ability have been successfully completed for mysticetes (i.e.,
low-frequency cetaceans). Subsequently, NMFS (2018) described
generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups.
Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65
decibel (dB) threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with
the exception for lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans where the
lower bound was deemed to be biologically implausible and the lower
bound from Southall et al. (2007) retained. Marine mammal hearing
groups and their associated hearing ranges are provided in Table 4.
Table 4--Marine Mammal Hearing Groups
[NMFS, 2018]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing group Generalized hearing range *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency (LF) cetaceans (baleen 7 Hz to 35 kHz.
whales).
Mid-frequency (MF) cetaceans 150 Hz to 160 kHz.
(dolphins, toothed whales, beaked
whales, bottlenose whales).
High-frequency (HF) cetaceans (true 275 Hz to 160 kHz.
porpoises, Kogia, river dolphins,
Cephalorhynchid, Lagenorhynchus
cruciger & L. australis).
Phocid pinnipeds (PW) (underwater) 50 Hz to 86 kHz.
(true seals).
Otariid pinnipeds (OW) (underwater) 60 Hz to 39 kHz.
(sea lions and fur seals).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Represents the generalized hearing range for the entire group as a
composite (i.e., all species within the group), where individual
species' hearing ranges are typically not as broad. Generalized
hearing range chosen based on ~65 dB threshold from normalized
composite audiogram, with the exception for lower limits for LF
cetaceans (Southall et al., 2007) and PW pinniped (approximation).
The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall et
al. (2007) on the basis of data indicating that phocid species have
consistently demonstrated an extended frequency range of hearing
compared to otariids, especially in the higher frequency range
(Hemil[auml] et al., 2006; Kastelein et al., 2009; Reichmuth and Holt,
2013).
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency
ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information.
Sixteen marine mammal species (14 cetacean and 2 pinniped (both phocid)
species) have the reasonable potential to co-occur with the proposed
survey activities. Please refer to Table 3. Of the cetacean species
that may be present, five are classified as low-frequency cetaceans
(i.e., all mysticete species), eight are classified as mid-frequency
cetaceans (i.e., all delphinid species and the sperm whale), and one is
classified as high-frequency cetaceans (i.e., harbor porpoise and Kogia
spp.).
Potential Effects of Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and Their
Habitat
This section includes a discussion of the ways that Orsted's
specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat.
Detailed descriptions of the potential effects of similar specified
activities have been provided in other recent Federal Register notices,
including for survey activities using the same methodology, over a
similar amount of time, and occurring in the northwest Atlantic region,
including waters offshore of Massachusetts and Rhode Island (e.g., 85
FR 63508, October 8, 2020; 86 FR 40469, July 28, 2021; 87 FR 806,
January 6, 2022; 87 FR 13975, March 11, 2022). No significant new
information is available, and we refer the reader to these documents
rather than repeating the details here. The Estimated Take section
later in this document includes a quantitative analysis of the number
of individuals that are expected to be taken by Orsted's activity. The
Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section considers the
content of this section, the Estimated Take section, and the Proposed
Mitigation section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of
these activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of
individuals and to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of
these activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of
individuals and whether those impacts are reasonably expected to, or
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
Underwater sound from active acoustic sources can include one or
more of the following: Temporary or permanent hearing impairment, non-
auditory physical or physiological effects, behavioral disturbance,
stress, and masking. The degree of effect is intrinsically related to
the signal characteristics, received level, distance from the source,
and duration of the sound exposure. Marine mammals exposed to high-
intensity sound, or to
[[Page 52526]]
lower-intensity sound for prolonged periods, can experience hearing
threshold shift (TS), which is the loss of hearing sensitivity at
certain frequency ranges (Finneran, 2015). TS can be permanent (PTS),
in which case the loss of hearing sensitivity is not fully recoverable,
or temporary (TTS), in which case the animal's hearing threshold would
recover over time (Southall et al., 2007).
Permanent Threshold Shift--Marine mammals exposed to high-intensity
sound, or to lower-intensity sound for prolonged periods, can
experience hearing threshold shift (TS), which is the loss of hearing
sensitivity at certain frequency ranges (Finneran, 2015). TS can be
permanent (PTS), in which case the loss of hearing sensitivity is not
fully recoverable, or temporary (TTS), in which case the animal's
hearing threshold would recover over time (Southall et al., 2007).
Repeated sound exposure that leads to TTS could cause PTS. In severe
cases of PTS, there can be total or partial deafness, while in most
cases the animal has an impaired ability to hear sounds in specific
frequency ranges (Kryter, 1985).
Temporary Threshold Shift--TTS is the mildest form of hearing
impairment that can occur during exposure to sound (Kryter, 1985).
While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises, and a sound must
be at a higher level in order to be heard. In terrestrial and marine
mammals, TTS can last from minutes or hours to days (in cases of strong
TTS). In many cases, hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly after
exposure to the sound ends.
When PTS occurs, there is physical damage to the sound receptors in
the ear (i.e., tissue damage), whereas TTS represents primarily tissue
fatigue and is reversible (Southall et al., 2007). In addition, other
investigators have suggested that TTS is within the normal bounds of
physiological variability and tolerance and does not represent physical
injury (e.g., Ward, 1997). Therefore, NMFS does not consider TTS to
constitute auditory injury.
Many studies have examined noise-induced hearing loss in marine
mammals (see Finneran (2015) and Southall et al. (2019) for summaries).
Animals in the vicinity of Orsted's proposed site characterization
survey activities are unlikely to incur even TTS due to the
characteristics of the sound sources, which include relatively low
sound source levels (176 to 205 dB re 1 [mu]Pa-m) and generally very
short pulses and potential duration of exposure. These characteristics
mean that instantaneous exposure is unlikely to cause TTS, as it is
unlikely that exposure would occur close enough to the vessel for
received levels to exceed peak pressure TTS criteria, and the
cumulative duration of exposure would be insufficient to exceed
cumulative sound exposure level (SEL) criteria. Regarding instantaneous
exposure, high-frequency cetacean species (e.g., harbor porpoises) have
the greatest sensitivity to potential TTS, and individuals would have
to make an approach within 5 m of the vessel (the estimated isopleth
distance to the peak threshold). Intermittent exposures--as would occur
due to the brief, transient signals produced by these sources--require
a higher cumulative SEL to induce TTS than would continuous exposures
of the same duration (i.e., intermittent exposure results in lower
levels of TTS). Moreover, most marine mammals would more likely avoid a
loud sound source rather than swim in such close proximity as to result
in TTS. Kremser et al., (2005) noted that the probability of a cetacean
swimming through the area of exposure when a sub-bottom profiler emits
a pulse is small--because if the animal was in the area, it would have
to pass the transducer at close range in order to be subjected to sound
levels that could cause TTS and would likely exhibit avoidance behavior
to the area near the transducer rather than swim though at such a close
range. Further, the restricted beam shape of many of HRG survey devices
planned for use (Table 2) makes it unlikely that an animal would be
exposed more than briefly during the passage of the vessel.
Behavioral Effects--Behavioral disturbances may include a variety
of effects, including subtle changes in behavior (e.g., minor or brief
avoidance of an area or changes in vocalizations), more conspicuous
changes in similar behavioral activities, and more sustained and/or
potentially severe reactions, such as displacement from or abandonment
of high-quality habitat. Behavioral responses to sound are highly
variable and context-specific and any reactions depend on numerous
intrinsic and extrinsic factors (e.g., species, state of maturity,
experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity,
time of day), as well as the interplay between factors (e.g.,
Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et al., 2003; Southall et al., 2007;
Weilgart, 2007; Archer et al., 2010; Southall et al., 2021). Available
studies show wide variation in response to underwater sound; therefore,
it is difficult to predict specifically how any given sound in a
particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving the signal.
The following subsections provide examples of behavioral responses
that provide an idea of the variability in behavioral responses that
would be expected given the differential sensitivities of marine mammal
species to sound and the wide range of potential acoustic sources to
which a marine mammal may be exposed. Behavioral responses that could
occur for a given sound exposure should be determined from the
literature that is available for each species, or extrapolated from
closely related species when no information exists, along with
contextual factors. Available studies show wide variation in response
to underwater sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically
how any given sound in a particular instance might affect marine
mammals perceiving the signal. If a marine mammal does react briefly to
an underwater sound by changing its behavior or moving a small
distance, the impacts of the change are unlikely to be significant to
the individual, the stock, or population. However, if a sound source
displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for
a prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations could be
significant (e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007; NRC,
2003). There are broad categories of potential response, which we
describe in greater detail here, that include alteration of dive
behavior, alteration of foraging behavior, effects to breathing,
interference with or alteration of vocalization, avoidance, and flight.
Changes in dive behavior can vary widely, and may consist of
increased or decreased dive times and surface intervals as well as
changes in the rates of ascent and descent during a dive (e.g., Frankel
and Clark, 2000; Costa et al., 2003; Ng and Leung, 2003; Nowacek et
al., 2004; Goldbogen et al., 2013). Seals exposed to non-impulsive
sources with a received sound pressure level within the range of
calculated exposures (142-193 dB re 1 [mu]Pa (referenced to 1
micropascal), have been shown to change their behavior by modifying
diving activity and avoidance of the sound source (G[ouml]tz et al.,
2010; Kvadsheim et al., 2010). Variations in dive behavior may reflect
interruptions in biologically significant activities (e.g., foraging)
or they may be of little biological significance. The impact of an
alteration to dive behavior resulting from an acoustic exposure depends
on what the animal is doing at the time of the exposure and the type
and magnitude of the response. Due to the mobile nature of the proposed
activities and mobility of marine mammals, we expect minimal effects on
diving
[[Page 52527]]
behavior as animals would be able to move away from the sound source.
Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with
anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed
displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary
indicators (e.g., bubble nets or sediment plumes), or changes in dive
behavior. As for other types of behavioral response, the frequency,
duration, and temporal pattern of signal presentation, as well as
differences in species sensitivity, are likely contributing factors to
differences in response in any given circumstance (e.g., Croll et al.,
2001; Nowacek et al.; 2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et al., 2007;
Melc[oacute]n et al., 2012). In addition, the behavioral state of the
animal plays a role in the type and severity of a behavioral response,
such as disruption to foraging (e.g., Silve et al., 2016; Wensveen et
al., 2017). As mentioned earlier, the proposed project area overlaps
with a fin whale feeding BIA. However, due to the mobile nature of the
proposed acoustic sources, as well as fin whales and their prey, fin
whales would have alternate habitat available for foraging during the
brief duration of acoustic activity. We, therefore, expect minimal
impacts to foraging fin whales.
A determination of whether foraging disruptions incur fitness
consequences would require information on or estimates of the energetic
requirements of the affected individuals and the relationship between
prey availability, foraging effort and success, and the life history
stage of the animal. Goldbogen et al. (2013) indicate that disruption
of feeding and displacement could impact individual fitness and health.
However, for this to be true, we would have to assume that an
individual could not compensate for this lost feeding opportunity by
either immediately feeding at another location, by feeding shortly
after cessation of acoustic exposure, or by feeding at a later time.
There is no indication this is the case, particularly since unconsumed
prey would likely still be available in the environment in most cases
following the cessation of acoustic exposure. Information on or
estimates of the energetic requirements of the individuals and the
relationship between prey availability, foraging effort and success,
and the life history stage of the animal will help better inform a
determination of whether foraging disruptions incur fitness
consequences.
Marine mammals vocalize for different purposes and across multiple
modes, such as whistling, echolocation click production, calling, and
singing. Changes in vocalization behavior in response to anthropogenic
noise can occur for any of these modes and may result from a need to
compete with an increase in background noise or may reflect increased
vigilance or a startle response. For example, in the presence of
potentially masking signals, humpback whales and killer whales have
been observed to increase the length of their songs (Miller et al.,
2000; Fristrup et al., 2003; Foote et al., 2004), while right whales
have been observed to shift the frequency content of their calls upward
while reducing the rate of calling in areas of increased anthropogenic
noise (Parks et al., 2007; Rolland et al., 2012). Killer whales off the
northwestern coast of the United States have been observed to increase
the duration of primary calls once a threshold in observing vessel
density (e.g., whale watching) was reached, which has been suggested as
a response to increased masking noise produced by the vessels (Foote et
al., 2004; NOAA, 2014). In some cases, however, animals may cease or
alter sound production in response to underwater sound (e.g., Bowles et
al., 1994; Castellote et al., 2012; Cerchio et al., 2014). Studies also
demonstrate that even low levels of noise received far from the noise
source can induce changes in vocalization and/or behavioral responses
(Blackwell et al., 2013, 2015). Due to the short-term duration and
mobile nature of the proposed activities, we expect minimal impacts to
marine mammal vocalization.
Avoidance is the displacement of an individual from an area or
migration path as a result of the presence of a sound or other
stressors, and is one of the most obvious manifestations of disturbance
in marine mammals (Richardson et al., 1995). Avoidance is qualitatively
different from the flight response, but also differs in the magnitude
of the response (i.e., directed movement, rate of travel, etc.).
Avoidance is often temporary, and animals return to the area once the
noise has ceased. Acute avoidance responses have been observed in
captive porpoises and pinnipeds exposed to a number of different sound
sources (Kastelein et al., 2001; Finneran et al., 2003; Kastelein et
al., 2006a, 2006b; 2015a, 2015b, 2018). Short-term avoidance of seismic
surveys, low frequency emissions, and acoustic deterrents have also
been noted in wild populations of odontocetes (Bowles et al., 1994;
Goold, 1996; Goold and Fish, 1998; Stone et al., 2000; Morton and
Symonds, 2002; Hiley et al., 2021) and to some extent in mysticetes
(Malme et al., 1984; McCauley et al., 2000; Gailey et al., 2007).
Longer-term displacement is possible, however, which may lead to
changes in abundance or distribution patterns of the affected species
in the affected region if habituation to the presence of the sound does
not occur (e.g., Blackwell et al., 2004; Bejder et al., 2006; Teilmann
et al., 2006). Avoidance may occur for any marine mammals exposed to
the proposed sound sources, however, alternate habitat is available for
any animals that are temporarily displaced and mitigation measures, as
described further in the Proposed Mitigation section, are expected to
reduce avoidance.
A flight response is a dramatic change in normal movement to a
directed and rapid movement away from the perceived location of a sound
source. The flight response differs from other avoidance responses in
the intensity of the response (e.g., directed movement, rate of
travel). Relatively little information on flight responses of marine
mammals to anthropogenic signals exist, although observations of flight
responses to the presence of predators have occurred (Connor and
Heithaus, 1996). The result of a flight response could range from
brief, temporary exertion and displacement from the area where the
signal provokes flight to, in extreme cases, marine mammal strandings
(Evans and England, 2001). There are limited data on flight response
for marine mammals in water; however, there are examples of this
response in species on land (e.g., Born et al., 1999; Ward et al.,
1999; Frid, 2003). However, it should be noted that response to a
perceived predator does not necessarily invoke flight (Ford and Reeves,
2008), and whether individuals are solitary or in groups may influence
the response. Due to proposed mitigation measures, we do not expect any
marine mammals to exhibit flight responses to the proposed activities.
In addition, sound can disrupt behavior through masking, or
interfering with, an animal's ability to detect, recognize, or
discriminate between acoustic signals of interest (e.g., those used for
intraspecific communication and social interactions, prey detection,
predator avoidance, navigation). Masking occurs when the receipt of a
sound is interfered with by another coincident sound at similar
frequencies and at similar or higher intensity, and may occur whether
the sound is natural (e.g., snapping shrimp, wind, waves,
precipitation) or anthropogenic (e.g., shipping, sonar, seismic
exploration) in origin. Marine mammal communications would not likely
be masked appreciably by the acoustic
[[Page 52528]]
signals given the directionality of the signals for most HRG survey
equipment types planned for use (Table 2) and the brief period when an
individual mammal is likely to be exposed.
Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting,
traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour cycle). Disruption
of such functions resulting from reactions to stressors such as sound
exposure are more likely to be significant if they last more than one
diel cycle or recur on subsequent days (Southall et al., 2007).
Consequently, a behavioral response lasting less than one day and not
recurring on subsequent days is not considered particularly severe
unless it could directly affect reproduction or survival (Southall et
al., 2007). Note that there is a difference between multi-day
substantive behavioral reactions and multi-day anthropogenic
activities. For example, just because an activity lasts for multiple
days does not necessarily mean that individual animals are either
exposed to activity-related stressors for multiple days or, further,
exposed in a manner resulting in sustained multi-day substantive
behavioral responses. Due to the short-term nature of the proposed HRG
activities, we expect minimal disruption to any diel cycles of marine
mammals.
To assess the strength of behavioral changes and responses to
external sounds and SPLs associated with changes in behavior, Southall
et al., (2007) developed and utilized a severity scale, which is a 10
point scale ranging from no effect (labeled 0), effects not likely to
influence vital rates (low; labeled from 1 to 3), effects that could
affect vital rates (moderate; labeled 4 to 6), to effects that were
thought likely to influence vital rates (high; labeled 7 to 9).
Southall et al., (2021) updated the severity scale by integrating
behavioral context (i.e., survival, reproduction, and foraging) into
severity assessment. For non-impulsive sounds (i.e., similar to the
sources used during the proposed action), data suggest that exposures
of pinnipeds to sources between 90 and 140 dB re 1 [mu]Pa do not elicit
strong behavioral responses; no data were available for exposures at
higher received levels for Southall et al., (2007) to include in the
severity scale analysis. Reactions of harbor seals were the only
available data for which the responses could be ranked on the severity
scale. For reactions that were recorded, the majority (17 of 18
individuals/groups) were ranked on the severity scale as a 4 (defined
as moderate change in movement, brief shift in group distribution, or
moderate change in vocal behavior) or lower; the remaining response was
ranked as a 6 (defined as minor or moderate avoidance of the sound
source).
Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes
with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated
events (Wartzok et al., 2003). Animals are most likely to habituate to
sounds that are predictable and unvarying. It is important to note that
habituation is appropriately considered as a ``progressive reduction in
response to stimuli that are perceived as neither aversive nor
beneficial,'' rather than as, more generally, moderation in response to
human disturbance (Bejder et al., 2009). The opposite process is
sensitization, when an unpleasant experience leads to subsequent
responses, often in the form of avoidance, at a lower level of
exposure. As noted, behavioral state may affect the type of response.
For example, animals that are resting may show greater behavioral
change in response to disturbing sound levels than animals that are
highly motivated to remain in an area for feeding (Richardson et al.,
1995; NRC, 2003; Wartzok et al., 2003). Controlled experiments with
captive marine mammals have shown pronounced behavioral reactions,
including avoidance of loud sound sources (Ridgway et al., 1997;
Finneran et al., 2003). Observed responses of wild marine mammals to
loud impulsive sound sources (typically seismic airguns or acoustic
harassment devices) have been varied but often consist of avoidance
behavior or other behavioral changes suggesting discomfort (Morton and
Symonds, 2002; see also Richardson et al., 1995; Nowacek et al., 2007).
Although habituation to the proposed sound sources could occur, it is
not likely due to the short-term nature of the HRG activities.
Stress responses--An animal's perception of a threat may be
sufficient to trigger stress responses consisting of some combination
of behavioral responses, autonomic nervous system responses,
neuroendocrine responses, or immune responses (e.g., Seyle, 1950;
Moberg, 2000). In many cases, an animal's first and sometimes most
economical (in terms of energetic costs) response is behavioral
avoidance of the potential stressor. Autonomic nervous system responses
to stress typically involve changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and
gastrointestinal activity. These responses have a relatively short
duration and may or may not have a significant long-term effect on an
animal's fitness.
Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-
pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that
are affected by stress--including immune competence, reproduction,
metabolism, and behavior--are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-
induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been
implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism, reduced immune
competence, and behavioral disturbance (e.g., Moberg, 1987; Blecha,
2000).
The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does
not normally place an animal at risk) and ``distress'' is the cost of
the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores
that can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such
circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose serious
fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have sufficient
energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response,
energy resources must be diverted from other functions. This state of
distress will last until the animal replenishes its energetic reserves
sufficient to restore normal function. We expect minimal stress
responses to result from marine mammals due to the short-term duration
of activities and proposed mitigation measures.
Potential effects on prey--Sound may affect marine mammals through
impacts on the abundance, behavior, or distribution of prey species
(e.g., crustaceans, cephalopods, fish, zooplankton) (i.e., effects to
marine mammal habitat). Prey species exposed to sound might move away
from the sound source, experience TTS, experience masking of
biologically relevant sounds, or show no obvious direct effects. The
most likely impacts (if any) for most prey species in a given area
would be temporary avoidance of the area. Surveys using active acoustic
sound sources move through an area relatively quickly, limiting
exposure to multiple pulses. In all cases, sound levels would return to
ambient once a survey ends and the noise source is shut down and, when
exposure to sound ends, behavioral and/or physiological responses are
expected to end relatively quickly.
Marine Mammal Habitat
The HRG survey equipment will not contact the seafloor and does not
represent a source of pollution. As the HRG survey equipment introduces
noise to the marine environment, there is the potential for it to
result in avoidance of the area around the HRG survey activities on the
part of marine mammal prey. Any avoidance of the area on the part of
marine mammal prey would be
[[Page 52529]]
expected to be short term and temporary.
Due to the temporary nature of the disturbance, and the
availability of similar habitat and resources (e.g., prey species) in
the surrounding area, the impacts to marine mammals and the food
sources that they utilize are expected to be minimal and unlikely to
cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine
mammals or their populations.
Ship Strikes
Vessel collisions with marine mammals, or ship strikes, can result
in death or serious injury of the animal. These interactions are
typically associated with large whales, which are less maneuverable
than are smaller cetaceans or pinnipeds in relation to large vessels.
Ship strikes generally involve commercial shipping vessels, which are
generally larger (e.g., 40,000 ton container ship) and of which there
is much more traffic in the ocean than geophysical survey vessels.
Jensen and Silber (2004) summarized ship strikes of large whales
worldwide from 1975-2003 and found that most collisions occurred in the
open ocean and involved large vessels (e.g., commercial shipping). For
vessels used in geophysical survey activities, vessel speed while
towing gear is typically approximately 4-5 kn (2.1-2.6 m/s) (as is the
speed of the vessel for Orsted's proposed HRG surveys). At these
speeds, both the possibility of striking a marine mammal and the
possibility of a strike resulting in serious injury or mortality are so
low as to be discountable. At average transit speed for geophysical
survey vessels, the probability of serious injury or mortality
resulting from a strike is less than 50 percent. However, the
likelihood of a strike actually happening is again low given the
smaller size of these vessels and generally slower speeds. Notably in
the Jensen and Silber study, no strike incidents were reported for
geophysical survey vessels during that time period.
The potential effects of Orsted's specified survey activity are
expected to be limited to Level B behavioral harassment. Temporary and
minimal impacts to marine mammal habitat, including prey, may occur.
Estimated Take
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes
proposed for authorization through this IHA, which will inform both
NMFS' consideration of ``small numbers'' and the negligible impact
determinations.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these
activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent
here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines ``harassment'' as any act of
pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to injure a
marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment);
or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal
stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns,
including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would be by Level B harassment only, in the form
of disruption of behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals
resulting from exposure to certain HRG sources. Based on the nature of
the activity and the anticipated effectiveness of the mitigation
measures (i.e., shutdown measures, vessel strike avoidance procedures)
discussed in detail below in the Proposed Mitigation section, Level A
harassment is neither anticipated nor proposed to be authorized.
As described previously, no serious injury or mortality is
anticipated or proposed to be authorized for this activity. Below we
describe how the proposed take numbers are estimated.
For acoustic impacts, generally speaking, we estimate take by
considering: (1) acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best
available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally
harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the
area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a
day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these
ensonified areas; and, (4) the number of days of activities. We note
that while these factors can contribute to a basic calculation to
provide an initial prediction of potential takes, additional
information that can qualitatively inform take estimates is also
sometimes available (e.g., previous monitoring results or average group
size). Below, we describe the factors considered here in more detail
and present the proposed take estimates.
Acoustic Thresholds
NMFS recommends the use of acoustic thresholds that identify the
received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals
would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to
Level B harassment) or to incur PTS of some degree (equated to Level A
harassment).
Level B Harassment--Though significantly driven by received level,
the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure
is also informed to varying degrees by other factors related to the
source or exposure context (e.g., frequency, predictability, duty
cycle, duration of the exposure, signal-to-noise ratio, distance to the
source), the environment (e.g., bathymetry, other noises in the area,
predators in the area), and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation,
experience, demography, life stage, depth) and can be difficult to
predict (e.g., Southall et al., 2007, 2021, Ellison et al., 2012).
Based on what the available science indicates and the practical need to
use a threshold based on a metric that is both predictable and
measurable for most activities, NMFS typically uses a generalized
acoustic threshold based on received level to estimate the onset of
behavioral harassment. NMFS generally predicts that marine mammals are
likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner considered to be Level B
harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above root-
mean-squared pressure received levels (RMS SPL) of 120 dB (re 1 [mu]Pa)
for continuous (e.g., vibratory pile-driving, drilling) and above RMS
SPL 160 dB re 1 [mu]Pa for non-explosive impulsive (e.g., seismic
airguns) or intermittent (e.g., scientific sonar) sources.
Level A Harassment--NMFS Technical Guidance for Assessing the
Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0)
(Technical Guidance, 2018) identifies dual criteria to assess auditory
injury (Level A harassment) to five different marine mammal groups
(based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from
two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive).
These thresholds are provided in the table below. The references,
analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are
described in NMFS' 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at:
<a href="http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance">www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance</a>.
Orsted's proposed activity includes the use of impulsive (i.e.,
boomers and sparkers) and non-impulsive (i.e., CHIRP SBPs) sources.
However, as discussed above, NMFS has concluded that Level A harassment
is not a reasonably likely outcome for marine mammals exposed to noise
from the sources proposed for use here, and the potential for Level A
harassment is not evaluated further in this document. Please see
Orsted's application (Section 1.4) for a quantitative Level A exposure
analysis exercise. The results indicated that maximum estimated
distances to
[[Page 52530]]
Level A harassment isopleths were less than 3 m for all sources and
hearing groups, with the exception of an estimated 18.9 m and 11.4 m
distance to the Level A harassment isopleth for high-frequency
cetaceans (i.e., harbor porpoises) during use of the GeoPulse 5430 and
TB CHIRP III, respectively (see Table 2 for source characteristics).
Orsted did not request authorization of take by Level A harassment and
no take by Level A harassment is proposed for authorization by NMFS.
Table 5--Thresholds Identifying the Onset of Permanent Threshold Shift
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTS onset thresholds * (received level)
Hearing group -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impulsive Non-impulsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-Frequency (LF) Cetaceans.......... Cell 1: L0-pk,flat: 219 Cell 2: LE, LF,24h: 199 dB.
dB; LE, LF,24h: 183 dB.
Mid-Frequency (MF) Cetaceans.......... Cell 3: L0-pk,flat: 230 Cell 4: LE, MF,24h: 198 dB.
dB; LE, MF,24h: 185 dB.
High-Frequency (HF) Cetaceans......... Cell 5: L0-pk,flat: 202 Cell 6: LE, HF,24h: 173 dB.
dB; LE,HF,24h: 155 dB.
Phocid Pinnipeds (PW) (Underwater).... Cell 7: L0-pk.flat: 218 Cell 8: LE,PW,24h: 201 dB.
dB; LE,PW,24h: 185 dB.
Otariid Pinnipeds (OW) (Underwater)... Cell 9: L0-pk,flat: 232 Cell 10: LE,OW,24h: 219 dB.
dB; LE,OW,24h: 203 dB.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dual metric thresholds for impulsive sounds: Use whichever results in the largest isopleth for calculating PTS
onset. If a non-impulsive sound has the potential of exceeding the peak sound pressure level thresholds
associated with impulsive sounds, these thresholds are recommended for consideration.
Note: Peak sound pressure level (L0-pk) has a reference value of 1 [mu]Pa, and weighted cumulative sound
exposure level (LE,) has a reference value of 1[mu]Pa\2\s. In this Table, thresholds are abbreviated to be
more reflective of International Organization for Standardization standards (ISO 2017). The subscript ``flat''
is being included to indicate peak sound pressure are flat weighted or unweighted within the generalized
hearing range of marine mammals (i.e., 7 Hz to 160 kHz). The subscript associated with cumulative sound
exposure level thresholds indicates the designated marine mammal auditory weighting function (LF, MF, and HF
cetaceans, and PW and OW pinnipeds) and that the recommended accumulation period is 24 hours. The weighted
cumulative sound exposure level thresholds could be exceeded in a multitude of ways (i.e., varying exposure
levels and durations, duty cycle). When possible, it is valuable for action proponents to indicate the
conditions under which these thresholds will be exceeded.
Ensonified Area
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the
activity that are used in estimating the area ensonified above the
acoustic thresholds, including source levels and transmission loss
coefficient.
NMFS has developed a user-friendly methodology for determining the
rms sound pressure level (SPL<INF>rms</INF>) at the 160-dB isopleth for
the purpose of estimating the extent of Level B harassment isopleths
associated with HRG survey equipment (NMFS, 2020). This methodology
incorporates frequency and some directionality to refine estimated
ensonified zones. Orsted used NMFS's methodology, using the source
level and operation mode of the equipment planned for use during the
proposed survey, to estimate the maximum ensonified area over a 24-hr
period also referred to as the harassment area (Table 6). Potential
takes by Level B harassment are estimated within the ensonified area
(i.e., harassment area) as an SPL exceeding 160 dB re 1 [micro]Pa for
impulsive sources (e.g., sparkers, boomers) within an average day of
activity.
The harassment zone, also known as the Zone of Influence (ZOI), is
a representation of the maximum extent of the ensonified area around a
sound source over a 24-hr period. The ZOI was calculated for mobile
sound sources per the following formula:
ZOI = (Distance/day x 2r) + [pi]r\2\
Where r is the linear distance from the source to the isopleth for
the Level B harassment threshold.
The estimated potential daily active survey distance of 70 km was
used as the estimated areal coverage over a 24-hr period. This distance
accounts for the vessel traveling at roughly 4 kn (2.1 m/s) and only
for periods during which equipment <180 kHz is in operation. A vessel
traveling 4 kn (2.1 m/s) can cover approximately 110 km per day;
however, based on data collected since 2017, survey coverage over a 24-
hour period is closer to 70 km per day as a result of delays due to,
e.g., weather, equipment malfunction. For daylight only vessels, the
distance is reduced to 20 km per day; however, to maintain the
potential for 24-hr surveys, the corresponding Level B harassment zones
provided in Table 6 were calculated for each source based on the Level
B threshold distances within a 24-hour (30 km) operational period.
NMFS considers the data provided by Crocker and Fratantonio (2016)
to represent the best available information on source levels associated
with HRG equipment and, therefore, recommends that source levels
provided by Crocker and Fratantonio (2016) be incorporated in the
method described above to estimate isopleth distances to harassment
thresholds. In cases, when the source level for a specific type of HRG
equipment is not provided in Crocker and Fratantonio (2016), NMFS
recommends that either the source levels provided by the manufacturer
be used, or, in instances where source levels provided by the
manufacturer are unavailable or unreliable, a proxy from Crocker and
Fratantonio (2016) be used instead. Table 2 shows the HRG equipment
types that may be used during the proposed surveys and the source
levels associated with those HRG equipment types.
Based upon modeling results, of the HRG survey equipment planned
for use by Orsted that has the potential to result in Level B
harassment of marine mammals, the Applied Acoustics Dura-Spark UHD and
GeoMarine Geo-Source sparkers would produce the largest Level B
harassment isopleth (141 m) or ZOI. Estimated distances to Level B
harassment isopleths for all sources evaluated here, including the
sparkers, are provided in Table 6. Although Orsted does not expect to
use sparker sources on all planned survey days, Orsted proposes to
assume for purposes of analysis that the sparker would be used on all
survey days. This is a conservative approach, as the actual sources
used on individual survey days may produce smaller harassment
distances.
[[Page 52531]]
Table 6--Distance to Level B Harassment Thresholds (160 dB rms)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance to
level B
Source harassment
threshold
(m)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-impulsive, non-parametric, shallow SBP (CHIRPs)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ET 216 CHIRP............................................... 12
ET 424 CHIRP............................................... 4
ET 512i CHIRP.............................................. 6
GeoPulse 5430.............................................. 29
TB CHIRP III............................................... 54
Pangeo SBI................................................. 22
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impulsive, medium SBP (Boomers and Sparkers)............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AA Triple plate S-Boom (700/1,000 J)....................... 76
AA, Dura-spark UHD Sparkers................................ 141
GeoMarine Sparkers......................................... 141
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AA = Applied Acoustics; CHIRP = compressed high-intensity radiated
pulses; ET = edgetech; HF = high-frequency; J = joules; LF = low-
frequency; MF = mid-frequency; PW = phocid pinnipeds in water; SBI =
sub-bottom imager; SBP = sub-bottom profiler; TB = Teledyne benthos;
UHD = ultra-high definition.
Marine Mammal Occurrence
In this section we provide information about the occurrence of
marine mammals, including density or other relevant information that
will inform the take calculations.
Habitat based density models produced by the Duke University Marine
Geospatial Ecology Laboratory (Roberts et al., 2016, 2022) represent
the best available information regarding marine mammal densities in the
project area. The density data presented by Roberts et al. (2016, 2022)
incorporate aerial and shipboard line-transect data from NMFS and other
organizations and incorporate data from 8 physiographic and 16 dynamic
oceanographic and biological covariates, and control for the influence
of sea state, group size, availability bias, and perception bias on the
probability of making a sighting. These density models were originally
developed for all cetacean taxa in the U.S. Atlantic (Roberts et al.,
2016). In subsequent years, certain models have been updated based on
additional data as well as certain methodological improvements. More
information is available online at <a href="https://seamap.env.duke.edu/models/Duke/EC/">https://seamap.env.duke.edu/models/Duke/EC/</a>. Marine mammal density estimates in the project area (animals/
km\2\) were obtained using the most recent model results for all taxa
(Roberts 2022). The updated models incorporate sighting data, including
sightings from NOAA's Atlantic Marine Assessment Program for Protected
Species (AMAPPS) surveys.
For exposure analysis, density data from Roberts (2022) were mapped
using a geographic information system (GIS). Density grid cells that
included any portion of the proposed project area were selected for all
survey months (see Figure 3 of Orsted's application). Given the
variability in level of effort between the Lease Areas and the ECR
area, densities were separated for the three Lease Areas (OCS-A 0486,
0487, and 0500) and the ECR area. The densities for each species as
reported by Roberts et al. (2022) for each of the Lease Areas and ECR
were averaged by month; those values were then used to calculate the
mean annual density for each species within the project area. Estimated
mean monthly and annual densities (animals per km\2\) of all marine
mammal species that may be taken by the proposed survey are shown in
Tables 8-11 of Orsted's application. Please see Table 7 for density
values used in the exposure estimation process.
Given their size and behavior when in the water, seals are
difficult to identify during shipboard visual surveys and limited
information is currently available on their distribution. Therefore,
data used to establish the density estimates from Roberts et al. (2022)
are based on information for all seal species that may occur in the
Western North Atlantic (i.e., harbor, gray, hooded, harp). However,
only the harbor seal and gray seal are reasonably expected to occur in
the project area, and the densities were split evenly between both
species.
Long- and short-finned pilot whales are also difficult to
distinguish during shipboard surveys so individual habitat models were
not able to be developed for these species. As only long-finned pilot
whales are expected to occur within the study area, pilot whale
densities within the study area were attributed to this species.
For bottlenose dolphin densities, Roberts (2022) does not
differentiate by stock. As previously discussed, only the Western North
Atlantic offshore stock is expected to occur in the proposed project
area. Thus, all bottlenose dolphin density estimates within the project
area were attributed to the offshore stock.
Table 7--Average Annual Marine Mammal Density Estimates Across Survey Sites
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Average annual density (km \2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OCS-A 0486 OCS-A 0487 OCS-A 0500 ECR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency Cetaceans:
Fin whale................................... 0.0013 0.0021 0.0023 0.0015
Sei whale................................... 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000
Minke whale................................. 0.0005 0.0008 0.0009 0.0005
Humpback whale.............................. 0.0012 0.0013 0.0015 0.0006
North Atlantic right whale.................. 0.0040 0.0020 0.0034 0.0008
Mid-frequency Cetaceans:
Sperm whale................................. 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
Atlantic white sided dolphin................ 0.0092 0.0234 0.0367 0.0163
Atlantic spotted dolphin.................... 0.0001 0.0003 0.0004 0.0003
Common bottlenose dolphin................... 0.0151 0.0078 0.0097 0.0266
Long-finned pilot whale..................... 0.0020 0.0074 0.0090 0.0043
Risso's dolphin............................. 0 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
Common dolphin.............................. 0.0457 0.0924 0.0945 0.0562
Striped dolphin............................. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
High-frequency Cetaceans:
Harbor porpoise............................. 0.0335 0.0399 0.0384 0.0337
Pinnipeds in-water: \1\
Gray seal................................... 0.0104 0.0110 0.0124 0.0182
Harbor seal................................. 0.0104 0.0110 0.0124 0.0182
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Seal species are not separated in the Roberts (2022) data therefore densities were evenly split between the
two species expected to occur in the project area.
[[Page 52532]]
Take Estimation
Here we describe how the information provided above is synthesized
to produce a quantitative estimate of the take that is reasonably
likely to occur and proposed for authorization.
Level B exposures were estimated by multiplying the average annual
density of each species within the project area (Table 7) by the
largest ZOI that was estimated to be ensonified to an SPL exceeding 160
dB re 1 [micro]Pa (141m; Table 6). That result was then multiplied by
the number of survey days in that Lease Area or ECR (Table 1), and
rounded to the nearest whole number to arrive at estimated take. This
final number equals the instances of take for the entire operational
period. It was assumed the sparker systems were operating all 400
survey days as it is the sound source expected to produce the largest
harassment zone. A summary of this method is illustrated in the
following formula with the resulting proposed take of marine mammals is
shown below in Table 8:
Estimated take = species density x ZOI x # of survey days
Table 8--Total Estimated and Requested Take Numbers
[By level B harassment only]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Requested Max percent
Species Abundance level B takes level B takes population
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low-frequency Cetaceans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fin whale....................................... 6,802 14 14 0.21
Sei whale....................................... 6,292 0 3 0.05
Minke whale..................................... 21,968 6 13 0.06
Humpback whale.................................. 1,396 8 34 2.44
North Atlantic right whale...................... 368 17 17 4.62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-frequency Cetaceans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sperm whale..................................... 4,349 0 2 0.05
Atlantic white-sided dolphin.................... 93,233 210 210 0.23
Atlantic spotted dolphin........................ 39,921 3 29 0.07
Common bottlenose dolphin....................... 62,851 139 139 0.22
Pilot whale..................................... 39,215 17 17 0.13
Risso's dolphin................................. 35,215 1 30 0.09
Common dolphin.................................. 172,974 601 6,000 3.47
Striped dolphin................................. 67,036 0 20 0.03
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High-frequency Cetaceans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harbor porpoise................................. 95,543 287 287 0.30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pinnipeds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seals:..........................................
Gray seal................................... 27,300 118 118 0.43
Harbor seal................................. 61,336 118 118 0.19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional data regarding average group sizes from survey effort in
the region was considered to ensure adequate take estimates are
evaluated. Take estimates for several species were adjusted based upon
observed group sizes in the area. The adjusted take estimates for these
species are indicated in bold in Table 8. These calculated take
estimates were adjusted for these species as follows:
<bullet> Sei whale: Although no takes were estimated, prior
Protected Species Observer (PSO) monitoring documented the presence of
sei whales in the area. One take was requested based on the most common
group size reported in Kenney and Vigness-Raposa (2010);
<bullet> Minke and humpback whales: Requested takes were increased
to the number recorded within 500 m of an active source based on draft
PSO data (see Table 13 in the application);
<bullet> Sperm whale: No takes were estimated but based on their
occurrence in PSO data, 1 group of 2 (Barkaszi and Kelly, 2019) was
added to the requested takes;
<bullet> Atlantic spotted dolphin: Requested takes were increased
to the average number of dolphins in a group reported in Palka et al.
(2017, 2021);
<bullet> Risso's dolphin: Only one take was estimated but based on
their occurrence in PSO data, 1 group of 30 (Kenney and Vigness-Raposa,
2010) was added to the requested takes.
<bullet> Common dolphin: Requested takes were increased to 6,000.
This is based on the average group size of 15 from the PSO data
(calculated by dividing the total number of individuals [14,250] by the
total number of detections [927] in Table 13 of the application)
multiplied by the planned number of survey days (400) in Table 1.
<bullet> Striped dolphin: No takes were estimated but based on
their occurrence in PSO data, one group of 20 dolphins (Kenney and
Vigness-Raposa, 2010) was added to the requested takes.
PSO data for adjusting take estimates of minke whales, humpback
whales, common bottlenose dolphins, and common dolphins was derived
from draft PSO observer reports from surveys conducted in the project
lease areas and ECR from 2020-2021, as shown in Table 13 of Orsted's
application.
Proposed Mitigation
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA,
NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the
activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on
the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to
rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on
the availability of the species or stock for taking for certain
subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS
regulations require applicants for
[[Page 52533]]
incidental take authorizations to include information about the
availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment,
methods, and manner of conducting the activity or other means of
effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected
species or stocks, and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to
ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and
their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, NMFS
considers two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful
implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to
marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat.
This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being
mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the
likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented
(probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as
planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability
implemented as planned), and;
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant
implementation, which may consider such things as cost and impact on
operations.
Mitigation for Marine Mammals and Their Habitat
NMFS proposes the following mitigation measures be implemented
during Orsted's proposed marine site characterization surveys. Pursuant
to section 7 of the ESA, NEETMA would also be required to adhere to
relevant Project Design Criteria (PDC) of the NMFS' Greater Atlantic
Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO) programmatic consultation
(specifically PDCs 4, 5, and 7) regarding geophysical surveys along the
U.S. Atlantic coast (<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-england-mid-atlantic/consultations/section-7-take-reporting-programmatics-greater-atlantic#offshore-wind-site-assessment-and-site-characterization-activities-programmatic-consultation">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/new-england-mid-atlantic/consultations/section-7-take-reporting-programmatics-greater-atlantic#offshore-wind-site-assessment-and-site-characterization-activities-programmatic-consultation</a>).
Marine Mammal Shutdown Zones
Marine mammal shutdown zones would be established around impulsive
HRG survey equipment (<180 kHz; e.g., sparkers and boomers) for all
marine mammals, and around impulsive HRG survey equipment and non-
impulsive, non-parametric sub-bottom profilers (e.g., CHIRPs) for North
Atlantic right whales. Shutdown zones would be monitored by protected
species observers (PSOs) based upon the radial distance from the
acoustic source rather than being based around the vessel itself. An
immediate shutdown of impulsive HRG survey equipment will be required
if a whale is sighted at or within the corresponding marine mammal
shutdown zones to minimize noise impacts on the animals. If a shutdown
is required, a PSO will notify the survey crew immediately. Vessel
operators and crews will comply immediately with any call for shutdown.
The shutdown zone may or may not encompass the Level B harassment zone.
Shutdown zone distances are as follows:
<bullet> A 500-meter (m) Shutdown Zone for North Atlantic right
whales for use of impulsive acoustic sources (e.g., boomers and/or
sparkers) and non-impulsive, non-parametric sub-bottom profilers; and
<bullet> A 100-m shutdown zone for use of impulsive acoustic
sources for all other marine mammals, with the exception of delphinids
belonging to the Family Delphinidae and one of the following genera:
Delphinus, Lagenorhynchus, Stenella, or Tursiops, and pinnipeds.
Shutdown will remain in effect until the minimum separation
distances (detailed above) between the animal and noise source are re-
established. If a marine mammal enters the respective shutdown zone
during a shutdown period, the equipment may not restart until that
animal is confirmed outside the clearance zone as stated previously in
the pre-start clearance procedures. These stated requirements will be
included in the site-specific training to be provided to the survey
team.
Pre-Start Clearance
Marine mammal clearance zones would be established at the following
distances around the HRG survey equipment and monitored by PSOs:
<bullet> 500 m for all ESA-listed marine mammals;
<bullet> 100 m for all other whales; and
<bullet> 50 m for dolphins and porpoises.
Orsted would implement a 30-minute pre-start clearance period prior
to the initiation of ramp-up of specified HRG equipment. During this
period, clearance zones will be monitored by PSOs, using the
appropriate visual technology. Ramp-up may not be initiated if any
marine mammal(s) is within its respective clearance zone. If a marine
mammal is observed within a clearance zone during the pre-start
clearance period, ramp-up may not begin until the animal(s) has been
observed exiting its respective exclusion zone or until an additional
time period has elapsed with no further sighting (i.e., 15 minutes for
small odontocetes and seals, and 30 minutes for all other species).
Monitoring would be conducted throughout all pre-clearance and shutdown
zones as well as all visible waters surrounding the sound sources and
the vessel. All marine mammals detected will be recorded as described
in the Proposed Monitoring and Reporting section.
Ramp-Up of Survey Equipment
A ramp-up procedure, involving a gradual increase in source level
output, is required at all times as part of the activation of the
acoustic source when technically feasible. The ramp-up procedure would
be used at the beginning of HRG survey activities in order to provide
additional protection to marine mammals near the project area by
allowing them to vacate the area prior to the commencement of survey
equipment operation at full power. Operators should ramp-up sources to
half power for 5 minutes and then proceed to full power.
The ramp-up procedure will not be initiated (i.e., equipment will
not be started) during periods of inclement conditions when the marine
mammal pre-start clearance zone cannot be adequately monitored by the
PSOs for a 30 minute period using the appropriate visual technology. If
any marine mammal enters the clearance zone, ramp-up will not be
initiated until the animal is confirmed outside the marine mammal
clearance zone, or until the appropriate time (30 minutes for whales,
15 minutes for dolphins, porpoises, and seals) has elapsed since the
last sighting of the animal in the clearance zone.
Shutdown, pre-start clearance, and ramp-up procedures are not
required during HRG survey operations using only non-impulsive sources
(e.g., echosounders) other than non-parametric sub-bottom profilers
(e.g., CHIRPs).
Vessel Strike Avoidance
Orsted must adhere to the following measures except in the case
where compliance would create an imminent and serious threat to a
person or vessel or to the extent that a vessel is restricted in its
ability to maneuver and, because of the restriction, cannot comply.
<bullet> Vessel operators and crews must maintain a vigilant watch
for all protected species and slow down, stop their vessel, or alter
course, as appropriate and regardless of vessel size, to avoid striking
any protected species. A visual observer aboard the vessel must monitor
a vessel strike avoidance zone based on the
[[Page 52534]]
appropriate separation distance around the vessel (distances stated
below). Visual observers monitoring the vessel strike avoidance zone
may be third-party observers (i.e., PSOs) or crew members, but crew
members responsible for these duties must be provided sufficient
training to (1) distinguish protected species from other phenomena, and
(2) broadly identify a marine mammal as a right whale, other whale
(defined in this context as sperm whales or baleen whales other than
right whales), or other marine mammal;
a. All survey vessels, regardless of size, must observe a 10-knot
speed restriction in specified areas designated by NMFS for the
protection of North Atlantic right whales from vessel strikes including
seasonal management areas (SMAs) and dynamic management areas (DMAs)
when in effect;
b. Members of the monitoring team will consult NMFS North Atlantic
right whale reporting system and Whale Alert, as able, for the presence
of North Atlantic right whales throughout survey operations, and for
the establishment of a DMA. If NMFS should establish a DMA in the
project area during the survey, the vessels will abide by speed
restrictions in the DMA;
c. All vessels greater than or equal to 19.8 m in overall length
operating from November 1 through April 30 will operate at speeds of 10
kn (5.1 m/s) or less at all times;
d. All vessels must reduce their speed to 10 kn (5.1 m/s) or less
when mother/calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages of any species of
cetaceans is observed near a vessel;
e. All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 500 m
from right whales and other ESA-listed large whales;
f. If a whale is observed but cannot be confirmed as a species
other than a right whale or other ESA-listed large whale, the vessel
operator must assume that it is a right whale and take appropriate
action;
g. All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 100 m
from non-ESA listed whales;
<bullet> All vessels must, to the maximum extent practicable,
attempt to maintain a minimum separation distance of 50 m from all
other marine mammals, with an understanding that at times this may not
be possible (e.g., for animals that approach the vessel);
<bullet> When marine mammals are sighted while a vessel is
underway, the vessel shall take action as necessary to avoid violating
the relevant separation distance (e.g., attempt to remain parallel to
the animal's course, avoid excessive speed or abrupt changes in
direction until the animal has left the area). If marine mammals are
sighted within the relevant separation distance, the vessel must reduce
speed and shift the engine to neutral, not engaging the engines until
animals are clear of the area. This does not apply to any vessel towing
gear or any vessel that is navigationally constrained.
Project-specific training will be conducted for all vessel crew
prior to the start of a survey and during any changes in crew such that
all survey personnel are fully aware and understand the mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements. Prior to implementation with
vessel crews, the training program will be provided to NMFS for review
and approval. Confirmation of the training and understanding of the
requirements will be documented on a training course log sheet. Signing
the log sheet will certify that the crew member understands and will
comply with the necessary requirements throughout the survey
activities.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, NMFS
has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures
provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the
affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular
attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar
significance.
Proposed Monitoring and Reporting
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of
the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the
monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for
authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the
necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased
knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on
populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present while
conducting the activities. Effective reporting is critical both to
compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the
required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should
contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
<bullet> Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area
in which take is anticipated (e.g., presence, abundance, distribution,
density);
<bullet> Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure
to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or
chronic), through better understanding of: (1) action or environment
(e.g., source characterization, propagation, ambient noise); (2)
affected species (e.g., life history, dive patterns); (3) co-occurrence
of marine mammal species with the action; or (4) biological or
behavioral context of exposure (e.g., age, calving or feeding areas);
<bullet> Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or
physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative),
other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
<bullet> How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1)
long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2)
populations, species, or stocks;
<bullet> Effects on marine mammal habitat (e.g., marine mammal prey
species, acoustic habitat, or other important physical components of
marine mammal habitat); and,
<bullet> Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Proposed Monitoring Measures
Visual monitoring will be performed by qualified, NMFS-approved
PSOs, the resumes of whom will be provided to NMFS for review and
approval prior to the start of survey activities. Orsted would employ
independent, dedicated, trained PSOs, meaning that the PSOs must (1) be
employed by a third-party observer provider, (2) have no tasks other
than to conduct observational effort, collect data, and communicate
with and instruct relevant vessel crew with regard to the presence of
marine mammals and mitigation requirements (including brief alerts
regarding maritime hazards), and (3) have successfully completed an
approved PSO training course appropriate for their designated task. On
a case-by-case basis, non-independent observers may be approved by NMFS
for limited, specified duties in support of approved, independent PSOs
on smaller vessels with limited crew operating in nearshore waters.
The PSOs will be responsible for monitoring the waters surrounding
each survey vessel to the farthest extent permitted by sighting
conditions, including shutdown and pre-clearance zones, during all HRG
survey operations. PSOs will visually monitor and identify marine
mammals, including those approaching or entering the established
shutdown and pre-clearance zones during survey activities. It will be
the responsibility of the Lead PSO on duty to communicate the
[[Page 52535]]
presence of marine mammals as well as to communicate the action(s) that
are necessary to ensure mitigation and monitoring requirements are
implemented as appropriate.
During all HRG survey operations (e.g., any day on which use of an
HRG source is planned to occur), a minimum of one PSO must be on duty
during daylight operations on each survey vessel, conducting visual
observations at all times on all active survey vessels during daylight
hours (i.e., from 30 minutes prior to sunrise through 30 minutes
following sunset). Two PSOs will be on watch during nighttime
operations. The PSO(s) would ensure 360 degree visual coverage around
the vessel from the most appropriate observation posts and would
conduct visual observations using binoculars and/or night vision
goggles and the naked eye while free from distractions and in a
consistent, systematic, and diligent manner. PSOs may be on watch for a
maximum of 4 consecutive hours followed by a break of at least 2 hours
between watches and may conduct a maximum of 12 hours of observations
per 24-hr period. In cases where multiple vessels are surveying
concurrently, any observations of marine mammals would be communicated
to PSOs on all nearby survey vessels.
PSOs must be equipped with binoculars and have the ability to
estimate distance and bearing to detect marine mammals, particularly in
proximity to exclusion zones. Reticulated binoculars must also be
available to PSOs for use as appropriate based on conditions and
visibility to support the sighting and monitoring of marine mammals.
During nighttime operations, night-vision goggles with thermal clip-ons
and infrared technology would be used. Position data would be recorded
using hand-held or vessel GPS units for each sighting.
During good conditions (e.g., daylight hours; Beaufort sea state
(BSS) 3 or less), to the maximum extent practicable, PSOs would also
conduct observations when the acoustic source is not operating for
comparison of sighting rates and behavior with and without use of the
active acoustic sources. Any observations of marine mammals by crew
members aboard any vessel associated with the survey would be relayed
to the PSO team. Data on all PSO observations would be recorded based
on standard PSO collection requirements. This would include dates,
times, and locations of survey operations; dates and times of
observations, location and weather, details of marine mammal sightings
(e.g., species, numbers, behaviors); and details of any observed marine
mammal behavior that occurs (e.g., notes behavioral disturbances). For
more detail on the proposed monitoring requirements, see Condition 5 of
the draft IHA.
Proposed Reporting Measures
Within 90 days after completion of survey activities or expiration
of this IHA, whichever comes sooner, a draft comprehensive report will
be provided to NMFS that fully documents the methods and monitoring
protocols, summarizes the data recorded during monitoring, summarizes
the number of marine mammals observed during survey activities (by
species, when known), summarizes the mitigation actions taken during
surveys including what type of mitigation and the species and number of
animals that prompted the mitigation action, when known), and provides
an interpretation of the results and effectiveness of all mitigation
and monitoring. Any recommendations made by NMFS must be addressed in
the final report prior to acceptance by NMFS. A final report must be
submitted within 30 days following any comments on the draft report.
All draft and final marine mammal and acoustic monitoring reports must
be submitted to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#772725593e2327593a18191e0318051e191025120718050304371918161659101801"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="86d6d4a8cfd2d6a8cbe9e8eff2e9f4efe8e1d4e3f6e9f4f2f5c6e8e9e7e7a8e1e9f0">[email protected]</span></a> and
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="78312c28562c190114170a3816171919561f170e">[email protected]</a>. The report must contain at minimum, the following:
a. PSO names and affiliations;
a. Dates of departures and returns to port with port names;
b. Dates and times (Greenwich Mean Time) of survey effort and times
corresponding with PSO effort;
c. Vessel location (latitude/longitude) when survey effort begins
and ends; vessel location at beginning and end of visual PSO duty
shifts;
d. Vessel heading and speed at beginning and end of visual PSO duty
shifts and upon any line change;
e. Environmental conditions while on visual survey (at beginning
and end of PSO shift and whenever conditions change significantly),
including wind speed and direction, Beaufort sea state, Beaufort wind
force, swell height, weather conditions, cloud cover, sun glare, and
overall visibility to the horizon;
<bullet> Factors that may be contributing to impaired observations
during each PSO shift change or as needed as environmental conditions
change (e.g., vessel traffic, equipment malfunctions); and
<bullet> Survey activity information, such as type of survey
equipment in operation, acoustic source power output while in
operation, and any other notes of significance (i.e., pre-clearance
survey, ramp-up, shutdown, end of operations, etc.).
If a marine mammal is sighted, the following information should be
recorded:
a. Watch status (sighting made by PSO on/off effort, opportunistic,
crew, alternate vessel/platform);
b. PSO who sighted the animal;
c. Time of sighting;
d. Vessel location at time of sighting;
e. Water depth;
f. Direction of vessel's travel (compass direction);
g. Direction of animal's travel relative to the vessel;
h. Pace of the animal;
i. Estimated distance to the animal and its heading relative to
vessel at initial sighting;
<bullet> Identification of the animal (e.g., genus/species, lowest
possible taxonomic level, or unidentified); also note the composition
of the group if there is a mix of species;
a. Estimated number of animals (high/low/best);
b. Estimated number of animals by cohort (adults, yearlings,
juveniles, calves, group composition, etc.);
c. Description (as many distinguishing features as possible of each
individual seen, including length, shape, color, pattern, scars or
markings, shape and size of dorsal fin, shape of head, and blow
characteristics);
<bullet> Detailed behavior observations (e.g., number of blows,
number of surfaces, breaching, spyhopping, diving, feeding, traveling;
as explicit and detailed as possible; note any observed changes in
behavior);
a. Animal's closest point of approach and/or closest distance from
the center point of the acoustic source;
<bullet> Platform activity at time of sighting (e.g., deploying,
recovering, testing, data acquisition, other); and
<bullet> Description of any actions implemented in response to the
sighting (e.g., delays, shutdown, ramp-up, speed or course alteration,
etc.) and time and location of the action.
If a North Atlantic right whale is observed at any time by PSOs or
personnel on any project vessels, during surveys or during vessel
transit, Orsted must immediately report sighting information to the
NMFS North Atlantic Right Whale Sighting Advisory System: (866) 755-
6622. North Atlantic right whale sightings in any location may also be
reported to the U.S. Coast Guard via channel 16.
In the event that Orsted personnel discover an injured or dead
marine
[[Page 52536]]
mammal, Orsted will report the incident to the NMFS Office of Protected
Resources (OPR) and the NMFS New England/Mid-Atlantic Stranding
Coordinator as soon as feasible. The report would include the following
information:
Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first
discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);
a. Species identification (if known) or description of the
animal(s) involved;
b. Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if the
animal is dead);
c. Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
d. If available, photographs or video footage of the animal(s); and
e. General circumstances under which the animal was discovered.
In the unanticipated event of a ship strike of a marine mammal by
any vessel involved in this activities covered by the IHA, Orsted would
report the incident to NMFS OPR and the NMFS New/England/Mid-Atlantic
Stranding Coordinator as soon as feasible. The report would include the
following information:
a. Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
b. Species identification (if known) or description of the
animal(s) involved;
c. Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
d. Vessel's course/heading and what operations were being conducted
(if applicable);
e. Status of all sound sources in use;
f. Description of avoidance measures/requirements that were in
place at the time of the strike and what additional measures were
taken, if any, to avoid strike;
g. Environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction,
Beaufort sea state, cloud cover, visibility) immediately preceding the
strike;
h. Estimated size and length of animal that was struck;
i. Description of the behavior of the marine mammal immediately
preceding and following the strike;
j. If available, description of the presence and behavior of any
other marine mammals immediately preceding the strike;
k. Estimated fate of the animal (e.g., dead, injured but alive,
injured and moving, blood or tissue observed in the water, status
unknown, disappeared); and
l. To the extent practicable, photographs or video footage of the
animal(s).
Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the
specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not
reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A
negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse
effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-
level effects). An estimate of the number of takes alone is not enough
information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to
considering estimates of the number of marine mammals that might be
``taken'' through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the
likely nature of any impacts or responses (e.g., intensity, duration),
the context of any impacts or responses (e.g., critical reproductive
time or location, foraging impacts affecting energetics), as well as
effects on habitat, and the likely effectiveness of the mitigation. We
also assess the number, intensity, and context of estimated takes by
evaluating this information relative to population status. Consistent
with the 1989 preamble for NMFS' implementing regulations (54 FR 40338;
September 29, 1989), the impacts from other past and ongoing
anthropogenic activities are incorporated into this analysis via their
impacts on the baseline (e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status of
the species, population size and growth rate where known, ongoing
sources of human-caused mortality, or ambient noise levels).
To avoid repetition, the discussion of our analysis applies to all
the species listed in Table 3, given that the anticipated effects of
this activity on these different marine mammal stocks are expected to
be similar. Where there are meaningful differences between species or
stocks--as is the case of the North Atlantic right whale--they are
included as separate subsections below. NMFS does not anticipate that
serious injury or mortality would occur as a result from HRG surveys,
even in the absence of mitigation, and no serious injury or mortality
is proposed to be authorized. As discussed in the Potential Effects of
Specified Activities on Marine Mammals and their Habitat section, non-
auditory physical effects and vessel strike are not expected to occur.
NMFS expects that all potential takes would be in the form of Level B
behavioral harassment in the form of temporary avoidance of the area or
decreased foraging (if such activity was occurring), reactions that are
considered to be of low severity and with no lasting biological
consequences (e.g., Southall et al., 2007, 2021). Even repeated Level B
harassment of some small subset of an overall stock is unlikely to
result in any significant realized decrease in viability for the
affected individuals, and thus would not result in any adverse impact
to the stock as a whole. As described above, Level A harassment is not
expected to occur given the nature of the operations and the estimated
small size of the Level A harassment zones.
In addition to being temporary, the maximum expected harassment
zone around the survey vessel is 141 m. Therefore, the ensonified area
surrounding each vessel is relatively small compared to the overall
distribution of the animals in the area and their use of the habitat.
Feeding behavior is not likely to be significantly impacted as prey
species are mobile and are broadly distributed throughout the project
area; therefore, marine mammals that may be temporarily displaced
during survey activities are expected to be able to resume foraging
once they have moved away from areas with disturbing levels of
underwater noise. Because of the temporary nature of the disturbance
and the availability of similar habitat and resources in the
surrounding area, the impacts to marine mammals and the food sources
that they utilize are not expected to cause significant or long-term
consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations.
There are no rookeries, mating or calving grounds known to be
biologically important to marine mammals within the proposed project
area. Several harbor and gray seal haul out sites have been identified
on Block Island, Great Gull Island, and Fishers Island as wells as
along Narragansett and Nantucket Sounds. As the acoustic footprint of
the proposed HRG activities is relatively small, hauled seals are not
expected to be impacted by these activities. In addition, cable
landfall sites have yet to be determined and may not be in the vicinity
of haul out sites. The proposed ECR area encompasses a feeding BIA for
fin whales east of Montauk Point, NY that is active from March through
October (LaBrecque et al., 2015). The fin whale feeding BIA is
extensive and sufficiently large (2,933 km\2\), and the acoustic
footprint of the proposed survey is sufficiently small (project area)
that feeding opportunities for fin whales would not be reduced
appreciably. Given the relatively small size of the ensonified area, it
is unlikely that prey availability would be adversely affected by HRG
survey
[[Page 52537]]
operations. In addition, feeding success is not likely to be
significantly affected as minimal impacts to prey species are expected,
for reasons as described above in the Potential Effects of Specified
Activities on Marine Mammals and their Habitat section.
North Atlantic Right Whale
The status of the North Atlantic right whale (NARW) population is
of heightened concern and therefore, merits additional analysis. As
noted previously, elevated NARW mortalities began in June 2017 and
there is an active UME. Overall, preliminary findings support human
interactions, specifically vessel strikes and entanglements, as the
cause of death for the majority of right whales. The proposed project
area overlaps with a migratory corridor BIA for North Atlantic right
whales (effective March-April; November-December) that extends from
Massachusetts to Florida and, off the coast of NY and RI, from the
coast to beyond the shelf break (LaBrecque et al., 2015). Right whale
migration is not expected to be impacted by the proposed survey due to
the very small size of the project area relative to the spatial extent
of the available migratory habitat in the BIA. The proposed project
area also overlaps with the Block Island seasonal management area
(SMA), active from November 1 to April 30. NARWs may be feeding or
migrating within the SMA. Required vessel strike avoidance measures and
following the speed restrictions of the SMA will decrease the risk of
ship strike during NARW migration; no ship strike is expected to occur
during Orsted's proposed activities. For reasons as described above,
minimal impacts are expected to prey availability and feeding success.
Additionally, HRG survey operations are required to maintain a 500
distance and shutdown if a NARW is sighted at or within 500 m. The 500
m shutdown zone for right whales is conservative, considering the Level
B harassment isopleth for the most impactful sources (i.e., GeoMarine
Sparkers, AA Dura-spark UHD Sparkers, AA Triple plate S-Boom) is
estimated to be 141 m, and thereby minimizes the potential for
behavioral harassment of this species. Therefore only very limited take
by Level B harassment of NARW has been requested and is being proposed
for authorization by NMFS. As noted previously, Level A harassment is
not expected, nor authorized, due to the small PTS zones associated
with HRG equipment types proposed for use. NMFS does not anticipate
NARW takes that result from the proposed survey activities would impact
annual rates of recruitment or survival. Thus, any takes that occur
would not result in population level impacts.
Other Marine Mammals With Active UMEs
As noted previously, there are several active UMEs occurring in the
vicinity of Orsted's proposed project area. Elevated humpback whale
mortalities have occurred along the Atlantic coast from Maine through
Florida since January 2016. Of the cases examined, approximately half
had evidence of human interaction (ship strike or entanglement). The
UME does not yet provide cause for concern regarding population-level
impacts. Despite the UME, the relevant population of humpback whales
(the West Indies breeding population, or DPS) remains stable at
approximately 12,000 individuals.
Beginning in January 2017, elevated minke whale strandings have
occurred along the Atlantic coast from Maine through South Carolina,
with highest numbers in Massachusetts, Maine, and New York. This event
does not provide cause for concern regarding population level impacts,
as the likely population abundance is greater than 20,000 whales.
The required mitigation measures are expected to reduce the number
and/or severity of proposed takes for all species listed in Table 3,
including those with active UMEs, to the level of least practicable
adverse impact. In particular, they would provide animals the
opportunity to move away from the sound source before HRG survey
equipment reaches full energy, thus preventing them from being exposed
to more severe Level B harassment. No Level A harassment is
anticipated, even in the absence of mitigation measures, or proposed
for authorization.
NMFS expects that takes would be in the form of short-term Level B
behavioral harassment by way of brief startling reactions and/or
temporary vacating of the area, or decreased foraging in the area (if
such activity was occurring)--reactions that (at the scale and
intensity anticipated here) are considered to be of low severity, with
no lasting biological consequences. Since both the sources and marine
mammals are mobile, animals would only be exposed briefly to a small
ensonified area that might result in take. Required mitigation
measures, such as shutdown zones and ramp up, would further reduce
exposure to sound that could result in more severe behavioral
harassment.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily
support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from
this activity are not expected to adversely affect any of the species
or stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
<bullet> No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or
authorized;
<bullet> No Level A harassment (PTS) is anticipated, even in the
absence of mitigation measures, or proposed for authorization;
<bullet> Foraging success is not likely to be significantly
impacted as effects on species that serve as prey species for marine
mammals from the survey are expected to be minimal;
<bullet> The availability of alternate areas of similar habitat
value for marine mammals to temporarily vacate the ensonified area
during the planned surveys to avoid exposure to sounds from the
activity;
<bullet> Take is anticipated to be of Level B behavioral harassment
only consisting of brief startling reactions and/or temporary avoidance
of the ensonified area;
<bullet> While the project area is within areas noted as a
migratory BIA and SMA for North Atlantic right whales, the activities
would occur in such a comparatively small area such that any avoidance
of the ensonified area due to activities would not affect migration. In
addition, mitigation measures require shutdown at 500 m (almost four
times the size of the Level B harassment isopleth (141 m), which
minimizes the effects of the take on the species; and
<bullet> The proposed mitigation measures, including visual
monitoring and shutdowns, are expected to minimize potential impacts to
marine mammals.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the
specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into
consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and
mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine
mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on
all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
Small Numbers
As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be
authorized under sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for
specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA
does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated
numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to
the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or
[[Page 52538]]
stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to
small numbers of marine mammals. When the predicted number of
individuals to be taken is fewer than one-third of the species or stock
abundance, the take is considered to be of small numbers. Additionally,
other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as
the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
The amount of take NMFS proposes to authorize is below one third of
the estimated stock abundance for all species (in fact, take of
individuals is less than 6 percent of the abundance of the affected
stocks for these species, see Table 8). The figures presented in Table
8 are likely conservative estimates as they assume all takes are of
different individual animals which is likely not to be the case. Some
individuals may return multiple times in a day, but PSOs would count
them as separate takes if they cannot be individually identified.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity
(including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the
anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small
numbers of marine mammals would be taken relative to the population
size of the affected species or stocks.
Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine
mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has
determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would
not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such
species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Endangered Species Act
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that each Federal agency insure that any
action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated
critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs,
NMFS Office of Protected Resources (OPR) consults internally whenever
we propose to authorize take for endangered or threatened species.
NMFS OPR is proposing to authorize the incidental take of four
species of marine mammals which are listed under the ESA, including the
North Atlantic right, fin, sei, and sperm whale, and has determined
that these activities fall within the scope of activities analyzed 107
in GARFO's programmatic consultation regarding geophysical surveys
along the U.S. Atlantic coast in the three Atlantic Renewable Energy
Regions (completed June 29, 2021; revised September 2021).
Proposed Authorization
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to
issue an IHA to Orsted for conducting site characterization surveys off
the coast of New York and Rhode Island from September 25, 2022 through
September 24, 2023, provided the previously mentioned mitigation,
monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. A draft of the
proposed IHA can be found at: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-other-energy-activities-renewable">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/incidental-take-authorizations-other-energy-activities-renewable</a>.
Request for Public Comments
We request comment on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and
any other aspect of this notice of proposed IHA for the proposed HRG
surveys. We also request comment on the potential renewal of this
proposed IHA as described in the paragraph below. Please include with
your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help
inform decisions on the request for this IHA or a subsequent renewal
IHA.
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time, one-year
renewal IHA following notice to the public providing an additional 15
days for public comments when (1) up to another year of identical or
nearly identical activities as described in the Description of Proposed
Activities section of this notice is planned or (2) the activities as
described in the Description of Proposed Activities section of this
notice would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and a renewal
would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in
the Dates and Duration section of this notice, provided all of the
following conditions are met:
<bullet> A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days
prior to the needed renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the
renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond one year from
expiration of the initial IHA).
<bullet> The request for renewal must include the following:
(1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the
requested renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under
the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so
minor (e.g., reduction in pile size) that the changes do not affect the
previous analyses, mitigation and monitoring requirements, or take
estimates (with the exception of reducing the type or amount of take).
(2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the
required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the
monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not
previously analyzed or authorized.
Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected
species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines
that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the
mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and
appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.
Dated: August 23, 2022.
Kimberly Damon-Randall,
Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-18454 Filed 8-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on August 26, 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.